Education Equity Now!

ILDREN L CH OO CH S OF T U O N O E V I T A I T I N I

Education Equity Now! A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF.

The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities or the delimitations of its frontiers.

Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement using the following reference: UNICEF, 2013, Education Equity Now! A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Geneva, UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS).

For further information and to download this or any other publication, please visit the UNICEF CEE/CIS website at www.unicef.org/ceecis.

All correspondence should be addressed to:

UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS Education Section

Palais des Nations CH 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

Education Equity Now! A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Education Equity Now!

Contents Contents Acknowledgements...... 8

Acronyms...... 9

Executive Summary...... 12

Profiles of excluded children...... 12

Barriers and bottlenecks...... 16

Policies and strategies...... 20

1. Introduction...... 25

1.1 Global Initiative on Out of school Children...... 26

1.2 The Five Dimensions of Exclusion (5DE) model...... 29

1.3 Barriers and bottlenecks analysis...... 31

1.4 Education system in CEE/CIS countries...... 32

1.5 Socio-economic context...... 37

1.6 Contextual factors affecting OOSC...... 45

1.7 Methodology and data sources...... 48

2. Profiles of excluded children...... 53

2.1 Overview ...... 54

2.2 Dimension 1: Children without access to pre-primary education...... 56

2.3 Dimension 2: Overview of data on primary-age children out of school...... 62

2.4 Dimension 3: Overview of data on lower secondary-age children out of school...... 68

2.5 Gender differences in out of school children...... 73

2.6 Children from ethnic minorities...... 76

2.7 Children with disabilities and special education needs...... 78

2.8 Children from the poorest households...... 81

2.9 Working children...... 84

2.10 Children belonging to multiple OOSC risk groups...... 87

2.11 Dimensions 4 and 5: Children at risk of exclusion...... 88

2.12 Upper secondary education...... 97

2.13 Analytical summary...... 101

3. Barriers and bottlenecks...... 107

3.1 Demand-side socio-cultural barriers...... 108

3.2 Demand-side economic barriers...... 115

3.3 Supply-side barriers...... 119

3.4 Political, governance, capacity and financing bottlenecks...... 130

3.5 Barriers facing children belonging to multiple OOSC risk groups...... 139

3.6 Analytical summary...... 142

2 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

4. Policies and strategies...... 147

4.1 Global context and regional challenges: The role of education...... 148 Contents 4.2 Contemporary education reforms...... 149

4.3 Strategies and policies addressing the exclusion of pre-primary-age children...... 152 4.4 S trategies and policies addressing the exclusion of Roma children

and other ethnic minority groups...... 154 4.5 Strategies and policies addressing the exclusion of children

with disabilities and special education needs...... 156

4.6 Strategies and policies addressing gender discrimination...... 158

4.7 Strategies and policies addressing poor learning outcomes...... 161 4.8 Strategies and policies addressing the exclusion of poor,

disadvantaged families...... 162

4.9 Strategies and policies addressing the exclusion of working children...... 165 4.10 Strategies and policies addressing children belonging to multiple

OOSC risk groups...... 167

4.11 Management, governance and finance policies and strategies...... 167

4.12 Analytical summary...... 172

5. Conclusion...... 177

5.1 Advance inclusive education...... 179

5.2 Improve the monitoring of excluded and at-risk children...... 181

5.3 Engage innovative strategies to reduce social and economic barriers...... 183 5.4 Im prove the quality of education by focusing on teachers, curricula

and marginalized children...... 184

5.5 Invest strongly in pre-primary education...... 186

5.6 Implement effective decentralization reform...... 187

Annexes...... 189 Annex 1: Dimension 1 − Pre-primary-school-age children who are not

enrolled in pre-primary or primary school...... 190 Annex 2: Dimension 2 – Primary-school-age children who are not

enrolled in primary or secondary school...... 191 Annex 3: Dimension 3 – Lower secondary-school-age children who are not

enrolled in primary or secondary school...... 192 Annex 4: M ap of UNICEF CEE/CIS programme countries in Central and

Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States...... 193

References...... 194

3 Education Equity Now!

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Five Dimensions of Exclusion (5DE)...... 30

List of Figures Figure 2 – Duration of compulsory education in the CEE/CIS region...... 34

Figure 3 – Real GDP growth (annual % change) (2009)...... 39

Figure 4 – Human Development Index in Europe and CIS (2010)...... 40 Figure 5 – Percentage of the population living below $2 a day (PPP),

1987-2008, selected CEE/CIS countries...... 41

Figure 6 – Under-five mortality rate in CEE/CIS countries, 2009...... 42

Figure 7 – Under-five mortality rate in CEE/CIS countries, 1960-2009...... 42

Figure 8 – GDP per capita (PPP) plotted against Income Gini coefficient (2010)...... 43 Figure 9 − Child poverty rate as a proportion of overall poverty rates

in selected CEE/CIS countries, 2009...... 44 Figure 10 – Percentage of out of school children: comparison of survey

and administrative data...... 51

Figure 11 – Trend in enrolment in the CEE/CIS region...... 54 Figure 12 – Chart of Dimension 1: percentage of pre-primary-age children

who are not enrolled in pre-primary or primary schools (2007-11)...... 57 Figure 13 – Map of Dimension 1: percentage of pre-primary-age children

who are not enrolled in pre-primary or primary schools (2007-11)...... 57

Figure 14 – Pre-primary gross enrolment ratio in selected CEE/CIS countries...... 58

Figure 15 – Gender parity for pre-primary net enrolment ratio (2010)...... 59 Figure 16 – P ercentage of three- and four-year-olds attending early learning

programmes, by wealth, 2005-2007...... 61 Figure 17 – Percentage of out of school children of primary-school age

in CEE/CIS countries (2010)...... 63 Figure 18 – S teep rises in the percentage of out of school children

of primary age in selected countries (1998-2010)...... 63

Figure 19 – Map of primary-age out of school children by percentage (2010)...... 65

Figure 20 – Map of primary-age out of school children by absolute numbers (2010)...... 65

Figure 21 – School exposure of primary-age out of school children by region (%, 2010)...... 66 Figure 22 – Categories of primary-age out of school children in Kyrgyzstan

by sex (2005)...... 67 Figure 23 – Categories of primary-age out of school children in Kyrgyzstan

by area (2005)...... 68 Figure 24 – P ercentage of out of school children of lower secondary age

in CEE/CIS countries (2010)...... 69

Figure 25 – Map of lower secondary-age out of school children by percentage (2010)...... 70 Figure 26 – Map of lower secondary-age out of school children by absolute

numbers (2010)...... 70

4 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Figure 27 – Steep declines in the percentage of out of school children

of lower secondary age in selected countries (1999-2010)...... 71 Figure 28 – Steep rises in the percentage of out of school children

of lower secondary age in selected countries (1999-2010)...... 71 List of Figures Figure 29 – Percentage of primary-school-age out of school children,

girls and boys (2010)...... 73 Figure 30 – Gender Parity Index for primary net enrolment rate,

Turkey and Tajikistan (1994-2011)...... 74 Figure 31 – Age-specific enrolment and Gender Parity Index for 5- to 16-year-olds (2010)...... 75 Figure 32 – P ercentage of lower secondary-school-age children out of school,

boys and girls (2010)...... 75 Figure 33 – Percentage of Roma aged 15 and above who completed primary

and secondary education...... 77 Figure 34 – Enrolment in basic special education programmes,

1989 and 2001 (rates per 100 of relevant population)...... 79 Figure 35 – Children with disabilities in residential care per 100,000 children

0-17 years of age, selected CEE/CIS countries (1989-2009)...... 81 Figure 36 – Percentage of out of school children by age group, sex and

wealth quintile in Kyrgyzstan (2005)...... 82 Figure 37 – P ercentage of out of school children by age level, sex and

wealth quintile in Turkey...... 83 Figure 38 – Percentage of children aged 5 to 14 engaged in child labour

in CEE/CIS countries (2000-2007)...... 85

Figure 39 – Survival rate to the last grade of primary (%, 2008)...... 90

Figure 40 – Transition rate from primary to secondary (2009)...... 91 Figure 41 – Proportion of boys among repeaters in primary and lower secondary education, as a percentage of total repeaters in the respective level of

education (2009, boys per 100 repeaters)...... 92

Figure 42 – Over-age enrolment ratio (2010)...... 93

Figure 43 – PISA Reading, Mathematics and Science scores (2009)...... 94

Figure 44 – Percentage of pupils who are below PISA reading level 2 (2009)...... 95

Figure 45 – PISA mean reading scores plotted against GDP per capita at PPP (2009)...... 96 Figure 46 – Differences in mean PISA science scores by school location

in UNICEF CEE/CIS programme countries (2006)...... 97 Figure 47 – Gross enrolment ratio in upper secondary education, upward trends

over time, selected CEE/CIS countries (2000 – 2010)...... 98 Figure 48 – Gross enrolment ratio in upper secondary education, downward

trends over time, selected CEE/CIS countries (2000-2010/11)...... 99 Figure 49 – Gender Parity Index of the gross enrolment ratio in

upper secondary over time, selected CEE/CIS countries...... 101

5 Education Equity Now!

Figure 50 – Population growth rates in CEE/CIS countries (2010)...... 120

Figure 51 – Projected population pyramid for Serbia in 2050...... 120

Figure 52 – Population pyramids for selected CEE/CIS countries...... 121

...... List of Figures Figure 53 – Number of permanent pre-school institutions in Tajikistan 122

Figure 54 – Public expenditure on education as % of GDP in Europe and CIS (2007-8)...... 133

6 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

List of Tables

Table 1 – C omparing the OOSCI conceptual and methodological framework

barriers and bottlenecks with the MoRES determinants framework...... 32 List of Tables

Table 2 – Education systems in CEE/CIS countries...... 33

Table 3 – National policies on school entry and promotion for 11 CEE/CIS countries...... 35

Table 4 − P ercentage of children aged 5-14 years involved in child labour

who are out of school...... 86

Table 5 – D ifferences in enrolment between primary adjusted net enrolment

and secondary net enrolment (%, 2010)...... 100

Table 6 – Comparison of school characteristics and school mean

socio-economic background (2009)...... 136

Table 7 – C EE/CIS countries which have signed and ratified the convention

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities...... 137

7 Education Equity Now!

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted by consultant Frank van Cappelle with the support of UNICEF RO CEE/CIS and UNICEF country offices in Albania, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Tajikistan and Turkey. Acknowledgements The study was coordinated and supervised by Erin Tanner and Philippe Testot-Ferry at the UNICEF RO CEE/CIS. Petronilla Murithi (UNICEF RO CEE/CIS) provided administrative assistance.

The principal author of the report is Frank van Cappelle, PhD candidate, University of Melbourne, with the support of Aaron Benavot and Erin Tanner.

Special thanks to Philippe Testot-Ferry, Anne-Claire Luzot, Deepa Grover, Elena Gaia, Erin Tanner and Paula Frederica Hunt from UNICEF RO CEE/CIS and Friedrich Huebler and Sheena Bell from UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). Thank you also to Aaron Benavot and Laetitia Antonowicz for their contributions, reviews and comments.

Special thanks also to UNICEF colleagues and consultants in each of the countries participating in the Global Initiative on Out of school Children, in particular: Alvard Poghosyan, Chynara Kumenova, Askar Mambetaliev, Luminita Costache, Ciprian Fartusnic, Takaho Fukami, Rupert Maclean, Simone Vis, Ertan Karabiyik, Fatma Uluc, Ozge Hassa, Özsel Beleli, Gökçe Uysal. Thanks also to Aurora Bushati, Meri Poghosyan, Mark Hereward, Kenan Mammadli, Laila Omar Gad, Nora Sabani and Elena Sialchonak for their comments, feedback and insights.

We express our gratitude for the comments, guidance and general coordination provided by Dina Craissati, Jordan Naidoo and Aarti Saihjee from UNICEF Headquarters.

We are also grateful for the technical assistance, particularly on the statistical analysis, from the UIS, including Albert Motivans, Friedrich Huebler and Sheena Bell (UIS Montreal), and Simon Ellis, Nyi Nyi Thaung and Aurélie Acoca (UIS Bangkok). We also appreciate the support of Furio Rosati and Lorenzo Guarcello (Understanding Children’s Work [UCW]), for the statistical data tables on working children.

8 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Acronyms

5DE Five Dimensions of Exclusion Acronyms CEE/CIS Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States CMF OOSCI Conceptual and Methodological Framework CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities DHS Demographic and Health Surveys EFA Education for All EMIS Education Management Information System EU European Union EU8 Eight countries that acceded into the European Union in 2004: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia GDP Gross Domestic Product GNI Gross National Income GPI Gender Parity Index HDI Human Development Index ICLS International Conference of Labour Statisticians ICT Information and Communications Technology ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund IPEC International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour ISCED International Standard Classification of Education MDG Millennium Development Goal MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey MoRES Monitoring Results for Equity Systems OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OOSC Out of school Children OOSCI Out of school Children Initiative PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys PISA Programme for International Student Assessment PPP Purchasing Power Parity SMIS School Management Information System TLSS Tajikistan Living Standards Survey UCW Understanding Children’s Work UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNPD United Nations Population Division WFP World Food Programme

9 Education Equity Now!

Foreword

Foreword All children and adolescents have the right to quality education. Yet this report finds that in the region of Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), which is mostly home to middle-income economies, 2.5 million children of basic school age and 1.6 million children of pre-primary school age are out of school. At the upper secondary level, non-enrolment rates increase significantly in most countries. Additionally, there are many more children, perhaps millions, from the most marginalized communities, that are excluded from national data collection procedures and thus are invisible in national indicators on education. For example, there are an estimated 5.1 million children with disabilities in the region whose educational status is largely unknown.

In the context of the fast-approaching 2015 deadline to realize the Millennium Development Goals and the discussions around the post-2015 development agenda, it is more urgent than ever for governments and their partners to act to include every child in the region in quality learning. This study – Education Equity Now! A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in the region – proposes the following priorities for action in countries in the region.

1. Every child in school. One child out of school is one too many; every child has the right to education. High school enrolment rates in the region are a testament to the commitment of countries in the region to ensuring children’s right to education. The work ahead requires closing the equity gaps in education participation by focusing on improved education policies for the inclusion of the most marginalized children.

2. Every child learning. The quality of education is crucial to ensuring that young people’s learning outcomes are relevant to the labour force, their personal growth and the society where they live. To improve educational outcomes, urgent attention is needed to better assess the overall levels of learning and the gaps in skills and knowledge, with particular attention to the equity gaps in learning that impede the most marginalized children. More and smarter investment is required to improve the quality of teaching-learning processes, with special attention to the quality of teacher education, recruitment and assessment systems.

3. Every child learning early and enrolling on-time. Early childhood education is a right for every child and is also a smart investment. Providing early learning services to the most marginalized children is the most cost-effective strategy for reducing equity gaps in access and learning in basic education and for helping children to enrol in school on- time. All children should start grade 1 at age 6 and should have access to one year of pre-primary education. In CEE/CIS this means a significant expansion in the number and types of early learning services available.

10 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

4. Every child supported by effective and efficient governance systems. Reducing equity gaps in school participation and learning requires steadfast commitment from governments. In CEE/CIS this means strengthening equity-enhancing government Foreword systems and encouraging inter-sectoral communication, coordination and collaboration around monitoring and responding to cases of out of school children. This requires financing mechanisms that enhance opportunities for marginalized children in remote schools, and seeking the views of young people and families.

UNICEF will continue to advocate and support countries to close equity gaps in school participation and learning outcomes. I trust the evidence presented in this report will inspire governments and their partners across the region to intensify their efforts to improve equity. Together we can include all children in quality learning.

Marie-Pierre Poirier Regional Director, UNICEF Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

11 Education Equity Now!

Executive Summary

Profiles of excluded children

Executive SummaryExecutive Around 2.5 million children are out of school in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS) region. The percentage of out of school children (OOSC) ranges from 0.5 per cent in Bulgaria and Kazakhstan to 16.8 per cent in Montenegro1 at the primary-age level, and from 0 per cent in Kazakhstan to 12.7 per cent in Bulgaria at the lower secondary-age level. However, at lower secondary-age level data is missing for around one third of the CEE/CIS countries (7 of the 22 countries), highlighting the challenge of providing timely education data in many CEE/CIS countries, which needs to be addressed.

Pre-primary enrolment rates

Pre-primary education is not compulsory in many countries in the region and, hence, pre-primary-age children are not technically considered out of school in those countries. However, the importance of pre-primary education as a preparatory stage for primary is well established and lack of pre-primary is an important drop-out risk. Prior to the transition period in the 1990s pre-schools were fairly well established throughout the region, with the exception of countries such as Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan where enrolment in pre-primary has always been low. However, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union enrolment rates in pre-primary programmes and frameworks dropped significantly. Although pre-primary enrolment rates have steadily increased over the past decade across the region, in some countries they are still below the pre-1990 level. In Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Uzbekistan more than 45 per cent of pre-primary-age2 children are not in school.

National pre-primary enrolment rates disguise significant regional and sub-national differences: in certain regions or districts pre-primary rates are far lower than in others. For example, in the DRD region of Tajikistan only four per cent of pre-primary-age children are in school, and similarly in Kyrgyzstan pre-primary enrolment in some districts is below three per cent. In general, pre-primary enrolment tends to be lower in rural areas due to the lack of pre-school infrastructure and because poverty levels tend to be higher in those areas. Due to the relatively high cost of pre-primary, enrolment in pre-primary education is generally affected far more by poverty than is primary and lower secondary education. Hence, regional differences in pre-primary enrolment are likely to be closely related to disparate poverty levels by region. Household data for a number of CEE/CIS countries shows that pre-primary enrolment rates among the poorest quintile (i.e. poorest 20 per cent) are a fraction of enrolment rates among the wealthiest quintile. This highlights the

1 According to UIS 2012 data, the out of school children rate at primary-age level for Albania is 20.1 per cent, the highest in the region; however this figure is likely too high due to inflated population estimates. It is in the process of being updated based on new census data at the time of writing of this report. 2 Children one year younger than the official primary age, according to the Dimension 1 definition.

12 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

important role of governments in meeting the costs of pre-primary education and targeting the acute needs of children from the poorest families.

Profiles of out of school children

At primary-age level the proportion of out of school children is relatively low in most CEE/ Executive SummaryExecutive CIS countries, and it is mainly at lower secondary level that larger numbers of children begin to drop out. However, there are some important exceptions: in five CEE/CIS countries − Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania and Serbia − the number of primary-age out of school children increased in the past decade, which is a very worrying trend. Three additional countries also experienced steep increases in out of school children − Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan – although the situation improved in 2010. Another concern is that Central Asia is, after sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest proportion of primary- age out of school children expected to never enter school. A total of 51 per cent of children are in this out of school children category, posing the most serious challenge to policy- makers.

At lower secondary-age level the number of out of school children has risen significantly in at least three countries: Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania3. In Bulgaria, the rate of lower secondary-age out of school children increased more than five-fold between 2003 (2.3 per cent) and 2010 (12.7 per cent).

Just three countries account for over two-thirds of the total number of lower secondary- age out of school children in the region: Turkey, the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. In these three countries combined, almost one million children of lower secondary age are out of school.

Certain groups of children are more likely to be out of school. Across the region girls are on average more likely to be out of school, with 5.4 per cent of primary-age girls out of school compared with 5.0 per cent of boys, and 6.5 per cent of lower secondary-age girls out of school compared with 6.0 per cent of boys. On the other hand, in some CEE/CIS countries the situation is reversed and boys are more likely than girls to be out of school. Within-country differences are often greater than between-country differences and reflect the complexity of addressing the problem of out of school children. A look at data from Kyrgyzstan serves to illustrate this complexity. Although data from the 2006 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS 2006) shows that boys are more likely to be out of school than girls, the situation for most out of school girls is worse, as they are much more likely to never enter school or drop out early.

Roma children

Roma children are much more likely to be out of school compared with non-Roma children, and many drop out before completing primary or lower secondary education. Only an estimated 20 to 25 per cent of Roma children in CEE countries attend secondary schools, although it is difficult to obtain an accurate analysis of the situation for Roma children

3 As Dimension 3 data is not available for seven countries, it is possible that the situation is deteriorating in more than three countries.

13 Education Equity Now!

because of the scarcity of data, including data on the actual numbers of children from this group. There is a great need for more recent and more detailed education statistics for Roma children, including data for particular sub-groups. This could be used to better identify specific profiles of Roma children who are at risk of being excluded. For example, in Croatia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, for which data is available separately for Roma girls and boys, it was found that Roma girls are much more likely to be Executive SummaryExecutive out of school than Roma boys.

Children with disabilities

Children with disabilities are also much more likely to be out of school, although again due to lack of data it is very difficult to analyse the severity of the situation. Nevertheless, it is possible to make estimates using as a guideline the international benchmark for the proportion of the population with a disability. Based on this benchmark, an estimated 3.6 million children with a disability in the region are not officially recognized, and are hence not receiving the support and care that they need. In addition, the 1.5 million children with a disability who are recognized also often do not receive adequate support and care and tend to be segregated into special schools. Disability is still largely treated as a medical condition, with little differentiation made between impairment, illness and disability, although there is a gradual shift towards a ‘social model’ of disability and towards inclusive education, where children with disabilities are integrated into mainstream schools. Progress is patchy, and currently large numbers of children with disabilities remain excluded from education. Enrolment at pre-school and secondary levels is particularly low.

Child labour

Child labour poses a significant drop-out risk in the region; in rural communities in particular many children are engaged in some kind of work in the agriculture sector. The kind of work influences the risk of exclusion from education. For example, in Tajikistan urban working children are more than three times as likely as rural working children to be out of school. This could be because children in rural areas generally do unpaid seasonal agricultural work, whereas in urban areas working children are more often family bread winners and more often need to work year round. There also tends to be significant regional variation in child labour rates. For example, in Kyrgyzstan the percentage of children involved in child labour ranges from as low as 0.5 per cent in the capital Bishkek to 62.5 per cent in the largely rural Issyk-Kul province.

Transition rates to secondary education

Transition rates from primary to lower secondary are generally high in CEE/CIS countries, with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the transition rate is just 83.6 per cent. Turkey has made enormous progress over the past decades, both in terms of increasing transition rates and in reaching gender parity. The transition rate increased from just 31 per cent in 1977 to 96.7 per cent in 2008, and gender parity was achieved in 2008. Just two decades earlier – in 1990 – girls were much more likely to stop schooling after primary education, with only 69 girls continuing on to secondary education for every 100 boys.

14 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Overage children

Looking at additional risk factors for dropping out of school, it was found that a number of countries have a high proportion of overage pupils. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, around one quarter of enrolled children are overage, and in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Albania the proportion of overage children is around or above seven per cent. With the exception of Georgia these countries were also among those countries with the highest rates of SummaryExecutive primary-age children out of school4.

Low performance in school

Another important risk factor is low performance in school. In the majority of CEE/CIS countries participating in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), more than 20 per cent of 15-year-olds are unable to perform tasks above the second lowest reading level. In four CEE/CIS countries more than half of pupils are unable to perform tasks above the second lowest reading level − Albania (57 per cent), Azerbaijan (72.7 per cent), Kazakhstan (58.6 per cent) and Kyrgyzstan, where this is the case for 83.3 per cent of children. The education system has failed these children, as they do not have the basic literacy skills to participate fully and meaningfully in society. In addition, in Albania, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan those taking the PISA tests are those who have already passed through a selection process, as by age 15 a significant proportion of children have dropped out in these countries. The low quality of education is likely to be an important contributing factor to the high drop-out rate.

Upper secondary enrolment

Upper secondary enrolment rates are much lower than lower secondary enrolment rates, as many children drop out at the end of compulsory education. However, upper secondary enrolment – in terms of the gross enrolment rate – has risen considerably over the past decade. Across the region, the gross enrolment ratio in upper secondary ranges from 61.3 per cent in Tajikistan to over 100 per cent5 in Uzbekistan. In Albania, Moldova, Romania and Tajikistan there has been a huge increase in upper secondary gross enrolment over the past decade, whereas in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan there has been a significant decline over the same period. Gender inequality increases at upper secondary level, although all countries are seen to be moving towards gender parity for the gross enrolment ratio.

Differences between primary adjusted net enrolment6 and secondary net enrolment rates reveal the different priorities across the region. Bulgaria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey are close to reaching universal enrolment for primary-age children, but enrolment at secondary level trails behind by more than 15 per cent. In contrast, in Uzbekistan and

4 As indicated in a previous footnote, the out of school children rate at primary-age level for Albania is 20.1 per cent, the highest in the region, although the figure is likely too high due to inflated population estimates. This figure will be revised based on new population census data. But even were it only half this level it would still be very high in comparison with other countries in the region. 5 The gross enrolment ratio can be greater than 100 per cent as a result of grade repetition and the entry at ages younger or older than the typical age at that grade level. 6 Adjusted net enrolment is the number of pupils of the school-age group enrolled in either primary or secondary education expressed as a percentage of the total population in that age group.

15 Education Equity Now!

Moldova7 enrolment at the secondary education level is very high compared with the rest of the region, although at the same time they do have relatively high rates of primary-age out of school children compared with other countries in the region.

The different profiles of out of school children discussed in this chapter as well as the different categories of out of school children (those entering late, those who dropped out

Executive SummaryExecutive and those who will never enter) reflect the different underlying reasons why children are out of school. This is looked at in more detail in Chapter 3.

Barriers and bottlenecks

The barriers and bottlenecks leading to exclusion from education have been analyzed according to four different types: those which influence a household’s decision to enrol a child – ‘demand-side’ socio-cultural barriers and ‘demand-side’ economic barriers; and those which involve the ability, or willingness, of education systems to deliver education to all − ‘supply- side’ barriers, and political, governance, capacity and financial bottlenecks. In addition, they have been analyzed separately by profiles of out of school children, as children with different profiles are affected very differently by the different types of barriers and bottlenecks. Although it is not possible to generalize causes of exclusion for the entirety of the CEE/CIS region, this analysis has sought to identify and disentangle some of the key factors, linking them to the profiles of out of school children, as discussed in Chapter 2, and focusing in particular on those issues which are broadly relevant across all countries in the region.

Demand-side barriers

Throughout the world girls are more likely to be out of school, and this is also the case – on average – in the CEE/CIS region, as discussed in Chapter 2. However, in some CEE/CIS countries boys are more likely to be out of school. The trend also changes over time – from Dimension 2 to Dimension 38 and beyond compulsory education, and within each country may vary significantly according to region and socio-economic characteristics. For example, in Tajikistan girls in wealthy families and living in urban areas are not much more likely than boys to be out of school, but are far more likely to be out of school if they are from poor families or live in rural areas. Analyzing the causes is also not straightforward. On the one hand, in some countries in the region practices and attitudes favouring men over women are on the increase following the collapse of Soviet rule, such as arranged marriages, child marriage and patrilocality9. On the other hand, the gender gap in countries where girls’ enrolment was much lower narrowed in the last decade, notably in Tajikistan and Turkey. It is perhaps useful to also consider socio-cultural barriers in the context of economic barriers. Poverty rates in terms of the population living under US$2 a day at purchasing power parity (PPP) have declined significantly in both Tajikistan and Turkey (World Bank, 2011). With reduced financial pressures, families may decide to keep both girls and boys in

7 Data for secondary net enrolment was not available for Moldova, but the secondary gross enrolment ratio was 104 per cent in 2010. 8 This report employs the Five Dimensions of Exclusion model. For a definition of each of the five dimensions, see section 1.2. 9 Patrilocality is when a wife joins the extended family of her husband following marriage.

16 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

school. At the same time boys also face socio-cultural pressures to drop out from school to financially support their families. In Armenia, for example, boys are more likely to work in unskilled jobs (for example, construction) whereas girls – having fewer such opportunities – have a greater incentive to stay in school.

‘It is a self-perpetuating cycle where social exclusion and poverty lead to exclusion from education, and low levels of education leads to further social exclusion and poverty.’ SummaryExecutive Roma children face many different kinds of barriers. Among them are those of a socio- cultural nature including discrimination, early marriage for girls and the language spoken at home, as well as social exclusion and poverty and related problems such as lack of birth registration. It is this combination of factors of exclusion which makes Roma children particularly likely to be out of school, and also makes their situation particularly difficult to address. It is a self-perpetuating cycle where social exclusion and poverty lead to exclusion from education, and low levels of education leads to further social exclusion and poverty. Poverty also drives migration for economic reasons, and frequent migration is itself a cause of social exclusion (not being part of the community). It also causes children to miss school, fall behind and ultimately drop out. All these factors are therefore closely interlinked and should not be considered as separate barriers.

Children with disabilities face widespread discrimination in the region. This includes discrimination from teachers, which affects the attitudes of parents. Fear of social stigma can prevent parents from having their child assessed and make them reluctant to seek help. As discussed earlier, only 1.5 million of an estimated total of 5.1 million children with disabilities and special education needs are currently registered in the region. Socio-cultural attitudes towards disability are a crucial obstacle to overcome in registering children with disabilities and recognizing their rights and needs. Disability also makes families more vulnerable to poverty, because of lost wages from having to take care of children with disabilities as well as associated medical and other costs – such as the cost and difficulty of transportation to school.

Even if school is supposedly free, there are many indirect costs of education which can make it prohibitively expensive for families living in poverty. This includes the cost of school uniforms, textbooks and other school materials, lunch money, transportation costs and even bribes. For example, in Kyrgyzstan unofficial payments for free and compulsory education have increased since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Children of migrant families are particularly vulnerable because they often do not have the required registration documents.

Poverty is closely linked to child labour, and particularly in Central Asia and the Caucasus many children from low-income families need to earn money to support their families. Children may even be the only breadwinners in some families, placing a huge burden on their shoulders. In such circumstances, even though working children may still attend school their level of engagement is likely to be reduced. Work may cause them to be absent for long periods and less likely to be able to do homework. Financial pressures and long work hours can interfere with their ability to concentrate at school. All these factors increase their chances of dropping out. The impact varies according to the type, duration and regularity of work – and this in itself can vary significantly by area and between girls and boys. In rural areas seasonal agricultural work is more common, which can be very

17 Education Equity Now!

intensive for a certain period of time but does not affect the rest of the year. Girls are more likely to work in the home and take care of siblings whereas boys are more likely to be engaged in physically heavy work such as construction. These factors influence the amount of time children spend working, how stressful and draining the work activities are, and ultimately how those activities affect their engagement with school. Executive SummaryExecutive Supply-side barriers

Pre-primary enrolment rates are generally very low in the CEE/CIS region, as discussed in Chapter 2. One of the key causes is the lack of pre-primary infrastructure, including crèches, nurseries and pre-school institutions, which has deteriorated, particularly in the poorer former Soviet countries. For example, in Tajikistan the number of pre-primary school institutions dropped from 944 to 485 between 1991 and 2008.

Another important supply-side barrier is the lack of adequate water and sanitary facilities in schools. This particularly affects the participation of adolescent girls. Moreover, the situation has worsened in some areas since 1990. In Tajikistan, many schools − particularly in rural areas − have only simple pit latrines and lack a water-supply system. Besides the facilities themselves, privacy is also an issue. In many schools there are no separate toilets for girls and boys, and the infrastructure itself may not provide an adequate level of privacy, which particularly discourages teenage girls from going to school.

Schools and classrooms are often not accessible to children with disabilities, and more generally schools often lack the required infrastructure and resources. Unfortunately, the concept of ‘defectology10’ continues to influence the design of education provision for children with disabilities. This is rooted in a medicalised approach in which children with disabilities are considered to be ‘defective’ from the norm. This has led to the mass institutionalization of children with disabilities, while many such children are confined to the home. This is also related to prevailing discrimination and social stigma, as discussed above.

Given the historical marginalization of children with disabilities, it is perhaps not surprising that there are significant supply-side barriers to inclusive education for such children in the region. Typically, schools are poorly resourced and lack specialized special education teachers and counsellors, while many countries lack a good curriculum for children with disabilities and special needs, and public transport is often not accessible to children with mobility problems.

Roma children in many countries in the region have been disproportionally segregated into special schools. This has been justified in terms of ‘socialization defects in the family’, language issues, and other socio-cultural factors which have led to the mistaken evaluation that these children are unable to follow a standard education path in regular schools. Even those Roma children who attend regular schools have often ended up in Roma-majority schools, remaining segregated geographically from non-Roma children, while those Roma children who attend school with non-Roma children have tended to be segregated by classroom or within the classroom. Furthermore, the facilities in Roma-majority schools tend to be neglected, as they are in special schools, while curricula are inclined to be mono-

10 UNICEF does not support this approach.

18 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

cultural and do not take account of the Roma language or culture. Many Roma children face huge challenges because the language of instruction is not the language they speak at home. In addition, few Roma have opportunities to attend pre-school – either because none are available or due to their prohibitive cost, further reducing their opportunities to successfully continue into mainstream education.

The low quality of education is a major problem in many countries in the region. This SummaryExecutive leads to a lack of engagement in school, increasing the risk of drop-out. As discussed earlier, learning achievement tends to be much lower in rural areas compared with urban areas. This is indicative of the large inequities within countries with respect to the quality of schools, which is looked at in more detail below. Out-dated curricula and teaching practices − preparing students for memorisation of facts rather than the application of skills which are critical for performance in knowledge-oriented economies − are also significant obstacles to improving the quality of education. The lack of pre-primary, as discussed previously, is another important factor which especially affects the learning opportunities of socio-economically disadvantaged children. In some countries, particularly in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the low salary levels and prestige of the teaching profession is a key issue. This results in a loss of qualified individuals from the teaching profession to more attractive professions as well as to other countries.

Political, governance, capacity and financing bottlenecks

The centralized nature of the education system in some countries in the region acts as a significant barrier to reforms and the adoption of policies and strategies which could reduce exclusion from education. Local authorities do not have the power and flexibility for independent decision-making and responding to local needs. At the same time, moves towards decentralization, if poorly implemented, can worsen the situation of children who are excluded or at risk of exclusion. New procedures and responsibilities can lead to mismanagement of funds if not accompanied by adequate training. Moreover, decentralization initiatives which are not carefully monitored, managed and coordinated can open up opportunities for corruption. Empowering communities can also further widen the gap between schools in socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged communities.

The distribution of education financing is an important consideration in identifying uneven and unbalanced spending geographically (for example, between regions), or between different levels of education. For example, Moldova has a very high proportion of education expenditure going to upper secondary and a very low proportion going to the primary education level compared with other countries in the region – or indeed the world. At the same time, it has one of the highest rates of primary-age children out of school in the region. Meanwhile in Turkey, the South Eastern Anatolia region has received lower educational investments than other regions. The region is characterized by lower enrolment rates and much higher student-to-classroom ratios compared with other areas. Lack of funding can also result in harsh school conditions, such as in Tajikistan where there are schools which do not have adequate heating during winter time.

19 Education Equity Now!

In terms of vertical equity – the application of differential funding levels for recipients whose needs differ – the results for countries participating in PISA reveal glaring inequalities between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Rather than providing additional or better resources to socio-economically disadvantaged schools – as is the case in countries such as Estonia, Hungary, Germany and Poland – the opposite is the case in the CEE/CIS countries examined, with the exception of Serbia. Socio-economically Executive SummaryExecutive disadvantaged schools are in general less likely to have full-time teachers, in particular full- time teachers with a university-level degree. They also tend to have much lower levels of educational resources.

In terms of measures adopted to advance inclusive education for children with disabilities, there has been some progress. Most countries in the region are signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, a number of countries have not yet ratified the Convention and are not legally bound to implement inclusive policies for children with disabilities. Moreover, even for those countries which are committed, progress has been sporadic and inclusive education policies are generally not harmonized with general education planning. They lack budgetary support, action frameworks, indicators and implementation committees, and there is still confusion between the concepts of integration and inclusion. In addition, there is a gulf between policy and what happens in practice. Lack of resources is often cited as a barrier to change, even though evidence suggests that the provision of inclusive education is cost-effective. Moreover, beyond the policy level what is also required is a shift in attitudes, not just at the level of the government, but also within communities and schools, including the attitudes of teachers and parents.

Although this chapter discusses different types of barriers in relation to specific profiles of out of school children, it is often a combination of barriers which lead to exclusion from education. A good example is the case of Roma children in Romania. The wealthiest quintile of Roma children here were found to be no more likely to be out of school than non-Roma children. On the other hand, many Roma children are also poor, lack access to or cannot afford pre-primary education, attend poorly resourced schools, do not speak the language of instruction at home, and may be more likely to be involved in child labour. It is this combination of factors, rather than ethnicity in and of itself, which greatly increases their likelihood of being excluded from education. In the same way, other barriers such as those related to poverty, disability and gender are not necessarily a significant barrier on their own – but become significant in combination with other characteristics and corresponding barriers to education.

Policies and strategies

Global context, regional challenges and education reforms

Following the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the newly independent and newly autonomous countries in the region have struggled with weakened administrative structures, fewer and less stable financial resources and lowered governing capacity. These challenges to effective governance stem largely from a lack of formal training in public

20 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

finance or management at various administrative levels, the absence of reliable monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the absence of community involvement in planning and policy- making, and a political culture of less-than-transparent budget allocations, susceptible to corruption. Additional policy challenges are posed by the creation and reconfiguring of new cultural and political identities, giving rise to ethnic tensions. The outmigration of educated labour or ‘brain drain’ also poses significant challenges, in particular for the smaller Executive SummaryExecutive countries in the region.

In this context, following the collapse of communist regimes there was a period of significant reform to educational structures and curricular contents, followed by steps towards more coherent and coordinated policy ‘frameworks’ – often following external models. These initiatives have since been brought into closer alignment with national priorities. Education reforms which have taken place across the region include the development and implementation of learning assessments, the introduction of more choice and flexibility in terms of school types, corresponding educational pathways and curricular offerings, and the recognition of the right to education as a fundamental human right as enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Recognizing, exposing and opposing the violations of human rights in education remains a challenge, however. At the same time, political instability and rapid changeover of high-level education decision- makers has characterized some CEE/CIS countries, leading to uneven implementation of reform and even reversal of existing policies.

Strategies and policies addressing specific profiles of out of school children

Significant learning gaps between children from different socio-economic groups already exist in grades 1 and 2, and in most schools these gaps tend to widen rather than close in subsequent grades. The evidence is clear that pre-primary education plays a crucial role in narrowing this gap, and its effects continue throughout a child’s school and post-school life. Although enrolment in pre-school is very low throughout the region, as discussed in Chapter 2, a number of countries in the region have now introduced a compulsory preparatory year of pre-primary or lowered the entrance age of primary by one year. Kyrgyzstan recently introduced 100-hour and 240-hour pre-primary programmes, which were seen as a more cost-effective way of scaling-up access. However, at least one year of full-time pre-primary education is needed to help children successfully transfer into primary education. Moreover, in spite of these initiatives, in practice many children remain without access to pre-primary education, and up-scaling pre-primary will take time. Introducing pre- primary may be costly in the short-term, but in the long-term it is expensive not to invest in pre-primary, as it is the most cost-effective period in which to invest in a child’s life.

‘Introducing pre-primary may be costly in the short-term, but in the long-term it is expensive not to invest in pre-primary, as it is the most cost-effective period in which to invest in a child’s life.’ A number of innovative strategies have been adopted across the region which address the exclusion of Roma children from education. For example, Romania has implemented social and media campaigns to combat prejudice and stereotyping of Roma, established school

21 Education Equity Now!

inspectorates for monitoring and advising on issues specific to Roma, and incorporated inclusive and intercultural education as part of teacher training. Meanwhile, Albania launched a summer school programme for disadvantaged Roma and other marginalized children in collaboration with various partners, including the Ministry of Education and Science and NGOs. It aimed to bring ‘invisible’ children who do not attend school into the system, as well as engage children at risk of dropping out, by demonstrating that school Executive SummaryExecutive can be a welcoming and child-friendly environment. The programme included various educational and recreational activities, such as sports and excursions.

From a legal and administrative point of view, policies and strategies are required which acknowledge the difficulties facing Roma and other children who do not have a birth certificate, and facilitate the means for children and their families to obtain them.

In reducing barriers to education for children with disabilities, a significant step has been made by many countries in the region by being signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as discussed in Chapter 3. However, not all countries have ratified the Convention and even though laws or legal resolutions are an important first step, there is a long way to go in practice. For example, educational institutions need to be made accessible to children with disabilities, and suitable transportation to school needs to be organized. Laws and regulations are useless if they are not being implemented, and implementation may be ineffective if it is not closely monitored. Changing deeply engrained attitudes and practices towards children with disabilities takes a multi-pronged effort involving the government, NGOs, civil society, the private sector and media organizations. The ’Behavioural Change Campaign’, launched by UNICEF in Montenegro, is an example of a successful media campaign. It employed strategies including the display of billboards showing children with disabilities in a positive light, music festivals and the involvement of local celebrities. Increasing the visibility of children with disabilities is in itself an important step, as in many countries children with disabilities live ‘behind closed doors’, reinforcing stigma and stereotyping. Going beyond media campaigns, it requires a paradigm shift from an approach based on ‘defectology’ and medical intervention, which emphasizes segregation, to one which is child-centred, family-focused and based on inclusive education.

Gender discrimination takes different forms in different countries. In some countries in the region girls are more likely to be out of school, whereas in others the reverse is true. The situation also changes by level of education and by contextual factors such as poverty and location. Strategies and policies need to take into account the context-sensitive nature of gender discrimination. For example, in Tajikistan a key area of focus would be to improve the inadequate sanitation facilities, particularly in rural areas, which particularly discourage adolescent girls from attending school. In Armenia, boys are more likely to drop out as they face strong societal pressure to financially support their families. A media campaign targeting boys’ low participation in education would therefore need to take this into account. Campaigns may also encourage the participation of both girls and boys, such as ’Hey Girls Let’s Go to School’, launched in Turkey, which resulted in an estimated increase in enrolment of 250,000 girls and 100,000 boys. It is important to have gender-specific strategies and policies for both girls and boys, in order to address the specific reasons why girls and boys are out of school or drop out.

22 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

There is no straightforward approach to improving the outcomes of children performing poorly in school. School factors which influence the quality of education are heavily debated, but as discussed in Chapter 3 the evidence shows that teacher quality is consistently the most important single school factor affecting pupils’ learning achievement. Any strategy to improve teacher quality should consider how to improve the level of prestige of the teaching profession to attract top-tier candidates, for example through increasing the Executive SummaryExecutive salaries of teachers and through media campaigns. Another important strategy is the equitable distribution of resources to schools through formula funding, which should at the very least close the currently large discrepancies between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Pre-school, as discussed above, also plays an important role in raising learning achievement, particularly for socio-economically disadvantaged children.

An important factor not related to the school environment is children’s health, which is a factor in reducing absenteeism, ensuring healthy cognitive development and improving levels of concentration at school. Initiatives to improve children’s health include de- worming, vaccinations, school-feeding programmes, micro-nutrient supplementation and food fortification, and improved water and sanitation facilities in schools.

Many families simply cannot afford the cost of education, in particular pre-school. The abolition of fees for compulsory education is a first step to reducing economic barriers to education, but it is far from sufficient. Free pre-school – whether compulsory or not – should also be considered. In addition, the indirect costs of education can be significant, including transportation, school uniforms and education materials, as well as unofficial costs including corruption. In countries including Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan social benefits are too low to cover these costs for the poorest families. In addition, around the region there are poor children who are eligible but do not receive any or sufficient support; some do not have the required documentation, or else are unaware of their rights, while others are prevented by errors or corruption. For example, in Turkey it was found that only two per cent of monthly transfer payments to widows and orphans reach the poorest quintile, whereas 44.6 per cent go to the richest quintile. Social assistance needs to be carefully monitored and evaluated to identify such problems, to ensure that the funding which is available reaches those people who need it most.

Poverty, child labour and exclusion from education are closely related. The cost of schooling may not be considered just in terms of the direct and indirect costs, but also in terms of earnings lost due to the child not working. For the poorest families the contribution of child labour can be substantial – even crucial. Consequently, the same policies and strategies which aim to reduce poverty are also effective in reducing child labour. One innovative strategy employed in parts of Armenia which specifically targets working children is to allow for a school to close for a short period during harvest season, as a significant proportion of pupils are in any case absent during this time. The school can then schedule additional time or school days over the following weeks (for example, during weekends) to catch up, thereby ensuring that no one falls behind. In some urban areas of Albania schools offer evening classes for working youth. These are strategies which enable children to continue to work without dropping out from or falling behind in school. However, in some contexts directly preventing child labour would be more appropriate – in particular to combat abusive or hazardous forms of child labour.

23 Education Equity Now!

Management, governance and finance policies and strategies

As discussed above, inclusive education – for all learners regardless of their difficulties or their differences – requires a paradigm shift, in particular when it comes to children with disabilities. It requires a shift from the consideration of the disabling aspects of the child, to the disabling aspects of their social and physical environments. Inclusive education entails Executive SummaryExecutive recognizing the diverse needs of children and developing appropriate curricula, classroom arrangements, pedagogical strategies and learning styles. In practice such approaches tend to be limited to select geographic pockets and there is a significant gap between official recognition of inclusive education and its implementation. Although it requires many aspects to come together, the implementation of inclusive education does not necessarily entail huge costs. Strategies include converting special schools into resource centres serving mainstream schools, adjusting teacher-training programmes to incorporate inclusive education issues, and collaborating with NGOs and civil society to promote inclusive education in schools.

An inclusive education strategy also requires a robust information management system in order to monitor children, identify and target at-risk children, and organize appropriate, early intervention. Several CEE/CIS countries have recently undertaken initiatives to improve the monitoring of excluded children and children at risk of exclusion. In Turkey, a sophisticated e-School Management Information System (SMIS) was established which was successfully used to identify a large number of non-enrolled children, resulting in a reduction in the number of non-enrolled children from around 300,000 to 100,000 within just two years. In Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Romania, similar initiatives are under way. A web-based School Management Information System has numerous advantages over paper, or even non-school-based information management systems, for identifying excluded and at-risk children. For example, it enables tracking at the individual rather than the aggregated level, enabling the recording of detailed individual characteristics to better identify at-risk children; it can lead to much more timely data when it is entered by the school directly into a central system; and it tends to be much more accessible – by diverse stakeholders and at different levels (for example, at national, regional and school levels).

The computerization and automation of information and management systems is also essential to the systematic and orderly running of a more decentralized education system. As discussed in Chapter 3, highly centralized education systems impede the implementation of policies and strategies which target excluded and at-risk children. There has been a tendency – both globally and in the region – to move towards more decentralized education systems, which has numerous advantages, but also potential pitfalls. It can lead to greater transparency in decision-making, more efficient and flexible resource management, more community involvement, and greater autonomy at decentralized levels – empowering local decision- makers to be more responsive to needs. On the other hand, it also opens up opportunities for corruption and misuse of funds, and can lead to mismanagement due to more complicated resource flows and management processes. For this reason, decentralization efforts need to be accompanied by capacity development (i.e. through training and the development of practical tools and instruments), controls and financial regulations, monitoring of information and financial flows to identify and prevent corrupt practices, and the computerization and automation of tasks and processes which facilitate this.

24 Education is a human right for all children and adolescents. © UNICEF

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school 1 children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Introduction

25 2010 globally in out ofschool were still children school-age secondary- lower 71 million children and school-age primary- 61 million An estimated 1 26 Introduction regions are Eastern and Southern Africa, West and Central Africa, the Middle East andregions East West are the Middle andAfrica, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern States, other the of Independent Commonwealth Europe the and Eastern and Central Twenty-six countries Twenty-six market transitions. school-to-labour rates completion and improves increases primary opportunities toaccess lower secondary is and that the widening key education education to in primary success that pre-primary shows Evidence education. to successfully reach universal primary is necessary education, of children’s including the transitions needs, the levels basic educational between of life Addressingthe whole cycle 5). (Dimension school lower or secondary 4) (Dimension school also ofbut out those on at school, risk of from withdrawing or out dropping primary 2011a). and UIS, Moreover, (UNICEF 3) focuses the model not just on children(Dimension education to also include lower beyond secondary and goes primary 2), (Dimension education 1) to in addition primary (Dimension of pre-primary recognizes the importance which model, new initiative The introduces the ‘FiveDimensions of Exclusion (5DE)’ 2005. Education Initiative OOSC the buildson Children MeasuringThe Exclusion from Out of School: Primary 2011a). and UIS, UNICEF 2009; withdrew or out dropped (UNESCO, and third, were those who age; older enrolled in but the past at the non-normative typically have those who second, not enrolled been inare but the past likely to enrol in the future, have who those first, notand gainedareaccess to school unlikely do so to in the future; figures children children: out for of out of school types of maskschool also threebasic and are goals, thereforeMDG of the framework part set Initiative. out by the OOSC The are to also crucial reaching and lowerthe EFA secondary and level.school Pre-primary Moreover,school. the issue of children of out school is not confined to just theprimary- nature of inequalities keep which the remaining children of out 131 million school-age because complex, of themulti-dimensional increasingly difficult is becoming unreached’ children 2012). were the ‘Reaching in still2010 globally of out school (UIS, school-age children and 71 million lower secondary- and an estimated 61 million primary-school-age reducing the number of children. of out school However, to slowing progress be appears in much progress made been has theSince six EFA were goals adopted in in Dakar 2000 and other diseases, and environmental and AIDS HIV sustainability. and improvementequality, reduction of of child maternal mortality health, elimination of is Education afundamentalall requirement gender other eradication, MDGs. for poverty also tobut for education, achieve achieving universal primary Development (MDG) Goal and Millennium goals for realizingone of high priority not (EFA) just All the For Education in reducing the number of children. of out issue of school children The of out school is in 2015. education of the goal Initiativeof The universal is primary to achieve abreakthrough in 2010 toward to Instituteaccelerate efforts the goal and thefor UNESCO Statistics (UIS) was jointly by launched UNICEF InitiativeChildren of Global (OOSCI) Out on School The 1.1 11

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Romania, SouthSudan,SriLanka, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey andZambia. Ethiopia, Ghana,India,Indonesia,Kyrgyzstan, Liberia,Mexico, Morocco,Mozambique,Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, The 26participatingcountriesare:Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil,Cambodia,Colombia,DemocraticRepublic oftheCongo, Global School of Children on Out Initiative report, jointly published by the UNESCO Institute jointly in published by the for UNESCO Statistics and UNICEF report, 11 from seven Initiative. regions in theare OOSC Besides engaged 12 Kosovo Bosnia Albania, and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Europe: Eastern and Central follows: as into region is divided four sub-regions CEE/CIS UNICEF of this the purposes For report, to that lead and bottlenecks exclusionbarriers from education. of the largest groups of children of out school in the region and adiverse face of range four These countries were they reports. selected havechildren because country some analyses of the of out school countries, drawingthe on theon in-depth four participating region, focuses but in particular covers CEE/CIS all countries report in theThis UNICEF Tajikistan Turkey. and Romania, Kyrgyzstan, region: CEE/CIS There arecountries in the four UNICEF participating Caribbean. and the American Latin Asia, and South and the Pacific, Asia East Africa, North The Caucasus:

Under United Nations Security CouncilResolutionUnder UnitedNationsSecurity 1244. nature ofmulti-dimensional inequalities. complex, the of because difficult increasingly becoming is unreached’ the ‘Reaching 12 , Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, The former, Montenegro, Yugoslav The Serbia, Romania, of Republic Macedonia. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. Azerbaijan, Armenia, A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

eradication for poverty requirement fundamental Education isa worldwide children out ofschool the numberof in reducing breakthrough to achievea (OOSCI) aims Children Out ofschool Initiative on (UIS) Global Statistics Institute for and UNESCO The UNICEF 1 27 Introduction children out ofschool the numberof and monitoring for analyzing new approach provides a Model’ Dimensions and UIS‘5 The UNICEF 1 28 Introduction 1. excluded across the region have identified: been overarching riskat beingof profiles childrenof who are excluded and/or fromeducation and strategies, and policies and bottlenecks, relating to children, of out school nine main countrieshave each different barriers it is recognized While bottlenecks. that the CEE/CIS have shown a potential to cut the number of childrenout of school byand reducing barriers summarizingreviewing and briefly initiativespolicy and bottlenecks, the barriers major that arewhat considered togroups the most significant be childrenof out of school in the region, not cover does all groups of report children, ofThis out school analyses but the profiles of see Annexplease 4. region, CEE/CIS of alsocountries. as the amap the known EU8 UNICEF For in 2004, (EU) Slovakia and Slovenia. are These the eight into countries that acceded the European Union Poland, Lithuania, Czech Estonia, Republic, Hungary, group: Latvia, used as acomparison and historically linkedgeographically to region and are the countries in therefore the UNICEF region are but followingThe countries CEE/CIS are not in the included UNICEF region. Turkey CEE/CIS of the UNICEF above is but part is not in any included of the sub-regions CIS: Western 4. 3. 2. Asia: Central 9. 6. 5. analytical framework for the report. The following sections give an overview of the CEE/CIS following framework The give sections for of an overview the CEE/CIS the report. analytical introduces section next the FiveThe Dimensions provides of which Exclusionan model, required for in competing aglobalized world. and forskills youth equipping the with knowledge region,CIS it is importance of crucial in the CEE/ is generallynot compulsory secondary upper countries. Although CEE/CIS are who at education, high risk of in out dropping manyboth in lower- secondary and upper focus adolescents,on includes a special this forFor secondary. reason, upper the report increases towards and then rises steeply the later of grades lower secondary Drop-out and lower the secondary, focuschildren towards is shifting in primary secondary. upper countries some For in the region that are to close reaching cent per 100 enrolment of 8. 7. Education Equity Now! Equity Education

C C C C Adolescents. C C W C hildren with disabilities and special education needs. hildren education disabilities with and special hildren from ethnic children. Roma minorities, in particular age. hildren of pre-primary hildren from households. the poorest hildren to belonging multiple children of out school risk groups. standards. belowhildren expected academic performing hildren discrimination. affected by gender orking children.orking Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Belarus, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Ukraine. Federation, Russian the Moldova, Belarus, The Five DimensionsThe of Exclusion are as defined follows: education. and non-formal 3 are considered as out of being including those school, in pre-primary levels programmes at ISCED in education 1, not do participate who age 2and secondary Classification of Education [ISCED] levels3) [ISCED] 1, 2 and of Education Classification Standard (International education secondary or in primary iftheyin school participate are age considered as being loweror In general, children secondary-school of primary schooling. createwhich complex and mutually reinforcing to and barriers of patterns disadvantage group. at it andlooks age the In addition, interactionethnicity these disparities between gender, race/ (residence), wealth, as such disability, to location characteristics according also seeks to 5DE systematicallyThe children of out disaggregateon statistics school within the school. attitudes or practices discriminatory risk of excluded may out be dropping within Children are who are of out school excluded from term analysis. ’exclusion‘ The and policy abroadmeaning has for of this the purpose study. group representsEach adistinctDimension of Exclusion thatstatistical requires specific children are who out of and those are who at school, but risk in school of out. dropping different groups: and two population and lower secondary; primary pre-primary, education: targetfive groups childrenof analysis threepolicy that span and data levels for the of is by addressed the Millennium presents of the 5DE model Development The Goals. view ofa broader, exclusion more than from complex and equity-oriented education 2011a). and UIS, Initiative countries It provides in the OOSC (UNICEF all participating 26 was usedby which model, employs the Five Dimensions of report ExclusionThis (5DE) 1.2 context is in demographic discussed Chapter countries. The 3. systemeducation in CEE/CIS causeddisasters and natural ofby hazardscrisis, conflict the impact in the and theregion, offinancial context, including the the global impact the socio-economic region, in particular 13

but at but risk of out. dropping school Children are secondary who in lower 5: Dimension at but risk of out. dropping school Children are who in primary 4: Dimension school. secondary or are who not age in primary Children secondary-school of lower 3: Dimension school. age Children of primary-school 2: Dimension school. primary Dimension 1: education statistics andindicatorsofdifferenteducation statistics countriesonthebasisofuniform andinternationallyagreeddefinitions. ClassificationofEducationdesigned ISCED istheInternationalStandard by UNESCOtocomparisons of facilitate The Five Dimensions of Exclusion model Exclusion Dimensions of Five The pre-primary-school age Children of pre-primary-school A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern education – because, for –because, example, education they face who are not in primary or secondary secondary or are who not in primary education, while children education, are who at who are not in pre-primary or are who not in pre-primary 13 . Children of primary or lower or . Children of primary

CEE/CIS region OOSC inthe groups of significant be themost considered to of whatare the profiles analyses This report 1 29 Introduction 1 30 Introduction categories based on previous on based categories future or exposure: children in the past school attended who exclusive into mutually three divided 3is 2and of the Dimensions Each of out school future.in the riskeducation factor for is an ofimportant out dropping education compulsory pre-primary However,of education. of compulsory is notschool considered as part non-attendance Dimension 1may not considered education. to be ifpre-primary of out be school primary or six years, Dimension children 1includes five years are aged who not in pre-primary is entrance in acountry age an example, primary As ifthenational official comparisons. in is the done interest This school. intoage and to of primary allow simplicity cross- of children in the year entrance participation precedingthe official focusing pre-primary on than one year, longer may be for approach all astandard propose countries by the 5DE programmes education enter, pre-primary at risk ofAlthough withdrawing. or out dropping them at riskplacing of not entering entering education, into late, or, primary ifthey do may therefore and who education education, not prepared adequately be for primary 1represents agroup of children not do benefit who from pre-primary Dimension toThere are note aspects several regarding the important 5DE: repetition). level for of education the intended to duration and at overage the intended and (due age groups Dimensions,childrenof set in who theare specific out intended notparticipating are considered at In risk. summary, through both theat-risk theout and 5DE, of school at who risk and Dimension of school 5covers out, dropping children in lower secondary are who Dimension school considered 4 covers children in primary 2007). tomorrow (Lewin, groups of children is key to preventing them fromthechildren of out becoming school of are these more at but risk about in ofUnderstanding school withdrawing. or out dropping Five DimensionsThe are displayed in Figure 1. Dimensions 4 and 5 focus on children who Exclusion(5DE) of Five – 1 Dimensions Figure

Education Equity Now! Equity Education

Pre-‐ primary school Dimension Not in pre in Not children primary

-‐

-‐ age age 1

Attended dr bu opped opped out t Primary

At risk of dropping out of dropping of risk At Primary , Dimension 4 Dimension Dimension primary school primary Will never never Will

-‐ school students school enter -‐ age children age

Will enter enter Will

late

Attended, Attended, dro Lower but but out Lower p ped ped

At risk of dropping out of dropping of risk At lower lower -‐ secondary -‐ secondary Dimension 5 Dimension Dimension -‐

secondary school secondary Will never never Will enter -‐ school students school -‐

age children age 3

Will enter enter Will

late

school school Out of Out In In

region in terms of starting age and duration of compulsory education. and durationregion age of in terms compulsory of starting followingThe provides section abrief systems of overview the education in the CEE/CIS school. lower or secondary pupils ofof any at-risk in primary age age, and the population of children the of population out school of school-going populations: framework of The thus different covers two types 3). (Dimension age lower secondary and 2) (Dimension age group which children of out primary 2 and 3, school by their age: is different This from Dimensions 5). (Dimension loweror secondary 4) (Dimension primary –are byeducation the grouped level they of regardless of attend, education their age: at but risk 5–those in of school excluded being 4and from Children in Dimensions 4. 3. 2. 1. in the future. Therefore, the following of identified: categories children of out be school can children out, will never who and dropped enter and children school, will enter who school the diverse causes of exclusion from education (UNICEF and UIS, 2011a): and UIS, the diverse of causes exclusion (UNICEF from education in relation and bottlenecks tobarriers the Five Dimensions of Exclusion, in order to analyse Framework sets the and out Methodological following Conceptual structure of OOSC The 1.3 corresponding barriers and bottlenecks are and bottlenecks shown in Table barriers corresponding 1. determinants MoRES framework. and The Monitoring Results Systems for Equity (MoRES) to closely the correspond determinants and bottlenecks barriers inThese the UNICEF ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

O O O O financing factors which act as barriers to as barriers financing factors education. act which and and resourceallocations distribution, and other governance, political, capacity and administrative legal frameworks, budget inequitable to inclusion, non-conducive Political, governance, and financing barriers capacity to as barriers factorseducation. act which and other supply-side safety, school management, and classroom school curriculum and language, school barriers Supply-side education. to and other as barriers factors child of act labour economic which costs education, barriers economic Demand-side tobarriers education. as factors act which inprocess the and community, home and other socio-cultural of children, in the and community, home violence the on educational value placed barriers socio-cultural Demand-side OSC who dropped out from lower secondary school. from out lower dropped who secondary OSC school; from out primary dropped who OSC late; school will enter who age primary of primary-school OSC school; lower or secondary) will never who OSC enter (primary Barriers and bottlenecks analysis bottlenecks and Barriers A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern : issues with school infrastructure: issues school with and resources, teachers, : household poverty, school fees: householdpoverty, school and other indirect : socio-cultural practices, emotional experiences practices, : socio-cultural : lack of political commitment of: lack political

1 31 Introduction 1 32 Introduction enrolled in pre-primary school (UNICEF, 2012a). school enrolled in pre-primary are who not programmes already for six- to seven-year-olds pre-primary hour preparatory and 240- 100-hour theKyrgyzstan, governmentshortened recently compulsory launched inintroduced from is not 2010/11. compulsory year of a preparatory pre-primary Although being was and six-year-olds for five- is which compulsory education pre-school a two-year Herzegovina year: Bosnia and preparatory have pre-primary in recent years a compulsory established from three 2011). age to six is free and optional (IBE, Anumber of countries in the region kindergarten or in countries most in pre-primary the and region. Romania, In Moldova is not compulsory education 2012). Pre-primary (UIS, at an earlier age) start can nursery countries (although is three education years in all CEE/CIS entrance of age The pre-primary duration. of the entrance of age the different levels and the ofduration of education compulsory countries in terms gives section abrief system ofThis overview the education in CEE/CIS 1.4 framework determinants MoRES the with bottlenecks and barriers framework methodological and Table OOSCI conceptual the 1–Comparing 15 14

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Environment Enabling categories sub- and categories determinant MoRES Quality Demand Supply Four hoursperday duringatleastsixmonths. been adoptednation-wide. part oftheeducationsystem andenvisages pre-school oneyear ofcompulsory attendance. However thishas notyet The Framework Law onPre-school EducationinBosnia andHerzegovinadeterminesthatpre-school of2007 isanintegral Education system in CEE/CIS countries in CEE/CIS system Education 14 , Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania and(partial Serbia ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ curricula/service provision curricula/service of infrastructure/ Quality beliefs and practices Cultural Financial access information and facilities services, staffed to adequately Access commodities and inputs of essential Availability Management/Coordination Budget/Expenditure Legislation/Policy Social Norms Framework – Barriers and Bottlenecks and –Barriers Framework OOSCI and Conceptual Methodological ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Demand-side socio-cultural barriers socio-cultural Demand-side barriers economic Demand-side barriers Supply-side barriers financing and capacity governance, Political, barriers socio-cultural Demand-side financing barriers financing and capacity governance, Political, barriers Supply-side 15 ). In Bulgaria,). Table 2 – Education systems in CEE/CIS countries Table CEE/CIS in 2–Educationsystems 16 from system, eight education education to lengthening the duration nine of compulsory countries have recently restructured are or currentlynumber of restructuring CEE/CIS the and Turkey)Serbia as illustrated to in Figure 12 Ukraine and Uzbekistan), years (in Croatia, Bulgaria, from ranges eight education years (in duration of The compulsory school. year of earlier due to pre- the compulsory may start education countriessome compulsory from ranges six to education seven entrance of years age primary The of age, although in 2012 UIS, 2012; 2011; IBE, IEA, Sources: Uzbekistan Ukraine Turkmenistan Turkey Macedonia Republic of Yugoslav The former Tajikistan Serbia Federation Russian Romania Moldova Montenegro Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan Georgia Croatia Bulgaria Herzegovina Bosnia and Belarus Azerbaijan Armenia Albania

would beincreasedto12 years. education,secondlevel;of primary andfoureducation.Inthisnew schooling years system, ofsecondary compulsory A new ‘4+4+4‘educationsystem isbeingintroducedin Turkey, withfoureducation, firstlevel; years of primary four years 1 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 6 primary of age En A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional trance and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 11 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 11 secondary lower of age Entrance 5 5 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 54 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 primary of Duration secondary lower of Duration 12 12 10 8 education compulsory Duration of 9 9 8 11 10 9 9 9 11 9 8 8 9 9 11 9 9 No No No No No No Partial No Yes Yes No Limited Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No year preparatory pre-primary Compulsory

2 . A

in theregion most countries compulsory in is not education Pre-primary 1 33 Introduction region years inthe 8 yearsto12 ranges from education of compulsory The duration 1 34 Introduction Figure 2 – Duration of compulsory education in the CEE/CIS region CEE/CIS the in education of compulsory 2–Duration Figure Parliament in 2012. fromlaw to eight education increase to the duration 12 of compulsory in years was passed is expected toThis implemented be (UNICEF, 2012c, around 2020 In Turkey, in press). a from sevenchanged education. to six years year of an additional of age, adding compulsory in Croatia.is to planned proposed In Tajikistan, education be of age primary the starting is alsoa restructuring being education would which increase the duration of compulsory increased will be as of education 2015, whereenvisaged the duration of and compulsory 2011).(IBE, to achange the Instructure Bulgaria, system of the education is being and Turkmenistan), Romania from or nine toyears (in 11 the Russian Federation) years (in from nine to 10 and Montenegro), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia, Albania, years (in 17 examinations. progress the later andfive For academic promotionon grades. grades, generallydepends to theranging from grade, next to only the first grade automatic promotion in the first in eightregion, of at for least grades; 11 the early countries there is automatic promotion promotion on that policies suggests and retentionfurther significantly throughout the vary –in seven decade the of past the 11 countries listed below. in overview Table The 3 is reflected over in the changed number has of countries policy where of the age entry countries, and this level in of the region change restructuring in anumber of CEE/CIS noted 2012). As above, system the education undergoing been has countriesCIS (IEA, Table and promotion for entry 3gives of an overview 11 school on national policies CEE/ 2012. 2011; IBE, IEA, Source: Montenegro 9

Croatia 8 Education Equity Now! Equity Education Bosnia andHerzegoHerzegovina 9 endorsements or acceptance byendorsements oracceptance the UnitedNations. The boundariesandnamesshown andthedesignationsusedonmapsinthisreportdo notimplyofficial 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years 9 AAlbania lbania Serbia 8 9 Republic ofMacedonia Republic ofMacedonia The formerYugoslav v ina 110 Romania 0 9 Belarus 9 MoldoMoldova 8 Bulgaria v a Ukraine 112 2 8 Turkey Russian Federation 111 1 Georgia 9 9 AArmenia 9 rmenia 111 AAzerbaijan 1 zerbaijan 110 Turkmenistan 0 112 Uzbekistan 2 111 Kazakhstan 1 9 9 Tajikistan Tajikistan 9 KKyrgyzstan y rg y zstan 17 countries Table promotion policies and for on school 3–National 11 entry CEE/CIS Georgia Croatia Azerbaijan Armenia their 6th birthday. 6th their year ofthe calendar begin can children Education, General on to Law the According 6. age at begins schooling Compulsory September. followingthe to begin of March end bythe of age 6years at least be must Children of age. years by7 school begin must children All the same year.the same 15September of on school to begin of September end bythe old 6 years be must Children 6. atage school begin mustChildren December 31st.December following the begin to old 6years be mustChildren primary school primary to entry of age on policy Official A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern n/a more mature. more beingfrom benefit feel theywillparents their 7because age begin school at Children typically same year.same 15September of the on school begin can testing commission of Education Ministry bythe talented as are identified who 6 they turn year the of November end the before born Children n/a school primary to entry of age on practice usual discretion, Based on parental Grades 5–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1–4, Grades promotion for Automatic next grade. promotion to forstandards minimumall obtain must 4–8 Grades in students most subjects; in standards minimum must obtain 1–3Grades inStudents Grades 5–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1–4, Grades promotion for Automatic Grades 6–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1–5, Grades promotion for Automatic in grades 1–8 grades in and retention promotion on Policy

Yes Yes No Yes 10 years 10 within past changed policy entry of Age

1 35 Introduction the region trajectories in and political economic to divergent Transition led 1 36 Introduction Education Equity Now! Equity Education Federation Russian Romania Macedonia Republic of Yugoslav The former Kazakhstan September. in to begin August of end bythe age of years 6.5 least at be must Children age 6. age at school begin must children of Education, Law to the According September. followingthe school to begin of May end by the of age to 6years be 2007, had children September. Before followingthe school to begin of December end bythe of age years 6 be must children 2007,Since 6. atage begin must children (2007), of Education Law to the According primary school primary to entry of age on policy Official more mature. more beingfrom benefit feel theywillparents because their 7 age at begin Children typically year. one for enrolment postpone Parents can n/a year. one for enrolment postpone Parents can school primary to entry of age on practice usual discretion, Based on parental

Grades 2–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1and Grade automatic for isPromotion Grades 2–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1,for Grade promotion Automatic Grades 6–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1–5, Grades promotion for Automatic for Grades 5–8. for Grades examspassing successfully ondependent 1–4, Grades progress for on academic Dependent in grades 1–8 grades in and retention promotion on Policy No Yes Yes Yes 10 years 10 within past changed policy entry of Age by armed conflict and disasters caused by natural hazards. While some CEE/CIS countries causeddisasters and While naturalCEE/CIS by some conflict hazards.by armed of restructuring the of were region and political Problems compounded economic in parts severe countries. recession subsequently, and, hardship mucheconomic in many CEE/CIS region into transition divergent trajectories. to led The and political economic CEE/CIS towards economies taken has economies market-based the centrally-planned socialist and the transition from 1990s and ofearly collapse communismThe in the late 1980s 1.5. 2012 IEA, Sources: Ukraine Turkey Serbia Socio-economic context Socio-economic September 1st. by of age 6 years atleast be must Children 6. at age begins schooling Compulsory their 6th birthday. 6th their year ofcalendar of the September in begin Children years of age. years 6.5 they are atleast whenSeptember in school begin Children of age. they are 7.5 years time bythe begin mustChildren primary school primary to entry of age on policy Official A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern school at school begin children if Parents can decide discretion. later,year atparental a begin can Children school-ready. not considered for children school pre- preparatory continued of year one recommend maySchools school primary to entry of age on practice usual discretion, Based on parental age 6 or 7. 6or age

levels. higher grade intoto advance examinations external take students can parents; decided by Retention Grades 4–8. Grades progress for on academic dependent 1–3, Grades promotion for Automatic exams. pass makeup must subjects more2 or failing students 4–7,in Grades request; parent per except 2–3, Grades automatic for 1, generally for Grade promotion Automatic in grades 1–8 grades in and retention promotion on Policy No No Yes 10 years 10 within past changed policy entry of Age

countries many CEE/CIS hardship in economic much subsequently recession and in severe resulted Transition 1 37 Introduction region any other CIS morethan affected CEE/ crisis has The financial 1 38 Introduction and this was partially responsible for the sharp economic slowdown in 2009 (IMF, 2010). responsible for slowdownand economic this the in sharp 2009 was partially 2011). Bank, (World to in Due crisis, the financial remittances by a third,Tajikistandropped from and is remittances abroad on the topdependent receiver in of the world remittances crisisin the also financial impacted region. remittances The is highlyTajikistanparticular in the highesthad unemployment rates in the worldin 2010, at over cent 25 per (IMF, 2011). and Herzegovina, Kosovoand Herzegovina, and youth 2011). unemployment (ILO, rose more than in any other Bosnia region in 2009 Unemployment rates have since 2008, alsodepression 1990s. risen in sharply the early wasasimilar on countries,some as during the collapse transition the economic scale rates growth negative even economic had in 2010. and Romania) In Latvia Kyrgyzstan, region was also slow to countries recover, (Croatia, CEE/CIS The and four CEE/CIS rates growth negative in real2009. GDP the Russianand Romania, Slovenia. Federation countriesMoldova, Most in the region had cent Croatia, per inHungary, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Ukraine, and below -5 Armenia rates below -10 growth the worstdropped affected by the crisis. GDP Real cent per in −were among countries) countries EU8 in Central and Eastern Europeparticular (including countries −in show that many CEE/CIS charts The line, representing bar each acountry). pointing to of the the left middle (bars of all rates countries negative growth had in 2009 countriesblue and EU8 areillustrates highlightedhalfchart first about that in orange. The countries are highlighted in dark CEE/CIS UNICEF (right). greater detail chart in the second countries is illustrated in orange, respectively. CEE/CIS situation economic of The UNICEF countries and highlightedEU8 bluedark andin CEE/CIS UNICEF with (left), chart the first inrates crisis growth in offinancial GDP theterms global impact of for countriesall 2009 in any other region and reversed of some Figure made. the gainsbeen that had 3shows the more region severely than CEE/CIS theaffected 2009 and crisis 2008 financial of global The Global financial crisis 2011b). Bank, (World country as a high-income and Croatia, is which classified exceptions are and Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan countries, are which considered to low-income be countries. The region areToday, middle-income CEE/CIS countries most in the UNICEF is more appropriate to think of it as a‘region of regions’ (UNICEF, 2005c). region, it development. Given the divergent in conditions the CEE/CIS and social economic joinedinwhich 2007, have remarkable progress made in terms of and human economic and Romania, and Bulgaria in 2004, Slovenia, all of joinedthe which European Union (EU) have generally fared better. Czech Estonia, The Republic, Slovakia Hungary, and Poland, than they to prior had transition (UNDP, 2011). Countries in Central and Eastern Europe Ukraine and Tajikistan Moldova, Georgia, currently have a lower Development Human Index recoveringdecline. For ofeconomic from recessionexample, and theperiod significant long other countries in the region are since the 1980s, forward have strides still enormous made 18

Education Equity Now! Equity Education UNSCR 1244. 18 , The former , YugoslavThe and Turkmenistan of Republic Macedonia

-20 Figure 3 – Real GDP growth (annual %change) (2009) (annual GDP growth 3–Real Figure 19 (PPP$ capita per GDP with world, inthe countries Tajikistan hazards. poorest natural the are among also Kyrgyzstan and have not and disasters causedcrisis just affected bybut alsoconflict the been financial by by countries poorest in the region two areThe Tajikistan in which andrecent Kyrgyzstan, years region. –are havewhich the progress in least the CEE/CIS made since 1970 percentage-wise the 10 movers bottom countries as those in the Development Human UNDP Index by –defined forregional context.Tajikistan from It ranges 0.58 to 0.77 Fivefor of (UNDP, Romania 2010). countriesentering within a Figure age. 4shows the Development Human Index of CEE/CIS of for 25 years schooling and expected aged years adults of for schooling children of schoolof and mean years index combining life expectancy, (PPP$), wealth incapita terms per of GNI developmenteconomic in the region, several as it combines key indicators. It is acomposite usedto be provide can insight into the level Development Human of socio- The Index (HDI) development Human IMF, 2011 Source: than a tenth of the GDP per capita of countriesthan atenththe EU8 Slovenia capita per and the of Czech the GDP Republic.

Based adjustment. onthecurrent ‘internationaldollar’ -10 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 0 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 19 ) of 2,039.9 and 2,380.8, respectively (IMF, 2011). is less This and 2,380.8, ) of 2,039.9 10 20 -20 UNICEF CEE/CIScountries Kosovo (UNSCR1244) -10 Turkmenistan Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Tajikistan Belarus Albania 0 Republic ofMacedonia former YugoslavThe Bosnia andHerzegovina Serbia Georgia Turkey Bulgaria Montenegro Croatia Moldova Romania Russian Federation Armenia Ukraine EU8 CEE/CIScountries 10 20

1 39 Introduction 1 40 Introduction Figure 4 – Human Development 4–Human Figure CIS Europe(2010) Index in and and Turkmenistan.and is not Recent available data for countries, some such as Uzbekistan respectively in 2008. region, and Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan, levels of 21.7 poverty had cent per and 27.7 cent per 2011): Bank, countries poorest high in (World the the remain two very at aday PPP) $2 terms ratesof under living the population (in countries poverty However, in CEE/CIS some later just decades 12.5 two but cent per at was living this in level. 1988, at aday PPP $2 example, than For less on was living halfthe population in Moldova decade. last over countries, the in particular rates havePoverty in many declined CEE/CIS and child income inequality well-beingPoverty, other countries at asimilar level. economic expectancy, and expected and mean years of −are schooling relatively with high compared of the components the other index is because This two −life capita. terms per of GNI although low, are higher actually than wouldexpected given be the level of wealth in notedIt should be that the Development Human of Indices and Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan UNDP, 2010 Source: Education Equity Now! Equity Education 0.87 0.8 0.9 Moldova 0.86 0.85 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.89 0.71 0.85 0.87 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.77 0.87 0.85 0.77 0.84 0.89 0.83 0.72 0.8 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.86 0.74 0.7 0.77 0.87 0.81 0.77 0.73 0.62 0.74 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.7 0.7 NCFCECScutisEU8CEE/CIScountries UNICEF CEE/CIScountries 0.71 0.67 0.62 0.71 0.58 0.6

1987-2008, countries CEE/CIS selected below population of (PPP), living the aday 5–Percentage $2 Figure 20 countries aredisplayed in Figure6. rates CEE/CIS for mortality Under-five to ofout school take care of are family who members ill. likely to girls thanas boys, girls are affect more likely than boysto absent be from drop or In terms of exclusion health moreis poor by Adeficiency). vitamin fromcaused education, Moreover, such as blindness (often to also lead health can disability poor 2008). (Sridhar, and impaired cognitivedevelopment increased to attendance, drop-out lead school reduced also increases of the chances malnutrition Poverty and illness, can which children). 1,000 deaths per (36.1 and Uzbekistan children) 1,000 deaths per (36.6 Kyrgyzstan children), rates: (61.2 perdeaths mortality Tajikistan also high under-five have1,000 very available) 2011). Bank, is rates data which (for countries(World the with highest The poverty rates ratesmortality and under-five poverty between There is correspondence aclose Figure 5. rates have increasing, been as shown in −poverty recent which is available) (for data and Georgia Bulgaria Azerbaijan, countries −notably that in CEE/CIS some It is worrying sources) various from 2011 (derived Bank, World Source: 20 40 60 80

0 Based internationalprices. on2005 1987

1988

1989

1990 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 1991 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998 20 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Bulgaria Azerbaijan Georgia Uzbekistan

wide income remain equity gapsin income’, yet are ‘middle in theregion Most countries 1 41 Introduction 1 42 Introduction Figure 7 – Under-five mortality rate in CEE/CIS countries, countries, 1960-2009CEE/CIS in rate 7–Under-fiveFigure mortality is currently than atenth less rate. ofchild mortality the 1960 In Albania, ago. rate adecade and halfof the mortality of it was in what 1960, one-tenth rates are shown in Figurein child mortality 7. In Turkey, rate is about the child mortality steep in countriesdeclinesall significantly Countriesin thedropped particularly with region. rates have countries, child mortality In spite of in high many levels CEE/CIS of poverty sources various from 2011, Bank, derived World Source: countries, 2009 CEE/CIS in rate 6–Under-fiveFigure mortality 21 coefficient the with Gini capita per levels provided by be combiningGDP can ofindication poverty countries. However, is not available for many an poverty CEE/CIS on Recent data sources various from 2011, Bank, derived World Source: as the example of Turkey illustrates. Turkey is in of the middle in the the range CEE/CIS 20 40 60 80

Education Equity Now! Equity Education 0 The ofincomedistribution. Ginicoefficientisameasureofinequality

Croatia

21 Serbia . GDP per capita on its own is not a good indicator levels, of ownis its not on potential agood capita per poverty . GDP Montenegro

Bulgaria The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Romania

Belarus

Russian Federation

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ukraine

Albania

Moldova

Turkey

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Georgia

Azerbaijan Republic ofMacedonia former YugoslavThe Uzbekistan

Kyrgyzstan

Tuekmenistan

Tajikistan

(2010) (PPP)23 coefficient Income 8–GDPGini capita Figure per against plotted Turkmenistan.countries range narrowerof is shown EU8 The comparison. Gini coefficient for former Yugoslav The in Georgia, the Russian Turkey Federation, of Republic Macedonia, and Azerbaijan to low high in ranging fromregion, very CEE/CIS UNICEF in range the Gini coefficient difference (IMF, 2011).– anine-fold In terms of inequality, income it illustrates wide the very PPP on based capita per countries, GDP countries are middle-income of inequality. CEE/CIS andmost income both income Although where higher values indicate greater inequality. It highlights of the region the diversity in terms − (x-axis) and the Gini coefficient (y-axis) capita per plot in Figure scatter GDP 8combines The rates. one ofhas mortality the highestand under-five levels of poverty as aresult but distribution it in income region of capita, in termsper high inequality of GDP 24 23 22 IMF, 2011 UNDP, and 2010 Sources:

GDP based on PPP per capita (PPP current int. $ | 2010) 30000 15000 22500 different countries. The Ginicoefficientisfromthe2010 UNDPHumanDevelopment isfromdifferentReport, but thesourcedata years for Ibid. Based oncurrent internationaldollar. 7500 0 24 0 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 12.5 Azerbaijan 22 ranges from 2,039.9 in in Tajikistan Croatia from ranges 2,039.9 to 18,338.5 Income Ginicoefficient 25 Slovakia Czech Republic Kazakhstan UNICEF CEE/CIScountries Hungary Ukraine Serbia Belarus Croatia Kyrgyzstan Armenia Slovenia Bulgaria Lithuania Romania Albania Uzbekistan Tajikistan Poland Bosnia andHerzegovina Latvia 37.5 Montenegro Estonia Moldova EU8 CEE/CIScountries Georgia Turkmenistan Turkey Macedonia Republic of former YugoslavThe Russian Federation 50

increasing recently been rates have poverty CIS countries in someCEE/ worryingly last decade; over the in particular CIS countries, in manyCEE/ have declined Poverty rates 1 43 Introduction rate overall poverty higher thanthe is significantly child poverty analyzed, countries In most 1 44 Introduction selected CEE/CIS countries, 2009 countries, CEE/CIS selected in rates poverty of aproportion overall as rate poverty 9−Child Figure as rate;high inhigher it is Belarus even than the overall twice poverty of York,University 2011). is significantly Inof most thechild countries poverty compared, and the (UNICEF rate) rate by the overall divided rate child poverty poverty (i.e. poverty is illustrated of the overall rate in Figure as aproportion showing 9, the child poverty the with total compared more This children population. live in poverty percentage-wise region, but rates have alsoinChild countries most declined poverty in the CEE/CIS 26 25 2011 York, of University the and UNICEF the poor.the Childrenand privileges. may benefit target from pensions, not pensions but do specifically to protection social pensions on small are inspending They proportion also very 2009a). small, and usually notto do provide very (UNICEF, be adequate protection from poverty countries for families and children tend benefits assistance in CEE/CIS social addition, results indicate that improvements rates to need interpreted be in poverty cautiously. In These rates tend to child significantly poverty higher be (UNICEF, 2009a). conclusion: for aday children 0to aged 15 to to $2.50 led the general population, thePPP same consumption below consumption capita region, per inwith CIS comparing households

Education Equity Now! Equity Education 2009). except is from2009, Data for Bulgaria(2010) (overall andUzbekistan poverty child rateisfrom2008, poverty rateisfrom <15 inMontenegroandRomania, populationwith1child <6in Bulgaria,and<6in Tajikistan. range for child poverty is0-18 in Armenia, <18 inBelarus andSerbia,0-14 inCroatia, <16 inGeorgia,0-17 in Kyrgyzstan, Please notethatboththedefinition ofpoverty usedandtheage range tocountry.for fromcountry children vary The age 26 25 . Data for. Data the CEE/

prohibitive of and transport costs textbooks have who and those fled, and schools returned dilapidated lack teachers, a of qualified face Georgians around the Russianand Georgia, Federation 300,000 between violence 2008 over 800,000 people over 800,000 to receive free uniforms from warsdisplaced In Chechnya, and books the government). two internally students areprohibitively displaced supposed of (although high costs schooling cent familiesper of displaced were58 to unable send their children to the with school much spent on the military as compared with primary education (UNESCO, 2011) (UNESCO, education primary with as compared much spent the on military in the spending world almost– with four education times as ratios of military-to-primary 2011).(Solodunova, one of Kyrgyzstan, the world’s countries, poorest one of has the highest children weredisplaced In the recent400,000 in an estimated conflict 2010). Kyrgyzstan, Saltarellim(Bush children and were over Herzegovina, killed during fighting 15,000 a resultAs ofmillions this conflict, of familiesBosnia In have anddisplaced. been and interethnic in in Kyrgyzstan 2010. southern violence in 2008; border and Georgian the along Russian violence in to Chechnya the violence 2009; from 1999 to 1999; from 1998 Herzegovina, Croatia war in andthe Slovenia; Tajikistan civil Herzegovina, the Kosovo in the 1990s; the seriesunresolved; of warsfought in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 in Bosnia and to 1995 iswhich still to 1994, from 1988 and Azerbaijan Armenia region between Nagorno-Karabakh in the conflict the twodecades: haveregion, anumber of pastoccurred in the violent conflicts 2011). (UNESCO, countries poor CEE/CIS In the live age in conflict-affected children of primary cent 42 per of thechildren world’s around not do school attend theAbout world. of out school it engenders, remainsone of lack and thethe of security foremost conflict, Violent why reasons and violence Conflict school of out affecting factors ontextual 1.6 31 30 29 28 27 long-term impact on the learning opportunities of children affected by the on opportunities conflict. learning impact long-term tendaddress. to to more be difficult and this havecanare Teachers alsodisplaced, too a factors increase the risk of from out and dropping and or withdrawing out dropping school, alienation,people’son unemployment of and the conflict general impact These livelihoods. displacementtrauma, and areresultingpost-war ofmany consequences conflict years. Other and infrastructure restored levels, be can take services thisEducational but can to pre-war and thereof conflict trainedcounsellors. is a shortage as aresult cent of per of the support children psychological need 80 about in school, back are age materials children ofmost and lack trained teachers. of Although primary-school 142 are schools still of teaching repaired, being ofa continuing with the 437 shortage and Azerbaijan, about 570,000 people still remain people displaced 570,000 about and Azerbaijan,

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. is from circa2007,Data fromvarious sources. UNSCR 1244. children C A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 31 . The educational infrastructure educational . The was destroyed in many areas and 29 . As a result of the conflict between Armenia aresult between . As of the conflict

30 . A 2005 survey found survey that . A 2005 27 28 conflict conflict . In the In .

from poverty protection adequate not provide usually do and children for families countries CEE/CIS benefits in assistance Social 1 45 Introduction term short orlong learning inthe their accessto interrupting children, often thousands of hundreds of displaced Conflict has 1 46 Introduction resulting in entire generations with a significant educational deficit (UIS, 2011c).(UIS, resulting in entiredeficit educational generations a significant with shows that while children some maychildren returnmost do not, to afteraconflict, school challenges posessystems. education for The significant national evidence that conflict enrolmenteducation is available fordata this time. However, from it is clear existing research little ago, and very place overregion decade took a CEE/CIS in the of the Some conflicts 2010a). in areas(UIS, occur of disadvantage extreme educational 2011: found been It has often that (UNESCO, conflicts and rising inequality” violence 134). themselvesdisparities arole play in fuellingresulting conflict, in a “self-reinforcingcycle of reinforce existing inequalitiesand poverty. educational Furthermore, gender associatedwith 2011). (UNESCO, levelhigh can a There reach very of conflict is conflicts also that evidence childrenof period duringdropping out fromthe the proportion and school number conflicts, severe level level.education education and 2.7 particularly During cent per at to tertiary 3.4 enrolment level, 1.4 education by about 1.4 cent per at primary to cent 2per at secondary yearkilled toper warin leads a civil reductions in expenditures 2 toof about 2.7 cent per and estimated people that an increase 1,000 of about (2007) and Thyne Lai and Thyne, 2007). (Lai decline in enrolmentexperience asignificant on the severity conflict depending of the examinedwhich education theon quantitativefound that ofstates conflict war impact civil in analysisHowever, maystatistics. notare reflectededucation be in displaced cross-country and education, on refugeeschildrenor ofwho conflicts the on impact data There is little Education Equity Now! Equity Education remains one of the foremost reasons globally why children do not attend school. school. attend not do children why globally reasons foremost the of one remains security of Lack violence. of because displaced been have region the in families of Millions

© UNICEF/KYRGYZSTAN one of the most important factors to leading exclusionone of the important most from education. repercussionseconomic will continue is to felt. in discussed later be As chapters, poverty the direct andof indirect Even costs schooling. and houses are schools when rebuilt, the affected by such disasters of to people the on ability afford in turnan has impact This on people’s impacts of livelihoods. losses dollars and have economic long-term enormous, by Disasters to naturalalso caused lead people. hazards can millions even or billions of infrastructureof school as well asand roads communications, and the displacementof forconsequences the provision in affected ofareas, education through the destruction causeddisasters naturalby Similarhazardshave to and conflict, violence significant in million Tajikistan.drought people in affectedand 2million3.8 Kyrgyzstan people and 2010 1980 Between 2.6 in million Moldova. and about in Georgia people people 700,000 drought, several impacted which in Armenia, countries, people affected 297,000 livestockagricultural on communities depend who and crops for their2000 livelihoods. The countries, pastoralist affecting mainly and Droughts are in many common CEE/CIS and 2010. 1980 between people affected over 750,000 and 2010 extreme temperatures and in the Russiankilled 57,680 Federation people region. 1980 Between temperaturesExtreme are in another the CEE/CIS concern major disappear, in 2010 as in Kazakhstan three when were villages completely lostto water. 2010. and cause canentire They between Ukraine werevillages to1980 affected by floods in million the Russianand over almost Federation Romania, 2.2 people 2.6 in million people in theirto access people safe drinking water.– and some 70,000 1.6 Over millionin people and the 2010 in people flood people; flash affected Tajikistan, which directly 16,000 25,000 which affectedKazakhstan, in flood the 2005 people; affected 275,000 which Herzegovina, Bosnia in and flood 2004 the people; Azerbaijan, which affected 31,500 in flood the 2003 land; 17,000 hectares of affected which nearly agricultural in Albania, families and inundated 30,000 flood are Theycommon landslidesand mudflows in alsothe2002 the include region. Floods, people. affected over in Kazakhstan 43,000 recently, earthquake the 2003 in Turkeypeople and 2010 1980 between and affected almost 16 million More people. 2011). 517,000 and UNISDR, and left killed 20,636 Earthquakes (UNICEF homeless people people killed 25,000 which in Armenia, earthquake Spitak –such as the 1988 proportions all countriesAlmost in the region are at of risk be fromdevastating can which earthquakes, havehazards which taken in recent place years to highlight their and impact. scale gives section abrief ofThis overview just afew of thedisasters by major natural caused are ofthousands affected by people disasters by natural caused hazards in the region. avalanches, year landslidesand drought. from Every tens of to thousands hundreds of prone to natural region floods, ishazards such particularly as earthquakes, CEE/CIS The hazards natural by caused Disasters children’s exclusion from education is of crucial importance in the CEE/CIS region, alackchildren’s in the exclusion CEE/CIS is importance from of crucial education causeddisasters and naturalviolence by hazards on of conflict, the impact Although research Further A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

to education children’s right threat to a perpetual disasters pose Natural 1 47 Introduction 1 48 Introduction The main sources of data used in this report are main sources usedinas follows: ofthisThe data report communitiesRoma in Albania. and Tajikistan, Romania Kyrgyzstan, administration Armenia, in Albania, as well asto visits and governmentat various levels heads teachers,with school officials educationof desk research was complimented by information through obtained focus group discussions makes use report ofThis existing sources on desk anddata isresearch. mainly based The 1.7 term. and long in andthe disasters by short natural education violence caused hazards affect research –both quantitative therefore,need, and qualitative how –on conflict, of in-country this and is section not in analysed greater detail in the following chapters. There is a great causeddisasters and naturalviolence by childrenhazards is limited affected by conflict, to desk research. thisof For reason information the discussion on hinders more in-depth 32 ranges age children of out school are calculated using enrolmentISCED-level on figuresbased figures UIS on All comparisons. for data uses cross-national UIS countries, this report the methodsusedto calculate the figures,which allows across directcomparisons for administrative or of ofdata fromEducation.Because the consistency the data Ministry in which aredifferenton household based survey from the figurescited reports, country in the arecases in comparisons thisin some report childrenschool figures used cross-national in However, aresult, the As of out comparisons. was not this usedfor data cross-national analysis. – was used for more in-depth reports from data thehousehold survey country disaggregated –in particular of out on school-children reports fromData the country differences. and wealth quintiles attendance school and rural-urban is usedfor data survey moreHousehold detailedanalysis, such as the relationship between below). (discussed time, comparisons and tends to more for be suitable cross-national is generally moredata recent, available, provide better more trends widely can over administrative data, survey 2012 with May Compared Institute for release). Statistics (UIS, usedin this data of chapterMost the education is administrative from the data UNESCO

■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Education Equity Now! Equity Education education statistics andindicatorsofdifferenteducation statistics countriesonthebasisofuniform andinternationallyagreeddefinitions. ClassificationofEducationdesigned ISCED istheInternationalStandard by UNESCOtocomparisons of facilitate 2008). (DHS, Surveys) and Health (Demographic DHS 2006); (MICS, Indicator Cluster Survey) (Multiple MICS Children’s 2011); (Understanding (UCW, Work) UCW 2012d, in press); children (UNICEF, 2012a; UNICEF, 2012b, UNICEF, in press; 2012c, UNICEF, in press; Tajikistan Romania, Kyrgyzstan, UNICEF and Turkey of out on school reports country TransMONEE 2011); (TransMONEE, UNICEF Database 2012); Centre Data (UIS, UIS Methodology and data sources and data Methodology 32 (from country administrative data) and projections of the school-age population and projections of the school-age administrative country data) (from countries for data some education little countries. There was very fora challenge many CEE/CIS −was children of −andout on school in education on particular Providing timely data below.more detail potentialsources. to The lead unreliable problems can which estimates are in discussed different,are indicative thenof be this problemsoneseveral or very with can of the data If the figuressimilar, are very that thisthe sourcesgives confidence if theyare reliable; another, figures from and comparing different means of sourcesverification. is an important source than better One is not of necessarily data censusthan using population data). children andof out school from rather schools of drop-outs example, reporting on based maywhich use adifferent method for of numbers calculating children of out school (for figures from householdand surveys, yet anotherfigure of Education, from Ministry the moreone or administrativeon (based data), projection population and one figure from UIS children, there several may be – for figurescountry example, therefor anyparticular maybe aresultAs of the different sources available of for of out on data statistics school collecting group for the with total age population each enrolment in this group. age asabove, discussed the estimated is calculated by comparing age, respectively), secondary and lower for primary Data Dimensions 1, children of school of pre-primary, 2and 3(out from census the population data, on United (UNPD). based Population Division Nations 33 and quality-control process which increases the reliability of the data. Survey data also has increasesdata which process theofSurvey reliability the data. and quality-control providing rates attendance rather than enrolment rates, and through arobust methodology are considered to in cases some provide more reliable figuresadministrative than data by and MICS else or partially. only out, issuch notasprocess DHS Surveys always carried step in resolving cleaning such is errors, this an but andnumbers, important so on. Data errors in merging and the andvarious aggregation other steps taken to reach the final errors, records data-entry in schools, havecould introduced, such as been poorly-kept registering for notbut There are attending school. also numerous ways in errorswhich estimates population age to leading inaccurate enrolment-rate and childrencalculations, is reliability also an issue.Data have It can includingvarious causes, inaccurate school- returnedbe to inchapter. the concluding region. issue This will the means to in the CEE/CIS reducing the number of of-school out is in itself aserious issue data will to which need to addressed education be identify better of of lack availability was which often The available from only data, data. householdsurvey education was available.disaggregated finding it was achallenge nodata which In addition, countries for in disparities, enrolment in those may be CEE/CIS rural-urban or disparities, for the example, region For as awhole. that of some be the it could highest levels of gender and analysisof limits analysiscomparisons thenot scope just for these countries, also but countries from of some the the countries in exclusion the region. The CEE/CIS of certain wasby available Dimension gender for half 3 ofdata about only countries, while 2009 was unavailable for data eight CEE/CIS age) of lowerDimension 3(children secondary example, For earlier). or relatively only cases from outdated was available 2006 (i.e. data

net/ENG/. canbefound Officeof time ofwritingthisreport,someeducation data throughtheStatistical Kosovo http://esk.rks-gov. Although Kosovo (UNSCR1244) was data notyet available (such ininternational databases Centre)atthe astheUISData 33 , while for many indicators, and was in missing countriessome for data particular A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

the region scarce across children is of school Data onout 1 49 Introduction for theregion is achallenge Data reliability 1 50 Introduction data suffersdata from sampling error status. However,indicators unlike of wealth socio-economic or administrative survey data, during the other collected with survey, of data data the linking advantage education such as 34 particularly cautious about the of reliability the about data. cautious particularly to one needs be data, household survey on based are concerned small sub-populations by afew off may children, be of cent data school per more. as or in cases some Where as areminder serve that alevel of is required charts caution These out on in analysing data there toaccording data, were survey timesmore boys2005. fifteen out in of school 0.71 with compared toaccording data survey cent per in administrative Therefore, data. in administrative difference is largest for The 10.6 with boys, data. cent per of out school are to–11.1much higher according data survey justcent with per per compared 2.5 rates of out school and administrative survey be.The large differences between can data shows just how children in of out Tajikistan (top-right) school in 2005 of primary-age chart administrative the – isgirlsopposite arethe case data, more likely to out of The be school. in Turkey, boysare more likely than girlsto to of out According be school. at primary-age quite be the isanalysis used, different. can data example, For to according data survey to sources of which is themore two likely to accurate. source which on be of Depending in others they different. are raises This questions very as to the ofand reliability the data therates of out in cases some similar, school areseen from very these charts, whereas be can As 3). (Dimension for age showing children data of out school of lower secondary (Tajikistan, 2008) and one chart 2) (Dimension age for children of out school of primary for show data different showing data years groups, charts four with and age The charts regardswith to percentagesof children of out school in Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey. blue) and administrative (light data blue) in Figure 10 (dark charts data The survey compare above. discussed as are to subject error, sampling may suffer of from data other issues, reliability and both types children enrolled may be never but surveys differences arise because Other school. attend ratesmeasure But attendance attendance. are school often lower than enrolment rates, as severalbe Unlike causes. administrative records which enrolment, data, usually surveys and administrative often provide data differentsurveys) rates. of out school Therecan household and DHS example, indicated from above,(for the data data MICS As survey strongly skewcan children of out school figures. in relationConclusion is –which an example to of Albania how inaccurate data population reliableless it is thesince the longer census last in discussed the date. is further This 10 every out estimates years,A census carried only and population is normally become 2012).to taken be into accurate that account is censusnot (Carr-Hill, always data very childrenschool rates administrative on it needs census based and population data, data used to cannot be of out make For comparisons. or reliable observations sub-populations solarge that figures become the errors for sampling these can six), rural girls aged poor

Education Equity Now! Equity Education whole population. Sampling error istheamountofinaccuracyarising fromusingonlyasample(orportion)ofthepopulationratherthan 34 . For small sub-populations (such as poor rural girls or as poor (such small. For sub-populations administrative data administrative and of survey 10Figure comparison of out of school –Percentage children: Sources: UIS, 2011; TLSS, 2009; MICS, 2006; DHS, 2008 DHS, 2006; MICS, 2009; 2011; UIS, TLSS, Sources: 12 12 12 10 10 10 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 .7 7. 3.6 8.3 Total Total Total 5.3 2.5 .3 7. eaeMale Female eaeMale Female Male Female 6.9 4.6 .3 7. 6.4 4.4 .1 7. A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 8.1 9.5 2.7 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 4.3 0.6 .6 7. (2005) age OOSC -admin Kyrgyzstan Primary (2005) household survey age OOSC -MICS Primary Krygyzstan (2008) OOSC -admin Turkey age Primary (2008) OOSC -DHSsurvey Turkey age Primary (2008) age OOSC -admin Tajikistan Primary survey (2008) age OOSC - TLSS Tajikistan Primary 12 12 10 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 1 1 11. 3.5 Total Total 5.2 2.5 1 6 11. eaeMale Female eaeMale Female 6 9.3 4.4 10.6 1 0.71 .3 1. (2005) age OOSC -admin Tajikistan Primary survey (2005) age OOSC -MICS Tajikistan Primary admin (2008) OOSC - secondary Tajikistan Lower TLSS survey(2008) OOSC - secondary Tajikistan Lower

1 51 Introduction

Large equity gaps in access to education in the region keep the most marginalized children out of school. © UNICEF/ROMANIA/00390/GIACOMO© PIROZZI

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school 2 children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Profiles of excluded children region in theCEE/CIS out ofschool children are 2.5 million 2

54 Profiles of excluded children school age (Dimension 3) (UIS, 2011b) (UIS, 3) (Dimension age school Figure 11 – Trend in enrolment in the CEE/CIS region 11Figure CEE/CIS the in –Trend enrolment in region is illustrated in Figure 11for children of out school in the CEE/CIS trend children. general age-wise This and enrolment forsecondary-age drops upper further 3) Moreover, decade. the past (Dimension age largedrop numbers at out lower secondary and in countries some the number of children of out school increasedover has significantly development. there Nevertheless, is still way along to to go cent reach per 100 enrolment, to region in other comparison regions similar with levels of economichigh in the CEE/CIS are fairly 3) (Dimension and lower secondary 2) Enrolment (Dimension rates in primary factor for at-risk of out dropping school. and is an important commences schooling primary before is now stage recognized preparatory However, as acrucial education. pre-primary of compulsory is not part these children may not ifpre-primary technically of out be school entrance discussedAsare age in theprevious out of school. chapter, primary-school official of children in one year the one-third region than the Around less age. aged of pre-primary region the rate of children of out school is highest in Dimension 1,In the CEE/CIS children 2.1 37 36 35 2 (Dimension age children of primary-school region is 1,093,765 Overall, the estimated number of children of out school in the CEE/CIS

Education Equity Now! Equity Education data (most recentyeardata since2007). These fromthe2010 figuresareUISestimatesbasedonUNPDpopulationdata revision, usingthelatest available country school.Dimension 2refers children norinsecondary to primary-age whoareneitherinprimary estimate. This figureis for illustrative ageisarough purposesonlyanddoes notrepresent exact figures. Dataforuppersecondary Percentage enrolled Percentage enrolled Overview 100 100 0 0 Pre-primary age Pre-primary age Pre-primary - dimension1 - Dimension1 Primary age- dimension 2 - Dimension2 Primary age Primary 37 . Therefore, around 2.5 million children (2,528,848) . Therefore, around million 2.5 children (2,528,848) 36 ), and 1,435,083 children of lower secondary- and 1,435,083 ), secondary age- secondary age secondary dimension 3 - Dimension3 Lower Lower secondary age secondary age secondary 35 . Upper Upper

children, dueto the different sources used. data of out on school different reports may be comparisons to in the country those reported previous chapter, thechildren of out school rates usedfor incross-national this report and children to belonging multiple children of out in discussed school the risk groups. As adolescents standards, academic expected below childrendiscrimination, performing needs, children from the poorest households, working children, children affected by gender children, Roma childrenminorities education disabilities with −in and particular special age, children from ethnic ator risk of excluded. being children are: These of pre-primary on theprofiles above. of children Itwho focuses specifically are likelyout be to school of chapter children of out on This Dimension analysesschool the inas described data each cent per of boys. 6.0 with compared of school girls are out cent per of cent per lower of and boys, 6.5 5.0 secondary-age with compared girls are of out school girls are cent per of more primary-age likely 5.4 to of out be school: more likely to and in of out other be school countries girls are more likely. However, overall children are ofcountries out In some school. boysare cent per of lower secondary-age 6.2 children and are cent per out of Inof percentage terms, school. primary-age on average 5.2 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

children secondary-age cent oflower- and 6.2per out ofschool children are primary-age 5.2 percentof On average 2

55 Profiles of excluded children CEE/CIS not enrolledin school ageare pre-primary children of million About 1.6 2

56 Profiles of excluded children exclude children of pre-primary age who are actually enrolled in primary education are who enrolled age actually in primary exclude children of pre-primary misleading estimating when be of numbers children of out school at this level they because net also enrolment varies in education duration. Moreover, rates canprimary pre-primary at and pre- various ages across countries, as children may entercomparability pre-primary This moreis education. suitable for age primary for entry one year younger than the official different for country. indicated above, each As Dimension 1figures refer only childrento whichage, is level, as netprimary enrolmentpre-primary rates are the on official based notedIt should be that these figures are notderived from net enrolmentrates pre- at either pre-primary or primary education in the CEE/CIS region (UIS, 2012) region (UIS, in the CEE/CIS education primary or either pre-primary children −atotal of 1,627,490 children –are not in enrolled in centper of pre-primary-age to According this education. definition, 32.7 primary or are who age not in pre-primary represents entrance the of percentage children one yearprimary than the less aged official wasin discussed which the previous model, chapter,the In the world. 5DE Dimension 1 environment. around tends to However, vary a school-type of the pre-primary purpose of organized to designed young is instructionwhich primarily introducechildren very to represents education the initial stage pre-primary to classification, According the ISCED school children of out on pre-primary-age data of Overview access Children without 1: imension 2.2 40 39 38 Dimension 1 data is missing KosovoDimension for 1data Armenia, net 2011b).Tajikistan enrolment rates in the world(UIS, one of has the lowest pre-primary and Tajikistan. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, ofRepublic Macedonia, and Turkey.Georgia figure The rises to cent per of over children former 60 in Yugoslav The in Kyrgyzstan, education primary nor children are neither in pre-primary pre-primary-age shown andin lower Figureenrolment As secondary. 12, in primary cent per of over 45 enrolment levels are still far countries, behind the pre-primary levels of In many CEE/CIS 2012). (UIS, education primary or notage enrolled pre-primary in primary one year than the less official cent per of children aged 45.4 with compared the on net enrolment rate), (based education children are not enrolled in pre-primary cent per of all pre-primary-age in 84.3 Kyrgyzstan who are For age out of school. example, the figures be would for allchildren pre-primary of result of the method usedto derive Dimension 1figures, they are lower often much than

Education Equity Now! Equity Education UNSCR 1244. educationexpressed ofthepopulationinthatagegroup. asapercentage in pre-primary educationenrolled netenrolmentrateisthenumberofpupilsintheoretical age groupforThe pre-primary pre-primary (most recentyeardata since2007). These fromthe2010 figuresareUISestimatesbasedonUNPDpopulationdata revision, usingthelatest available country to pre-primary education pre-primary to D 40 , Turkmenistan, Ukraine. and

38 . 39 . As a. As who are not enrolled in pre-primary or primary schools (2007-11) or primary not pre-primary in who enrolled are children of pre-primary-age of 1: Dimension percentage 12Figure –Chart 41 enrolment never of In some these countries pre-primary in thetransition 1990s. period countries during the many enrolmentsin CEE/CIS significantly dropped Pre-primary 2012 UIS, Source: schools (2007-11) or primary not pre-primary in enrolled are who children of pre-primary-age 13Figure of 1: Dimension percentage –Map and 92.1 Bosnia andneighbouring Herzegovina cent per in Tajikistan. countries cent per in in cent the per region, in Montenegro from ranging 0.9 to 86.4 in Figure map 13The highlightsDimensiondisparities figuresin the 1 significant between 2012 UIS, Source: %

Data is thelatestavailableData to2011, from2009 withtheexception of Armenia which isfrom2007. 100 40 60 80 20 0 00.9 MMontenegro 10.6 CCroatia . on 9 ro . 86.4 BBosnia a 6 a t e o t i n . s a 4 e 0.9 n gro i a a 35.3 AAlbania Montenegro l nd nd Herze b . 3 a H n .5 1. i e a 113 SSerbia r z 3 e e rb 65.1 Republic ofMacedonia Republic ofMacedonia The formerYugoslav 65 Kazakhstan govina go i . a 1 v A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional i 33.6 RRomania na 3.6 . o 6 m Romania a 99.7 BBelarus n and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern . e i 7 a 77.4 MMoldova l a 99.6 BBulgaria . o rus 4 .4 7. . u l 6 do l g Moldova a v r a i a . . 0210.6 10.2 9.7 9.6 552 TurTurkey

2 Bulgaria ke y RRussian Federation 10.2 u . ss 2 Belarus i a n 447 GGeorgia F 7 e e org d e

r Russian Federation i a a t i on 69.6 AAzerbaijan z e . 6 rb Croatia a i j a n Serbia 13 35.3 Albania 45.4 66.2 UUzbekistan

z Kyrgyzstan . b 2 ek i s 11.5 KKazakhstan 47 t a . a 5 n z

ak Georgia h TTajikistan 92.1 s a t j . a 52 i 1 k n i s

t Turkey a n 65.1 KKyrgyzstan 45.4 y

. The former Yugoslav rg 4 y

z Republic of Macedonia s t 66.2 a n Uzbekistan 69.6

Azerbaijan 41 86.4 Bosnia and Herzegovina 92.1 Tajikistan

1990s period inthe transition during the CIS countries in manyCEE/ significantly dropped enrolments Pre-primary 2

57 Profiles of excluded children Ukraine Turkey and Federation, the Russian Romania, Moldova, Republic of Croatia, Bulgaria, rates :Belarus, enrolment pre-primary increasing progress in significant have made countries Some 2

58 Profiles of excluded children Figure 14 – Pre-primary gross enrolment ratio in selected CEE/CIS countries CEE/CIS selected in ratio enrolment gross 14Figure –Pre-primary 2010). centper (in low, alwayshas very been never exceeding 16.6 cent per and most recently falling to 8.7 gross enrolment cent. per In Tajikistan, level nowhere of the near 1990 33.9 pre-primary the but level of 19.1 1990s, since in decline the the rapid early cent per in 2010 was still cent per in 2011). at 25.6 (standing progressdecade some made In Kyrgyzstan, been has It remained at around cent per than half−in −less 1999. that levelto 23.6 over the next the gross In Uzbekistan, enrolment rate from1988. level declined peak its of 55.7 in 1991 was 31.1in pre-primary cent per in 2010, cent almost per in halfof level the peak of 55.9 and then reached aplateau, never recovering. the1990s gross enrolment In Armenia, rate during the gross enrolment significantly declined and Uzbekistan in Armenia pre-primary It subsequently cent increased per in to 2010, 75.5 the surpassing 1991 level. In contrast, gross enrolment from 72.7 dropped cent per in 1991 to alow point of cent per 42.4 in 2001. Therewas asimilar where trend pre-primary indecade. Figure (highlighted in Moldova 14), although stillwhich level far from represent did the 1990 progress significant over the from 75.11999, cent per to 14.8 cent.to per again It then climbed 47.7 cent per in 2011, to steeply from 1990 dropped for Kazakhstan gross enrolmentThe ratio in pre-primary group. pre-primary-age official regardless of as a ofpercentage age theavailable, showwhich enrolments in pre-primary trajectories are shown in Figure 14. gross only enrolment historical For data ratios are even has or exceeded this level. examples subsequent Some of steep drops and varying enrolment level is to now back the pre-1990s recovered, whereas in others pre-primary Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Tajikistan it has remained largely unchanged over Tajikistan and the unchanged Montenegro, Serbia largely remained has it Macedonia, enrolment former Yugoslav The rate mixed been has In Azerbaijan, stagnant. or of Republic gross countries, progress in terms of the pre-primary above. In anumber of CEE/CIS gross enrolment as described and Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan rate Kazakhstan, are Armenia, pre-primary in Turkeydecline significant a where there been countries has The Ukraine. and arebeen made Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, In terms of gross countries enrolmentprogress wherehas significant rate in pre-primary, 2012 UIS, Source: Education Equity Now! Equity Education Moldova but pre-primary gross enrolment level. yet has to the 1990 surpass pre-primary but years foris available). data which the(the with average level and 2007 being12 cent per more 2002 girls than boysbetween level This fromconsiderably fluctuated has year to enrolledyear, in pre-primary. however, cent per more 20 In Georgia, and this level since 2004. not has changed also exceeds this aroundcent line: per five fewer centper five only when fewer boysgirls than were enrolled2003 pre-primary. in Turkey More worryingly, the situation deteriorated has since of 0.84). Index [GPI] Parity (Gender far exceeds thisaround line: 16 cent per fewer above ispoint. markedbelowThis and the middle by theline first in chart, the Tajikistan three per cent more girls are enrolled compared with boys (UNICEF and UIS, 2011a) and UIS, three cent per more girls are enrolled boys(UNICEF with compared is generallyconsidered to existparity to up when of amaximum three cent per fewer or of ‘1’ net enrolment parity gender ratio isGender equal. where girls’ and boys’ pre-primary in Figure 15 chart The enrolment shows the difference percentage from rate in pre-primary. countries there aredifferences in nosignificant thegirls’ boys’ and netIn CEE/CIS most education in pre-primary in child enrolment Gender differences decades past 44 43 42 2012 UIS, Source: (2010) ratio net enrolment 15 forFigure pre-primary parity –Gender

More girls enrolled (%) More boysenrolled (%) (2011). is from 2010,Data except for Georgia(2007), Turkey andtheRussian Federation andUzbekistan andKazakhstan (2009), educationexpressedof the populationinthatagegroup. asapercentage primary Referring educationenrolled inpre- tonetenrolment−thenumberofpupilsintheoretical agegroupfor pre-primary For isavailable Montenegro,data onlyasof2001; for Serbiaasof1999. -21 -18 -15 -12 18 12 15 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9

Tajikistan 42 . In Albania and Georgia, progress has been made over progress made and Georgia, been has the15 past . In Albania years,

Turkey Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional

Azerbaijan States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

Albania

Croatia

Moldova

Kazakhstan

Bulgaria girls than boys are enrolled in pre-primary girls than boysare enrolled in pre-primary Russian Federation girls than boys are enrolled in pre-primary

Belarus

Uzbekistan

Serbia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Romania are boys than girls

Kyrgyzstan

The former Yugoslav 44 Republic of Macedonia Georgia 43 .

pre-school excluded from are themost in ruralareas and children programmes, early learning most from benefit the who would Poor children, 2

59 Profiles of excluded children 2

60 Profiles of excluded children Moreover, (‘ in districts some (UNICEF, 2011b). in 2009 cent) per rural areas with compared (4.2 cent) per areas (24.4 was five times higher in urban enrolment In Kyrgyzstan, in cent). pre-primary per (4 of DRD rates are three times higher in the region of (12 Sughd the with region compared cent) per For between districts. or example,Enrolmentregions attendance significantly may also vary 2007). cent per in just rural with areas compared 3.6 (TLSS, in 2006 Dushanbe the capital an estimatedcent per of children 25.6 three aged to five years Enrolment in rural areas tends to far be lower areas. thanexample, in urban For in Tajikistan education in children in pre-primary not differences Regional (residence) 45

Education Equity Now! Equity Education school for enrolment,asinclusionofdata six-year-olds wouldenrolmentfigures. likely leadtohigherpre-primary Pre-school in Tajikistan isfromthreetosixyears of age. These figuresaretherefore notanaccuratereflectionofpre- rayons ‘) enrolment cent was below 3per (UNICEF, 2012a).‘) 45 attended pre-primary in attended pre-primary

© UNICEF/MCCONNICO programmes, by wealth, 2005—2007 wealth, by programmes, learning early four-year-olds and 16 attending Figure of three- –Percentage Figure 16 showsand four-year-olds the of percentage three- quintiles by wealth Children in pre-primary not 47 46 3). level education (Dimension and lower secondary 2) (Dimension level following education The children discussof out sections school at the primary 2010 Ota, and Nonoyama-Tarumi 2011: 34; UNESCO, from Adapted Source: is also very large in Albania, but noticeably less so than in the other five CEE/CIS countries. sothan in less the other noticeably but CEE/CIS five large in Albania, is also very the andhouseholds richest poorest between gap attendance The cent and Serbia. in Georgia cent per in20 Tajikistan, cent and well per in and Uzbekistan per Kyrgyzstan over over 40 60 rates attendance for cent In per comparison, in20 Georgia. theare households richest over centthan 1per in Tajikistan, 10 under and under and Uzbekistan cent per in Serbia Kyrgyzstan, of large. Attendance arechildren households very in isand the poor households less poorest children programmes learning between infrom early in attendance rich gaps The Uzbekistan. Georgia, countries: Kyrgyzstan, Albania, Tajikistan Serbia, including six CEE/CIS and forprogrammes by andquintiles) richest levelof aselection countries, of wealth (poorest

Data are forData themostrecentyear available during theperiodspecified. age’. Note thatthisagerangeisnotcompatible withtheDimension1definitionof ‘one year younger thantheofficialprimary A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 47 46 attending early learning early attending

world rates inthe net enrolment pre-primary the lowest has oneof Tajikistan education; in pre-primary not enrolled children are primary age of allpre- 84.3 percent In Kyrgyzstan, 2

61 Profiles of excluded children school age areoutof primary school children of 1.1 million 2

62 Profiles of excluded children Conclusion. Dimension 2 data is missing Dimension for 2data Conclusion. Kosovo in discussed the atnew censusis the further time This population data of of writing this report. high due topopulation estimates. inflatedfigure Theon isupdated based in the being of process levelage is 20.1 for Albania cent,the highest per however in the region; this figure is likely too to 2012). 2012 According UIS in Montenegro thechildren of out school data, rate (UIS, at primary- children cent fromto up per ranges in of out Bulgaria cent alow 16.8 school per 0.5 primary-age CEE/CIS region, which is equivalent to 5.2 per cent region, per isof which equivalent the total to 5.2 CEE/CIS are in of out the school 2) (Dimension age estimated childrenAn 1,093,765 of primary-school on primary-age data of Overview imension 2: 2.3 50 49 48 − Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania and Serbia −are Montenegro, shown and Serbia in Romania Figure− Azerbaijan, Moldova, 18 childrenout of school in recent trends years. The over time for countriesthe five primary-age countries there increase However,clear been a has CEE/CIS in five before falling significantly to just tocentper 2008, 2010. in 2001 1.8 from children of out age school quadrupled the of percentage primary-school of Macedonia, former Yugoslav In The cent per in 2010). toRepublic 0.3 cent 6per in 2000 (from Kazakhstan and to cent 0per in 2009) cent per in 2004 9.8 children (from in have Georgia made been impressive reductions in of out Particularly steadily over school declined decade. the past children ofout school has countries, the of percentage primary-age In a number of CEE/CIS rate of children. of out school Montenegro countriesincome have which such and asRomania, Azerbaijan, amuchhigher age, and relatively havewhich higher a low rate of childrenout of school of primary-school counter-intuitive countries such as Tajikistan trend by low-income is caused and Kyrgyzstan, in contrast to trend the expected of and worldwide a increase somewhatbeing correlated an increase with region as awhole,there is aslight trend at PPP towards capita per increasingthe CEE/CIS GDP from ranging around at PPP four capita per tohave six times aGDP greater than Tajikistan’s. In Rather, region. children ofout school figures are they not poorestcountries the CEE/CIS in the children are of out Moreover, school. those countries listed above the with highest primary-age cent per of regionprimary-age 2.2 −only that in Tajikistan in the CEE/CIS –the country poorest It andis Romania. interesting Bosnia and Herzegovina, are in of out Azerbaijan, school to note children BesidesMontenegro,school. alarge–over percentage 10 cent per –of primary-age in Figure 17 chart bar The children of out reveals the large variation in the rates of primary-age school children in these countries. of a downward is hopefully trend This the start inrecent of out year foris available). data which in the of percentage children, out of school although the situation improved in 2010 most (the other countries in the steep region –witnessed Ukraine –Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan increases

Education Equity Now! Equity Education over timeratherthan actual outofschool numbers,which isfurtherdiscussedintheConclusion. Albania hasbeenexcluded, astheupward trendis likely tocorrespond atleastpartiallytoinflated populationestimates UNSCR 1244. (most recentyeardata since2007). These fromthe2010 figuresareUISestimatesbasedonUNPDpopulationdata revision, usingthelatest available country children out of school of children out D in out of age, school children of primary-school 49 , Georgia and Turkmenistan., Georgia decrease 48 . At the country level,. At the country the rate of in children. out of school This in the of percentage 50 . Several Several . CEE/CIS countries (2010) countries CEE/CIS 17inFigure age of out of of school primary-school –Percentage children 51 2012 UIS, Source: (1998-2010) countries selected in age of out of of school primary percentage children the 18 in Figure rises –Steep 2012 UIS, Source: 20 15 10 % 0 5

(2011). is from2010Data except for theRussianArmenia (2007); Federation and Turkey andUzbekistan andKazakhstan (2009); 25 20 15 10 1998 0 5 . 0.5 0.5

1999 Bulgaria

Kazakhstan 2000 The former Yugoslav 8 1. Republic of Macedonia Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 2.2 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 2001 Tajikistan 2.5 Turkey 2002 . 4.1 3.8

Armenia 51

2003 Croatia 4.3 Russian Federation 2004 4.7 Kyrgyzstan 5.5

2005 Serbia .2 7. Uzbekistan 2006

Belarus 8 8.9 2007 Ukraine 9.9 Moldova 2008 12.4 Romania 12.9 2009 Bosnia and Herzegovina 15.3 Azerbaijan 2010 16.8 Montenegro 20.1

Serbia Moldova Romania Azerbaijan Montenegro Albania

increased numbers have countries the in five however, past decade; over the declined has steadily children out ofschool primary age percentage of countries, the of CEE/CIS In anumber 2

63 Profiles of excluded children of 51percent Africa, atotal Sub-Saharan school after to neverenter are expected children who out ofschool primary-age proportion of has thehighest Central Asia 2

64 Profiles of excluded children such children. the number of children on both of out the rate school depends and absolute of numbers Clearly, by thecountries faced challenge in reducingin this group 5,555. only numbers age childrenof school rates in the region, although the total number of childrenout of school out region –atotal Montenegro In ofcontrast, 382,587. one of has the highest primary-age children,of school together accounting for of over all childrenout of school one-third in the out cent. per At time, the same of the it has largest absolute 5.2 of numbers primary-age children of out school rate is which below the regional average aprimary-age has Federation differences are reflected in maps theshown in Figure The Russian19 Figureand 20. These population. is, of versa. This vice course, afunction of the size of the school-age is small, the absolute of numbers children of out quite school may be in fact large, and children of out school of lower countries,In some where secondary-age the proportion Education Equity Now! Equity Education

© UNCEF/BULGARIA Figure 19 – Map of primary-age out of school children by percentage (2010) out of by school percentage 19 children Figure of primary-age –Map 53 52 expected to enter in the future, and children are who expected to never enter school. children children have out, are who who dropped currently but of out school primary-age in Figure 21 chart showsThe regional averages of three groups of children: of out school 2012 UIS, Source: (2010) out of by school absolute children numbers of 20 primary-age Figure –Map 2012 UIS, Source:

Ibid. (2011). is from 2010Data except for theRussianArmenia (2007); Federation and Turkey andUzbekistan andKazakhstan (2009); 16.8 tenegro MMon 44.1 CCroatia on . r . 1 o 8 BBosniaHerzegovinaand 12.9 at te 5555 tenegro MMon o 7446 CCroatia i n . s on 53 a 9 r e n o BBosniaHerzegovinaand 20, g 5 i at te 6 a r o a o i n , s a 201 20 AAlbania 20.1 e nd n l g i b a 1 . r H 1 a a o AAlbania 52, n e l nd i b r a , 55.5 SSerbia z 014 01 a H e n . e Republic ofMacedonia Republic ofMacedonia The formerYugoslav 11.8 5 go i r 4 . e a b 8 r i v 16, SSerbia z a e i e Republic ofMacedonia Republic ofMacedonia The formerYugoslav 2212 na go A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional r , 133 13 b RRomania 12.4 i v a 2 o 3 i na . m 4 8 BBelarus a e RRomania 109, and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern n MMoldova 99.9 l o a i 00.5 BBulgaria . m a o r 9 28, BBelarus . us u , l 5 035 03 a do e l g n MMoldova 14, , l 88.9 UUkraine a 505 50 a i 1252 BBulgaria 5 v a o r . k r 9 a , us u i l r 936 93 5 a do l a g 2 i 137, UUkraine ne a 6 v k r a i 22.5 TTur r a a u . , 5 694 69 i r ne 161, TTur ke key u 4 y r ke key 44.3 RRuFeder ssian , 880 88 . u y 3 ss 0 220, RRuFeder ssian i a u n ss F , 707 70 i AArmenia 33.8 e a d . r n 8 7 m e F r e ation at AArmenia 4343 e n d r i i on m a e r 3 e ation at 15.3 AAzerbaijan n z i i on e a . 3 r b 78, AAzerbaijan a z i e , j a 445 44 r n b a 5 i j a n 77.2 eki UUzb . z 2 b ek 148, eki UUzb i z stan sta b ek , 487 48 n i stan sta 00.5 KKaz 7 . a 5 n z akhstan ak 4316 KKaz h a 22.2 TTajiki sta z a . 2 akhstan ak 6 j i k n h i 15, TTajiki sta stan sta a j , i 013 01 k n n i sta stan 3 44.7 KKyrgyz . n y 7 r g y 18, KKyrgyz z y stan sta r , 490 49 g y n z 0 stan sta n 52

group ofOOSC is thebiggest primary school entry into contrast, late Europe, in and Eastern In Central 2

65 Profiles of excluded children 2

66 Profiles of excluded children ‘likely to enter in the future’. school children late, are school those atotal enteringwith cent per in the of category 55 primary 2011b).(UIS, in In contrast, Central and Eastern Europe group theof biggest of out school the seriousto most poses challenge policy-makers children of out This school category children of out school expected to never atotal enter of 51 school: of cent. primary-age per the has highest proportion Central Asia Africa, afterSub-Saharan is that, great concern Of section. level, is which in discussed atthe next lower occur secondary region, drop-outs CIS most children. of out school In the CEE/ notedshould be that Figure 21 at only primary-age looks However, cent cent per and 8per respectively). is out relatively dropped itwho low (9 (%, 2010) (%, out of by school region 21Figure children –School of exposure primary-age States ofCommonwealth Independent to closely the corresponds In both Central and Eastern Europe (which and Central Asia 54 different variationsbetween even significant thereprofiles be can withinout of acountry takenit should be into that account there are variationswithin significant Moreover, regions. the categorization of children of out Although school by region helps set regional priorities, 2012b UIS, from adapted Source:

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Central Asia excludes CIScountriesBelarus, Moldova Mongolia. andRussia, andincludesthenon-CIScountry 54 ), the share of primary-age out of school children of out school the share of primary-age ),

to enter late school as likely boysin are Kyrgyzstan around twice apparent that primary-school-age becomes However,Kyrgyzstan. examining when theof categories children of out school by sex, it by sex. Therearedifferences rates in out nosignificant of school boysgirls for and in children of out school in Kyrgyzstan by Figureshows which of categories 22, primary-age children asof out school not figuresThis alwaysmightis illustrated as clear-cut suggest. examinationA closer of theof categories children of out school reveals that the situation is areas.different girls and boys, rural and urban comparing when the(UNICEF, situation In addition, 2012a). of completely children of out be school can children enters population late school –in contrast to the general trend in Central Asia of the of out children. schoolof example,large school proportion For in avery Kyrgyzstan 55 more detail in the profiles children of out below.of school sections, reasons areThe different for different profiles children. This of out of lookedschool is at in 17)? are Why girls muchmore of out school likely school? to have of out primary dropped children. areschool Why boysmuchmore of out likely school to age enter late school (by from illustrates Kyrgyzstan data This of addressing the problem of the complexity of out areas they are likely most cent). per to enter late school 17 –by age (64.5 childrenschool whereas are in urban likely most to cent never per rural), enter (49.7 school of out Figure shows asimilar for 23 areas. pattern rural and urban In rural areas primary-age UNICEF, in 2012a 2006 MICS, Source: sex (2005) by out Kyrgyzstan of in school children 22Figure of primary-age –Categories whereas boysare of out school, school likely most to enter late school In general,girls just are ofwith out 2.7 school likely most cent to per boys). never are nine cent per times girls compared more likely than boysto have (24.3 out dropped and areschool, far likely less than girls to have out dropped girls of from Out school school.

% is usedfor thiscalculationintheFive DimensionsofExclusion (5DE)model. educationinKyrgyzstan isuptoage15Compulsory (endoflower However, secondary). thefixed limitof 17 years ofage 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0.0 55 Dropped out out Dropped 24.3 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional (by age 17) age girls, are with compared likely less (by than girls to never and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 2.7 Expected to enter by 30.0 age 17 60.9 Expected to never 45.7 enter enter 36.5 . Boys -‐ Primary age Girls -‐ Primary age enter enter

CEE/CIS school in are outof school age secondary of lower children 1.4 million from school dropped out girls tohave likely than but arefarless school late, girls toenter as likely around twice boys are school-age primary- In Kyrgyzstan, 2

67 Profiles of excluded children 2

68 Profiles of excluded children Figure 24 chart. Dimension 3 data is also Dimension missing 3data Figure for 24 Kosovo chart. may not reflected age of be in the children of out school of lowerproportion secondary and Montenegro.and Herzegovina, Consequently, ofsome the countries the with highest Republic of Macedonia and Turkmenistan. ofRepublic Macedonia highest out of school percentages children: Albania of primary-age countries the with noted was not that Dimension available 3data for the four CEE/CIS to 12.7Kazakhstan cent as shown per in in Figure Bulgaria, 24.However, it should be children from ranges cent of out 0per in school of percentage lowerThe secondary-age out of rates. school and lower secondary-age primary- between to distinctionneeds which taken be intoimportant the difference comparing when account centper are not permanently5.2 of Thisthe excluded.is an proportion words, asignificant children ofout school manyin includes late; other children school will enter who primary cent per figure excludedpermanently primary-age for the fromIn contrast, 5.2 education. that these children are unlikely in cases most to return to and consequently are school children noted ofit out should be school, cent higher than the of percentage primary-age 1per only to largeof numbers drop age Although childrenout. start At lower secondary 3) are out of school in the CEE/CIS region, which is a rate of 6.2 per cent (UIS, 2011b) cent region,per (UIS, is which arate of 6.2 are in of out the CEE/CIS school 3) (Dimension age children of lower secondary-school It is estimated that atotal of 1,435,083 lower on data of Overview 3: imension 2.4 UNICEF, in 2012a 2006 MICS, Source: (2005) area by out Kyrgyzstan of in school children 23Figure of primary-age –Categories 58 57 56

Education Equity Now! Equity Education % UNSCR 1244. region. However, even iftherevised figureisonlyhalfofthe existing figure,it would still beoneofthehighestratesin As notedpreviously, theoutofschool children figure for Albanianeedstobe adjusted basedonnew census data. (most recentyeardata since2007). These from the2010 figuresareUISestimatesbasedonUNPDpopulationdata revision, usingthe latest available country secondary-age children out of school of children out secondary-age D 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0.0 Dropped out out Dropped 13.8 5.6 Expected to enter by 36.5 age 17 64.5 Expected to never 49.7 enter enter 30.0 58 , The former Yugoslav, The 57 , Azerbaijan, Bosnia , Azerbaijan, Urban -‐ Primary age Rural -‐ Primary age 56 .

CEE/CIS countries (2010) countries CEE/CIS in of out 24 age Figure of of school lower –Percentage children secondary 59 steep These declinesare shown in Figure 27. to cent per in justcent 2009. in4.6 1999 children per from was reduced of out 22.8 school the of percentage lower secondary-age and in 2010 in 1999, school this figure was reduced to 3.7just cent.per Similarly, in Turkey in Tajikistan and Turkey. children were In Tajikistan, of out of lower aquarter secondary-age However, the impressive most reductions are to cent 8per in 2009). 14.8 cent per in 2005 (from and Georgia cent per in to 2010) 0.8 cent per in 1999 6.8 in Croatia made (from been children of out school have reductions in the of percentage Large lower secondary-age magnitude the reflect childrenof the out of school situation. children Clearly, in the region –atotal the not of figure percentage does 965,631. alone of out school of the total foraccount number of over lower two-thirds secondary-age the largest number of children of out the three school in the region. countries Combined, terms of absolute numbersthese countries – together the with Russian– have Federation However, cent per and 3.7 cent,respectively). per average (4.6 in is below the CEE/CIS Turkey children of out school the of percentage and Uzbekistan, lower secondary-age For and the absolute numbers (below). children (above) of out school secondary-age in Figure maps large, versa. 25 The and Figure and vice show 26 the proportion childrenof school is small, the absolute number of childrenout of school very may be in discussed the previous ofAs inout countries, some section, where the proportion 2012 UIS, Source:

zakhstan (2011).zakhstan is from2010,Data except for Georgia,Romania,Armenia (2007), theRussian Federation and Turkey andKa- (2009), % 14 10 12 6 8 0 2 4 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 59 of lower lower of

children primary aged out ofschool proportion of the highest countries with some ofthe children in school secondary- on lower- available Data isnot 2

69 Profiles of excluded children 2009 4.6 percentin in 1999tojust 22.8 percent reduced from of schoolwas children out secondary-age of lower- percentage In Turkey the 2

70 Profiles of excluded children numbers (2010) numbers out of 26 lower of byFigure school –Map absolute children secondary-age 2012 UIS, Source: (2010) 25Figure out of lower of by school –Map percentage children secondary-age 61 60 2012 UIS, Source:

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Ibid. (2011).zakhstan is from2010,Data except for Georgia,Romania,Armenia (2007), theRussian Federation and Turkey andKa- (2009), 00.8 CCroatia . r 8 o at 1535 CCroatia i a r 60 o at 5 i a 22.7 SSerbia . e 7 r b 8232 SSerbia i a e r b 2 i RRomania 55.8 a 61 . o 8 m 44.9 BBelarus RRomania 51, . a e o 9 n MMoldova 12.5 l , m a 581 58 24, BBelarus i 12.7 BBulgaria a o r a e . us u l 5 n 1 Moldova M 29, , l do . l a 204 20 7 g i 34, BulgariaB a o r 44.2 UUkraine a , us u v l . 153 15 4 k r do , 2 a l i 462 46 g r a 92, UUkraine a a 3 v i k r 2 ne a i 44.6 TTur , r a 460 46 a u . 6 i r ne 0 180, TTur ke key u r y ke key , 877 87 99.4 RRuFeder ssian y . u 7 4 ss 670, RRuFeder ssian u i ss a , n 803 80 i GGeorgia 8 F a n e AArmenia 99.5 3 e GGeorgia 14, F o d . r 5 r m e e AArmenia 23, e g , o r d r 443 44 e i ation at r m a e , n g 940 94 r i i 3 e i on ation at a a n 0 i i on a 33.7 eki UUzb . 113, eki UUzb z 7 b z ek b ek , 951 95 i stan sta i stan sta 1 n n 0 KKaz 558 KKaz a 8 a z z akhstan ak akhstan ak h 33.7 TTajiki h 31, TTajiki sta a . sta 7 a j i j , k i n 386 38 k i n sta stan i sta stan 6 n n 88.2 KKyrgyz 44, KKyrgyz . y y 2 r r , g 893 89 g y y z z 3 stan sta stan sta n n 21 28 14 12 16 lower secondary age in selected countries (1999-2010) countries selected in age lower secondary of out of of school percentage children the 27 in Figure declines –Steep Source: UIS, 2012 UIS, Source: (1999-2010) countries selected in age secondary of out of of school lower percentage children the in rises 28 –Steep Figure increase years. in just two childrenschool rate –athree-fold went from up 1.7 cent per in 2009 to 5.8 cent per in 2007 of out following In of Romania, decline, steady the aperiod lowercent). secondary-age and 2010 (5.1 cent) per (12.5 2000 children per ofout between school more than doubled and 2010 cent) per (12.7 (2.3 the rate In Moldova, of lower cent). secondary-age per 2003 between children of out school increased more than five-fold rate of lower secondary-age steepthree increases are the countries In Bulgaria, particularly shown with in Figure 28. trends for The and Uzbekistan. Serbia Romania, Moldova, to 2008), a decrease from 2004 (following Kyrgyzstan Bulgaria, Belarus, children in of out Armenia, school secondary-age countries the situation increasing with worsened, has of numbers lower In eight CEE/CIS 2012 UIS, Source: 0 7 4 8 0 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 Romania Moldova Bulgaria Croatia Tajikistan Turkey Georgia

school children outof secondary-age of lower- numbers increasing there are CIS countries In eightCEE/ 2

71 Profiles of excluded children level secondary at lower- considerably gaps widen Gender 2

72 Profiles of excluded children in Kosovo countries increased actually in has at eight age least CEE/CIS ofadolescents lower secondary-school However, 2010b). asabove, discussed the rate (UIS, adolescents of school of of out school to ensurepresenting are in by schools out that replaced vacated spaces aunique opportunity region have since a 1991,decline in experienced population Many countries in the CEE/CIS Adolescents 63 62 chapter continues the discussion on out of school adolescents in the CEE/CIS region. chapter continues in the adolescents the discussion of out CEE/CIS on school later education in this chapter, secondary upper on section The and bottlenecks. barriers on and thesechallenges and other to for barriers education them in are the next further discussed yetcontinued education, work them causes to aunique face set drop Adolescents out. of to an income. Ironically, earn many to need adolescents work in order to to able be afford from the family, of the oflack highsupport financial cost education, desire and the or need discussions youth, with found that many youth drop out for because financial of reasons −the (UNICEF,out 2011e). study, This and focus component both asurvey group included which to for improve youth, quality and related including unemployment education and drop- aspects

Education Equity Now! Equity Education UNSCR 1244. isnot availableIt ispossiblethattherateincreased inmorethaneightcountries,asdata for somecountries. and are permanently from excluded education. school to return to unlikely cases most are in secondary-school-age lower of Adolescents © UNICEF/SWZ/GIACOMO PIROZZI 62 63 . A UNICEF study involving 2,444 youth between the ages of youth the ages 13 between and 24 conducted involving study 2,444 . AUNICEF , Georgia and Tajikistan, Georgia looked at the key quality, factors education affecting how Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2.7 per cent of boys compared with 0.8 per cent of girls). centYugoslav per of centgirls). per of0.8 (2.7 with boyscompared of Republic Macedonia former and The cent per of girls) cent per of 0.3 with boyscompared (0.6 Kazakhstan of girls), cent cent per of3per with boyscompared Croatia (5.2 cent per of girls), 0.3 with boys compared cent per of (0.7 Bulgaria cent per of 2.4 of with boyscompared girls), (5 Armenia include are more in likelyparticular age to out of be school Countries where boys of primary-school times more likely boys. with to compared of out be school are age eight a ratio, theAs difference in Tajikistan girls of primary-school large: is especially cent per of cent per girls). of 5.9 with girls compared 1.8 (8.5 and Uzbekistan cent per of boys) Turkey cent per of with girls compared centcent per of of 0.5 with boys), girls compared (3.3 are more likely in particular age to in of out Tajikistan be school per Girls of primary-school (4 countries where girls are in order of more increasing likely disparity). to (sorted of out be school showingside countries where boysare more likely to ofand out the right be school, showing side the age, with left Figure shows differences inchildren gender of 29 out school of primary-school the differences largest are gender in countries where girls are more likely to of out be school. in ofcountries out some be school and girls more likely to in of out others. be school However, Differences greatly in enrolment throughout the region, boysmore with vary by likely gender to 2.5 64 2012 UIS, Source: boysand (2010) out of school girls children, of 29primary-school-age Figure –Percentage %

(2011). is from 2010Data except for theRussianArmenia (2007); Federation and Turkey andUzbekistan andKazakhstan (2009); 20 25 15 10 0 5 Gender differences in out of school children school of in out Gender differences

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Bulgaria < -More boys outofschool -> A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional

Armenia 64 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Kazakhstan

Croatia

Russian Federation

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ukraine

Albania

Moldova

Romania < -More girls outofschool ->

Serbia

Azerbaijan

Kyrgyzstan

Uzbekistan

Turkey

Tajikistan Girls Boys

others of schoolin likely tobeout girls more countries and school insome to beoutof more likely with boys vary greatly, by gender in enrolment Differences 2

73 Profiles of excluded children Macedonia Republic of Yugoslav Former and The Kazakhstan Croatia, Bulgaria, in: Armenia, out ofschool girls tobe likely than Boys aremore 2

74 Profiles of excluded children enrolment rates for to girls andup boys, around 12 years of age Index in by Turkey. age Parity Index is to close 1, Parity Gender The equal indicating Turkey. is illustrated This enrolment in FigureGender and 31, shows which age-specific level, in as is atthe case lower considerable may widen secondary gap parity gender The 2012 UIS, Source: Tajikistan (1994-2011) Turkey and rate, net enrolment Index for primary 30Parity Figure –Gender shown in Figure 30 net Index countries enrolment infor termstwo the of Parity primary rate the Gender are enrolment, and Turkey, trends where for is The closing. seen to the gap rapidly these be in Tajikistan, notably decade, last it still though in primary the has gap highest gender level narrowed has at primary incountries the gap the gender In a number of CEE/CIS 66 65 reflects on the reflects reasons differences gender rates. for in out of school discussion of in the chapterand bottlenecks gender next The characteristics. barriers on light below some sheds to on the complex relationshipand poverty these three between youth, and these pressures tend to increase as they get older. analysis of The age, sex boys in other countries is areflection of thedifferent pressures societal male on and female that girls fact aregirls. The more likely to in drop countries as out adolescents some and cent where per Federation, of 10.5 cent per of boysare 8.3 with compared of out school in thejust discrepancy other cent 2.6 biggest per of direction The is boys. in the Russian is indiscrepancy Turkey, where 6.7 cent per of girls are with compared of out school countries. those countries For is whereavailable, data the biggest for 10 only CEE/CIS children of out school is available for differencesData in gender lower secondary-age enrolmentrate. as shown by the line for the age-specific enrolment. It is also 13 at age to that large of numbers drop from out children school, start amarked reduction in signifying declines, girls’the GPI enrolment boys’ with compared

Education Equity Now! Equity Education 20 The isthe MilliEğitim originalsourceofthisdata education. betweensexes.A GPIof1indicates parity enrolment ratioinprimary The GenderParity Indexeducationistheratioof thefemale-to-male for netenrolmentinprimary values ofthenet 10; itistherefore for morerecentthantheGPIdata Turkey from UIS, discussedabove, which isfrom2009. 65 . The top line (1). . The of represents the graph parity gender İ statistikleri (National Education Statistics) in (NationalEducationStatistics) statistikleri Turkey, isfrom andthedata 66 . From 13 years of age

olds (2010)olds Index to 5- for Parity 3116-year- Gender andFigure enrolment –Age-specific 67 2012 UIS, Source: (2010)boys girls and 32 out ofFigure lower of children school, –Percentage secondary-school-age 2012d, press in UIS, from adapted Source:

% 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 0.8 0.7 0.9 Data is from 2010,Data except for Romania,Armenia (2007), theRussian Federation and Turkey (2009). 1 10 12 14 6 8 0 2 4

< 10.5 -‐ -‐ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 8 7 6 5 More boys out of school out boys More 8.3 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 10.3 Age-‐speci5ic enrolment rate 8.6 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 4.4 67 4 6 5.5 -‐ > < > 12.2 -‐ -‐ 13.3 More girls out of school out girls More 11.9 13 7.7 8.6 GPI of enrolment rate 2.5 2.8 -‐> -‐> 3.1 4.4 2.6 6.7 Girls Girls Boys

75 Profiles of excluded children were female education secondary completed children who the Roma a quarterof in 2001,only In Croatia, 2

76 Profiles of excluded children report their ethnicreport identity. to In addition of alack reliable estimates, population there is a many to leads Roma stigma not Social around 12 to 15 Parliament, 2005). million (European there are estimates.The nofirm population in totalRoma of Europe is estimated beto Turkey may have as in but ofother some alarge population Roma, countries in the region of are and Slovakia.populations Roma the Czech in Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia Republic, UNDP, 2012).2011 theInstitute, Besides Romania, largest Society 2006; census (Open themselves declared to people ethnic be million in the Roma 619,000 in only Romania greatly.vary example, For despite an 1.8 estimated of between population Roma and 2 to estimate, countries is difficult approximations and numberin of living CEE/CIS Roma The levels (UNICEF, 2009c). of education unemployment to of and alack access quality communities live in slums characterized high health conditions, and living by poverty, poor haveRoma severe faced discrimination throughout their history, and to this many day Roma greatly culture from and dialects, one region and religionto language vary Roma another. can often treated Although region as asingle and onegroup, of the disadvantaged. most CEE/CIS focuses ethnic the on Roma report group,This is which by far the largest such group in the 2.6 in the section. next further discussed differences is in which enrolment Gender high Roma, 2 and 3. among are particularly profiles following outchildren of The school focus of sections Dimensions in specific on Education Equity Now! Equity Education Children from ethnic minorities

© UNICEF/MCCONNICO Rughini, 2008; Open Society Institute, Society 2006). Open Rughini, 2008; 2011b; 31.7 with (UNICEF compared and G. 15 Fleck, in 2002 and above) cent per (aged 76.7 with data, cent per of children 14 Roma aged to 17 school, completing primary survey outdated. the Insituation Romania, improved considerably, to according 2007/8 sois by from is now althoughthismostly fairly 2001−2002 data education, secondary provides estimatesFigure and 33 of have the of numbers who Roma completed primary in Chapter is which further discussed 3. gap, access children, to in addition the large and non-Roma Roma between of education in the quality linguistic gap for to and patterns behavioural led disabilities.has learning This alarge equity ofdisabilities, differences, their because discrimination language and mistaking ethnic, tracked to ‘special’are which and classrooms intended schools normally for children with before (UNICEF, 2011d). completing education basic Moreover, many children Roma are children children enrol Roma to do addition, who are drop out more likely than non-Roma In 2010). (UNESCO, school around to 20 cent 25 per of children Roma secondary attend In central education. and eastern European countries only and secondary complete primary available shows children conclusively that Roma are far likely less to enrolled be in and scarce. However, are Roma on statistics particularly education Reliable that is the data 2010). (UNESCO, ethnicity on legislation prevents countries,In some such and Slovakia, asprivacy Romania any reporting oflack information in general is ason Roma rarelyethnically data collected. disaggregated secondary education in the 2001/2002 school year were female (World Bank, 2004c). Bank, year were school female (World in the 2001/2002 education secondary formerin Yugoslav The than athird less completed of of who Republic Macedonia Roma Similarly, 2004a). Bank, were education female (World completedof who secondary the Roma Croatian aquarter toCensus, only According the the with general population. 2001 compared enrolment differencesThere is that in evidence gender school are muchhigher Roma among 2006 Institute, Society Open Source: education secondary and 15 33 ofFigure Roma aged –Percentage above and who completed primary 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 0

Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Croatia

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Montenegro

Romania

Serbia

Slovakia Completed secondary Completed primary

school secondary attend Roma children 25 percentof around 20to countries only European and eastern In central 2

77 Profiles of excluded children from birth disabilities children with and those disabilities intellectual those with in particular education, excluded from completely the regionare disabilities in children with numbers of Large 2

78 Profiles of excluded children World Disability Report Bank However, the WHO/World (UNICEF, 2005a). cent1 per having serious conditions) indicated that arate of children disabilities with of cent per at 2.5 was the least ‘norm’ (with by Disabilities established the theEuropeanof benchmark Childhood Academy In 2005, million children sources. disabilitiesdata with areon depending stillrecognized, not officially the greater (UNICEF, 2011c). recognition of disability However, 1 million between and 3.6 at the onset of transition to 1.5 million,disabilities, from to duelargely around 500,000 region arechildren as nowA greater identified with share of children in the CEE/CIS during the declined 1990s. education special basic of children countries, enrolled the proportion in illustrates.Figure 34 CEE/CIS In poorer programmes. In thiseducation regard, progress across the uneven, region been has as remain in their Even homes. worse, many children disabilities with are not enrolled in any and areeducation segregated into residential and classes, schools special institutions or are needs Children often excluded education disabilities with and special from mainstream disabilitieshildren and special with education 2.7 there many may be more that remain invisible to the eye. public to there Roma are region, and other ethnic groupsare who marginalized in the CEE/CIS the in –the ‘other’Kyrgyzstan highly marginalized Lyuli. category that It isin clear addition children risk ethnic groups in below looks more detail to group at onebelonging particular ethniceach group is different.children on section to belonging The multiple of out school ‘other’The should of not ethnic course generalized, be as the group situation category for age. late.school It is Uzbek children are who likelymost to at out of lower be school secondary they are enter because who –largely likely most age primary to at of out primary be school children is also higher for the ‘other’ ethnic group category. However, it is Russian children slightly different picture emerges (UNICEF, Here, 2012a). the of percentage of out school whereKyrgyzstan, the main ethnic groups asidefrom Kyrgyz are also Uzbekand Russian, a levels. education In and secondary children ofout school is muchhigher at both primary 2012c, However, in press). for otherethnic –smaller −minority groups, the of percentage childrenschool are similar for the main ethnic groups –Tajik, Uzbekand Russian (UNICEF, shows that data levels of of out Tajikistan The calculated. (TLSS) Survey Standards Living ethnicity, include does and the of percentage children of out school by ethnic be group can However, data. and householdsurvey in and Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan data householdsurvey region. is notEthnicity always recorded in administrativeethnic data groups in the CEE/CIS children Roma on is even is scarce, data data moreAlthough limited for other minority special education needs. These figures are These needs. education evenspecial countriesinflatedsome in as, for example, countries aroundCIS only cent students 1 per of arehaving as education basic identified around 5.1 million children are estimated to have adisability. in CEE/ some In addition, Bank benchmark region estimated at just over million, 100 to according the WHO/World 2011). & World Bank, the total With in ofchild the range population (WHO datasets wide 0.7 cent per of a(with on children based 0-14 years of having asevere age disability), Education Equity Now! Equity Education needs C of 2011 indicates that 5.1 cent per is amore accurate benchmark 2001 100 per (rates of relevant population) 1989 programmes, education and special basic in 34 –Enrolment Figure are ofacross needs the range broader disabilities not and educational addressed. being indicates This that of theschools. also needs inmany,end up special if not children most, families, vulnerable children socially or children, including Roma from can disadvantaged education, in particular those intellectual with in particular disabilitieseducation, and those children disabilities with of numbers childrenLarge disabilities with in the region are completely excluded from at or risk ofschool out. dropping disabilities are of who are those not who registered of out alarge portion – encompass children registered disabilities with – as well as the estimated million 3.6 children with It is likely schools. (14.5 special attend that cent) 219,000 the per remaining 1,281,000 to the total. of Out the total 1.5 million children are who registered only adisability with is rather schools small by in special comparison services receiving education are reportedly However, the number of children in the region are who registered and as having a disability provenIt has to substantially toor eliminate difficult reduce be enrolment schools. special in former YugoslavHungary, and The Romania Lithuania, of Republic Macedonia. in region,Bulgaria, notably children disabilities with into mainstream in the CEE/CIS schools Progress remains patchy,in there 2006. but advancement in some integrating been has ofthe Convention adoption the UN the on Rights of Persons Disabilities with (CRPD), disabilities, rather the only ‘problems than considering to solved’. be culminated This with ofadoption a‘socialof disability, model’ and the recognition of with the rights of people illness and disability. At thetime same thereinternationally ashift been has towards the and institutionalisation, differentiation disorder, little with between made impairment, requiring as achronic condition primarily remediation, medical health care, rehabilitation than mainstream is related This schools. to is seen that the across fact the region disability Children rather disabilities with are often classrooms) segregated in ‘special schools’ (or 19 UNICEF, 2005a: Source: 0.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 .0 1. 5 1. 0

Slovakia

Estonia

Russian Federation

Czech Republic Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional

Poland and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

Latvia

Hungary

Belarus

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Romania

Moldova

Ukraine

Kazakhstan

Armenia The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Azerbaijan

Croatia

Kyrgyzstan

Georgia 1989 2001 Turkmenistan

homes remain intheir institutions or residential classes, schools and into special segregated are often disabilities Children with 2

79 Profiles of excluded children region the CEE/CIS disability in to havea estimated children are 5.1 million Around 2

80 Profiles of excluded children inclusion in later grades. are intervention key Yet and early education. services strategies for ensuring pre-school levels is even than enrolmentsecondary less lower generallyadvanced and has in basic and of at childrenneeds pre-school education disabilities with andparticipation special The disabilities. with and remote areas where there programmes for are education children special no nearby situation is The worse in rural 2010). of Foundation Central Asia, (Eurasia education special cities, Bishkekare biggest in the few two and Osh,and very children have to access basic cent were not schools to going almost In Kyrgyzstan, education all school. the special basic the on situationsurvey per of children disabilities with in it was Kyrgyzstan, found that 43.4 (2008) disabilities not to do any attend (UNICEF, According 2012a). aUNICEF school example, For from in Tajikistan birth. children with around three of school-age quarters Europe and Central Asia Formal ahome? Atin or care home report adoption and of childrenthe UNICEF Eastern in noted As in countries (UNICEF, in 22 2010a). residential care in the world–over 626,000 region the has highest number of children ininstitutionalization of children. CEE/CIS The Related to the issue is of the needs children education disabilities with and special care residential in disabilities with Children Education Equity Now! Equity Education

, “the system Soviet legacy continues to dominate the child-care 100,000 between 1990 and 2008). per disabilitieswith in residential care is increasing, 291.4 such as Croatia (from to 438.3 countries where the rate of children shows Figure CEE/CIS 35 over decades. two the past countries and increased in others to 17-year-olds in CEE/CIS decreased some has of 0- of children disabilities with in proportion residentialThe to respect care with the population them to work. facilities to notallow do exist parents because or seek day-care services support because to or otherdisabilities schools may resort boarding institutions for their children, either care. there Where facilities are education nearby, nosuitable parents of children with represent –over needs education one third alarge proportion –of children in residential to 1.7cent of in 2000 the population cent per in 2007. Children disabilities with and special of reforms, ongoing institutional care is increasing rather than decreasing −from 1.5 per more likely to institutionalised(UNICEF, be 2012e). than a child adisability In spite without is almost 17 region achild adisability with times estimates that inUNICEF the CEE/CIS into 4). institutions”disabilities 2010a: (UNICEF, system children tradition of its with were placing who those or and neglected with abused which is further discussed below discussed in working on the children. section iswhich further Children from poor – a cause of cause drop-out themselves, is by child itself anand labour indeed important areThey more likely to they their to drop need because out families work to and support Across the worldchildren from are the households poorest more likely to of out be school. 2.8 chapter Strategies. and Policies on in discussed the is further This services. of range support awide children, and encompass of acomprehensive and systematic reform to designed meet of the needs families and in itself. Rather,However, should not an end-goal be it part should be de-institutionalization 2011 TransMONEE, Source: 0-17 (1989-2009) countries CEE/CIS selected of age, years 100,000 per care children residential in 35 disabilities Figure with –Children 200 400 600 800 0

Children from the poorest households poorest the Children from 1989 291.4 1990 1991 247.8 1992

1993 Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 265.2

1994 States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 1995 277.1 1996 1997 225.6 1998 1999 292.7 2000 2001 353.1 2002 2003 347.5 2004 2005 379.6 2006 2007 438.3 2008 2009 Albania Ukraine Turkmenistan Latvia Bosnia andHerzegovina Romania Georgia Croatia Czech Republic

cent in2007 2000 to1.7per population in cent ofthe from 1.5per decreasing, rather than increasing care is institutional reforms, ongoing In spiteof 2

81 Profiles of excluded children 2

82 Profiles of excluded children quintile in Kyrgyzstan (2005) Kyrgyzstan in quintile of out group, 36 wealth of by school sexFigure –Percentage age and children as many boysthan girls are around households poorest of out twice school. level, inlevels, the as illustrated (UNICEF, At in 2012a). Figure lower 36 secondary-age education than girls, at at least lower-are more secondary affected by and poverty upper in Tajikistan families. different situation poor among isin The where very Kyrgyzstan, boys towardsattitudes girls’ education is areflection ofprevailing This of school. socio-cultural thanwhereas boys, ofout in the school wealthiest quintile boysare more likely to out be girls are more likely(UNICEF, 2012c, to In the quintile, poorest be primary-age in press). than boysin terms of theirmore likelihood affected by poverty of of beingout school girls and boysdifferently affects in different countries.how In Tajikistan, poverty girls are from Tajikistan Data Kyrgyzstan, dimension impact. and its the poverty and Turkey show in examination relationAn to of sexof highlights poverty further the and age complexity a risk factor. children Roma in toleads and of ofandRoma out being itself be is school, not necessarily it isRomania acombination children that at werein suggests least data of out This school. cent of lower secondary-age children and 12.6 quintilepoorest 12.9 of households Roma per cent per of primary-age interestinglybut in these families not asingle child wasofin out In contrast, the school. were in of households the afraction sample Roma Only from the wealthiest quintile, rates andof out school (UNICEF, 2012b, children,relation Roma poverty between in press). in provides Romania conducted an interesting Budget Survey Household insight into the above, discussed many communitiesAs Roma are characterized 2009 by poverty. The indiscussed detail in the chapter. next met.andof other children to cannotfor be schooling These barriers are education poor families are also more likely to the not costs attend or stopbecause attending school Source: UNICEF, 2012a based on MICS, 2006 data 2006 MICS, on UNICEF, 2012a based Source: Education Equity Now! Equity Education % 10 15 20 25 0 5 secondary age -‐ 5.4 Lower Lower Boys 0.8 secondary age -‐ of poverty and belonging to and belonging amarginalized of ethnic poverty group which 2.1 Lower Lower Girls Girls 0.3 Upper secondary age -‐ Boys 23.3 9.6 Upper secondary age -‐ Girls 12.8 9.5 Richest quintile Poorest quintile quintile Poorest

out of school children risk groups, below. to in discussed belonging on the section multiplepoverty, is ethnicity, further sex), or age ofcharacteristics children, of out school as and not just one characteristic in isolation (such at of acombination looking other children of out school riskimportance factors. The manywith to examples association These emphasize poverty’s serve of the significance they get older, except they boysonce reachof the age 14 to 17. childrenhand, from the wealthiest quintile are not muchmore likely to as of out be school are likely girls in Poor particular school. the other to On as adolescents. of out be school are more likely to as they of out be –suggesting that school get they older drop from out children, and this for is the case both girls and boys.Children from the quintile poorest illustrates37 another trend for Turkey: children older more affects than younger poverty are more likely to excluded be age. Figure from except education education, at primary In Turkey, the situation for girls is similar to Tajikistan. Girls from the households poorest families greater face pressure earningan income. to start is muchsmaller. and poor rich adolescentboysfrom low-income because may be This than 10 less with compared cent per of the wealthiest quintile. between girls, the gap For of age, thealmost quintile poorest aquarter is of out school, secondary boys reach upper grows for and poor rich boysas between they the gap getIn addition, older. the time By Source: UNICEF, 2012d, in press, based on DHS 2008 data 2008 DHS on based UNICEF, 2012d, press, in Source: quintile in Turkey 37Figure of out level, of by school –Percentage age children wealth sex and 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 0.0 6-‐to 10-‐year-‐ olds -‐ Male 14.0 5.1 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional olds -‐ Female 6-‐to 10-‐year-‐ 13.9 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 5.8 11-‐to 13-‐year-‐ olds -‐ Male 27.3 11.1 11-‐to 13-‐year-‐ olds -‐ Female 37.9 9.0 14-‐to 17-‐year-‐ olds -‐ Male 64.4 14.4 14-‐to 17-‐year-‐ olds -‐ Female 77.3 5.1 Richest Poorest

83 Profiles of excluded children the region from 1-32%in rates range Child labour 2

84 Profiles of excluded children straightforward. The 18 The straightforward. Translating of into concept child labour the legal terms statistical for measurement is not and sources was definition employedchild and nostandard acrossof labour all studies. is from in Figure notedIt should various be years used to38 that the data chart produce cent to per Romania in Moldova. 32.4 cent per countries, in from range which 0.9 shows ratesFigure child labour 38 in CEE/CIS higher risk of out. dropping themmay cause to absent be frequentlyaresult, worse they As and do at school. are at a Even domestic work. and variousunpaid trades if working children to go work do school, children in form some are of engaged work activity, including in the agriculture sector, and exclusionChild labour are from related, education closely as many of out school 2.9 terms. The child labour measure used in the Global Out of school Children measure of child Out terms. school labour Initiative usedin the The Global is forstandards translating the into international child on labour standards legal statistical step in asignificant this made whensetadopted it forward first-ever global theregard of Education Equity Now! Equity Education In some countries, child labour excludes children from education. children excludes labour child countries, some In

Working children Working © UNICEF/SWZ/01058 th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) in 2008 in 2008 International Statisticians Conference (ICLS) of Labour CEE/CIS countries (2000-2007) countries CEE/CIS 14 5to aged in of labour children child in 38 –Percentage Figure engaged schooling for basic limit age tothe children scope to up and including 14 years of age,upper as it is the common most the on measurementbased resolution, guidelines containedin the 18thand restricts ICLS 68 as likely arechild girls. with labour twice to compared of out be school where in isRomania, opposite the boysinvolvedthan case boysto of out The be school. in in ofout Furthermore, Turkey school. girls involved are in child labour also muchmore likely more likely in Turkey to ofin out particular be school, where over halfof child are labourers the other Kyrgyzstan. On children hand, in and Romania Turkey are in child labour far engaged cent in Turkey, 10 with compared cent per in Tajikistan of and more children than aquarter in of percentage childrenThe involved cent per per in and 2.8 Romania is just in child 0.8 labour and exclusionchild labour from education. respectively, factors involvement affecting in order to the important most help identify in figures are highlighted dark and light shades, in thesecond-highest highest and column, child labour who are out of school children 5-14 aged involved in child labour, as well as the of percentage children involved in in Table data The these on 4is measurement based guidelines. It shows the of percentage UNICEF Childinfo, 2011 20 30 40 10 0

3. 2. 1. The child labourmeasurecomprisesthreegroups:

during thereference week). for consumptionwithintheirownnal services household,commonlycalled’householdchores‘, for atleast28hours 5-1 for atleast14production boundary hoursduringthereference week); 1 and outsidefamily settings; for own use.Itincludesforms ofwork inboth theformal andinformal sectors,aswell asforms ofwork bothinside covers children ofnon-market inallmarkettypes production,includingproductionofgoods productionandincertain of National forAccounts atleastonehour during thereference (SNA)productionboundary week). Economicactivity Fiv

2-14 year-olds innon-light(or’regular‘) (i.e.,thoseengaged inanyfalling economicactivity within theSNA Romania e- to11-year-olds (i.e.,thoseengagedinanyfalling ineconomicactivity withintheUnitedNationsSystem 4 year-olds (i.e.,thoseengagedinthe productionofdomesticandperso- inhazardousunpaidhouseholdservices

Kazakhstan

Turkey Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Armenia

Kyrgyzstan 68 .

Serbia , for Tajikistan Romania, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey. In each

Belarus

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Azerbaijan

Ukraine

Montenegro

Tajikistan

Albania

Georgia

Moldova

characteristics and family circumstances with other interacts because it is complex exclusion education of povertyon The impact 2

85 Profiles of excluded children out ofschool children tobe rural working as likely three times more than children are urban working In Tajikistan 2

86 Profiles of excluded children construction labourers and girls as servants, waitresses and dishwashers (Saidov, 2007). waitresses and girls labourers as servants, and dishwashersconstruction 2007). (Saidov, working in markets,are boysworking as often older familywith bread winners, typically families areas whereas is which often in unpaid, urban children in low-income picking), cotton areasurban in Tajikistan. Children in rural areas tend to work in the agricultural sector (mainly children due to tobe could out of theThis be nature school. of children’s work in rural versus that in Tajikistan working children urban are more than three times as likely as rural working However, ratio is not available for Romania). it is striking by the rural/urban (data child labour TajikistanIn Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey, children in rural areas are more likely to involved be in 71 70 69 Source: UCW, 2011 UCW, Source: are out of schoolare 5-14Table aged of children 4−Percentage involved years who labour child in

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Total Urban Male highest Region - lowest Region - Ages 12-14 Ages 5-11 Rural Female quintile wealth Highest quintile wealth Lowest Regions withthelowest rateofchild labour:Bishkek inKyrgyzstan andDushanbein Tajikistan. Region withthehighestrateofchild labour:Issyk-Kul inKyrgyzstan andGBAO (GornoBadakhshan) in Tajikistan. age rangeof5-11 was inthe table instead6-11 (**). For somelevels was ofdisaggregationnodata available (-)orwas excluded due tosmallsamplesizes (*).In Turkey, the 71 70 62.5 26.3 28.4 25.2 25.4 18.4 31.4 26.1 27.2 14.1 Children involved 0.5 K 69

in child Labour yrgyzstan (%) 6.2 3.5 . 0.8 4.6 5.0 0.6 4.6 5.6 2.4 6.0 4.7 1.9

- - * Child labourers out of school (%)

Children involved 0.9 1.5 0.7 1.0 * * ------in child Labour Romania (%) 49.3 16.6 33.1 27.1 9.9

* Child labourers out of school (%) 23.4 10.0 10.6 3613.9 13.6 10.6 18.1 Children involved 6.4 . 9.3 9.4 2.5 8.1 6.1 in child Labour Tajikistan (%) 25.9 16.8 10.4 10.6 12.7 11.0 11.6 8.2 7.0 Child labourers out of school (%)

1.2** Children involved 4.2 3.2 2.8 2.4 6.0 1.9 ------in child Labour Turkey (%) 18.6** 44.3 55.2 55.9 55.5 64.0 71.5 Child labourers out of school (%) children, children discrimination affected by are gender and adolescents more likely to be children needs, from education workingdisabilities the households, poorest and special earlier discussed in this chapter,hildrenAs belonging children from school ethnic multiple of to minorities, out children with 2.10 tocomponent in include future surveys. not do allow an important labour be for could by regionThis district. disaggregation or childconsideration inlabour. combating Unfortunately, measure which surveys some child ratio, or age. Consequently, gender this is an important on the rural/urban disparities based and Tajikistan,Kyrgyzstan regional rates in disparities child labour are muchgreater than autonomous province. In both cent per in the Gorno-Badakhshan 23.4 cent with compared province. In Tajikistan, per 2.5 rate the child labour isDushanbe: similarly low in the capital centper of children arecent per in Issyk-Kul involved 62.5 with compared in child labour Bishkek,capital In 0.5 the only Kyrgyzstan location-specific. very be can Child labour are who labourers far more likely to of out be school. childrenolder are somewhat more likely to involved be it is younger in child child labour involved as well in child labour as to of However, out be school. in although Kyrgyzstan 12 childrenOlder to (aged are14) more likely 5 to 11) than younger children (aged to be children groups risk C A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

of school likely tobeout are evenmore risk profile more thanone Children with 2

87 Profiles of excluded children dropping out at riskof children being can leadto achievement academic and poor being overage repetition, Grade 2

88 Profiles of excluded children 2011f) children ofout the risk school risk of groups exclusion compounds (UNICEF, from education LyuliThe in is Kyrgyzstan an example ethnic community of to how belonging minority multiple children children children Similarly,school. while Roma 80 people have completed people 1080 local school does not beyond go does 9 school local reduces the likelihood of Lyuli youth continuing their outside communities. education The work of outside their communities. of the prospect discrimination In addition, and bullying LyuliThe is highly marginalized community and prejudice makesfind betterto it difficult children risk groups children risk group, for and rises children further to belonging out of more school than two excludedbeing rises from for education children to belonging more than oneof out school even more likely to out of Numerous be school. householdsurveys show that the risk of ofout However, school. those children more with than one of these are characteristics 73 72 are which education, looked at below. also at section looks secondary factors This which to of areout the primary, grade last and survival transition to rates lower from primary levels Two of and lower education. secondary the primary drop- indicators reflect which Dimensions 4and 5represent children are who at risk of from withdrawing or out dropping 2.11 three times as many children were enrolled in 1 Of those childrenOf enrol that do in 1 teachers make before day atourEvery starts, around school to the school ‘collect’ children. enrolled soirregularly. often those do children In addition, school attend in school. do who Lyuli children are their cent per families. of school-age around to Only child 40 labour support be out of school inout of Tajikistan,be school girls school, but are but school, at risk of out. dropping likelihood following of of at out The being looks children section school. are who attending children of out school combinations profilesor riskof particular factors lead greaterto a childrenschool profiles arediscussed chapter,in the next addressing the issue whyof toof to corresponding children various of out barriers education to of out The be school. ethnic group, child labour, cent per discrimination around and gender causes –which 60 LyuliFor children, it isof acombination risk factors to – poverty, belonging a marginalized of the reasons why girls are more likely to drop out. is one marriage just with Early boyscompared 120 girls). enrolled girls (277 with compared discriminationmany as boys isGender twice reflected are in thatmorethe fact than

Education Equity Now! Equity Education obtained duringaMayobtained 2012 visitto theLyuli school. community Information ontheLyuli isbasedonaUNICEF2011 community reportaswell asinformation (such asenrolmentdata) meaningful estimatesofeducation participation. or moreOOSC profile characteristics couldbecombined,the sample size would generallybetoosmalltoproduce The samplesize ofhousehold surveylimitsthelevels ofdisaggregationthatcan beaccuratelyreported. Although four 73 Dimensions 4 and 5: Children exclusion of risk at Dimensions 4and 5: . The Lyuli community is very poor and from an early age children and from age are an early Lyuli poor involved. The is very in community from from are particularly likely are to households of particularly out be school. poor 72 . For example,. For are while children households more from likely poor to th grade and only two have two completed and only higher grade education. from from st th grade, only a fraction make afraction only grade, it to 9 grade. In a community of around 4,000 people, only people, of around In acommunity grade. 4,000 Roma are more likely to inRoma out of Romania, be school

are particularly likely are to households particularly out of be poor st grade compared with 9 with compared grade th th grade; in 2012 grade; over grade. grade.

above in children on the section to belonging multiple children of out school risk groups, figuresdisguisepotentially inequalities. For high local and example,regional discussed as countries. Secondly, national rates higher may be in CEE/CIS some thatdrop-out actual to it needs but taken rates be into are under-reported, consideration extentwhat drop-out It is notknown financing. school to directly impacts drop-outs funding and reporting capita where the case there be is per- may which particularly ratesout are often under-reported, below. However, there issues are to need which kept two be is drop- that first in mind. The relatively high transition rates rates to andof survival the primary, grade last as discussed entering is school, reflected This in school. the late fromout or dropping lower secondary Instead,world. exclusion is from more likely education by children caused never entering children of out other with school compared regions in the primary-age among of drop-outs region alower generallyhas earlier discussed in proportion this chapter,As the CEE/CIS region. issue for the CEE/CIS 2011). and UIS, pertinent achievement is avery academic Poor in(UNESCO particular repetition, achievement grade academic being overage and poor the risk of drop-out: earlier in this chapter. factors at looks are additional which section to This known increase as discussed risk, 1) is also afactor increases which the drop-out experience (Dimension disability, for example, are at greater of pre-primary risk of from out dropping Lack school. at risk of of out Children dropping school. communities in living Roma and children a with children are who ofasearlier out discussed in this school, chapter, and profiles childrenof profiles There is, between ofof course, a correspondence increase the risk of drop-out.

© UNICEF/GIACOMO PIROZZI/00730 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

financing impacts school directly dropouts reporting where be thecase particularly which may reported, often under- rates are Dropout 2

89 Profiles of excluded children in theworld other regions compared to children out ofschool primary age amongst of dropouts proportion has alower generally CIS region The CEE/ 2

90 Profiles of excluded children Figure 39 – Survival rate to the last grade of primary (%, 2008) (%, of primary grade last the to rate 39Figure –Survival Tajikistan (for of primary grade the latest is from data 2005). cent 97per for only but girls –this means that three cent per of not girls do reach the last and Tajikistan, aredisparities in Azerbaijan rates where are cent survival per 100 for boys biggest countries. The rates similar are forSurvival very girls and boys in most CEE/CIS rates, children 100 six of with out survival every not reaching of the primary. grade last and Turkey Bulgaria cent). per from 92 starts have thatcountries the chart lowest (note rates are survival shown inhigh to Figure–close centAs per 100 −for 39, CEE/CIS most school. during primary Consequently, rates give of an survival indication the risk of drop-out are 1who expectedgrade to of reach the primary, grade last regardless of repetition. indicates rate the of percentage pupils to starting of survival the primary grade last The primary of grade last the to rates Survival level.at the local rates at national level not do preclude such cases course, low 2012). drop-out Of cent (UIS, However,rate in is Kyrgyzstan 97.6 to survival of the grade last primary the per nation-wide education. to prior out dropping alarge percentage with 1 and 9, completing primary gradesin of the Lyuli childrenbetween out dropped in the Kyrgyzstan majority community 75 74 Transition rates lower to secondary primary from Transition rates 2011b UIS, Source: Serbia (both 97.9 (both Serbia cent). per and and Bulgaria (97.6 Romania cent), per cent), per (96.9 Albania Turkey cent), per (96.7 where cent. isBosnia followed theper and This Herzegovina, transition rate by is just 83.6 exception clear The is from cent). 75per starts that the chart (note as shown in Figure 40 100

92 94 96 98 Education Equity Now! Equity Education primary educationintheprevious year.primary programmes only)inagiven year, expressedofthenumberpupilsenrolled inthefinalgradeof asa percentage The education (general transitionrateto(lower)isthenumberofnew entrantstothefirstgradeof secondary secondary Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from2006; forData Belarus, Estonia,theRussian Federation, Tajikistan and Turkey for arefrom2007; Armenia and The former

Bulgaria

Turkey

Romania 75

from primary to lower secondary are generally high in CEE/CIS countries, are generallyhigh in to CEE/CIS lower from secondary primary Georgia Russian Federation

Moldova

Latvia

Kyrgyzstan The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Estonia

Hungary

Poland Armenia

Lithuania

Azerbaijan Uzbekistan

Slovakia

Ukraine

Serbia

Croatia

Kazakhstan 74

Tajikistan

Belarus

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Figure 40 – Transition rate from primary to secondary (2009) secondary to primary from rate 40–Transition Figure primary after school many girls as boysnow to on As go secondary attend is available). data which latestrate year (the increased for from just 31 cent per in 1977 cent per in to 2008 96.7 both in terms of increasing transition rates and in reaching parity.transition gender The Turkey story, success is anotable over progress enormous with made decades the past 77 76 former Yugoslav as shown in Figure and Moldova, 41. of Republic Macedonia are Croatia, education boysin The Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, lower secondary level. More at than 70cent lower per of countries, repeaters secondary CIS in particular in for however.cause concern, Boys are more likely than girls to in all repeat grades CEE/ levels in repetition for imbalance gender countries. most ratesand The secondary is a shows thatdata repetition rates are level generally quite low cent −below 1per at primary countries, the but available repetition on Data rates is not available for anumber of CEE/CIS rates Repetition 2012 UIS, Source: transition rate was a very low 0.69. transition low rate 0.69. was avery %

Uzbekistan (2010).Uzbekistan except is from 2009, Data for Moldova,Armenia (2007), theRussian Federation and Turkey and andKazakhstan (2008), The GenderParity Index ofthetransition ratewas 1.0 thelatestyear in2008, for which isavailable. data 100 75 80 85 90 95 83.6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 76

Turkey Index for the Parity −the Gender earlier −in 1990 decades just, but two A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional Albania and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Romania

Serbia

Bulgaria

Moldova

Azerbaijan

Tajikistan

Belarus The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Uzbekistan

Armenia Czech Republic

Kyrgyzstan

Croatia 77

Georgia

Ukraine

Russian Federation

Kazakhstan

cent just 83.6per secondary is to lower primary rate from the transition Herzegovina, In Bosniaand 2

91 Profiles of excluded children level secondary at lower- in particular CIS countries, in allCEE/ repeat grades than girlsto more likely Boys are 2

92 Profiles of excluded children (7.1 per cent) and Albania (6.9 per cent). Albania (7.1 cent). per (6.9 and Albania cent) per (7.7 Azerbaijan Georgia cent), per cent), per overage high in children Ukraine (8.2 is very of proportion countries. The Figure 42 shows theenrolment over-age ratio in CEE/CIS of cause overage.the being common most rates are generally low, asabove, discussed it is likely is school into that late entry primary theBeing result overage be can repetition of grade of or into repetition late entry As school. children Overage 2011 TransMONEE, Source: of (2009, education boys 100 per repeaters) level respective the in repeaters of total apercentage education, as secondary lower and primary in 41Figure of boys repeaters –Proportion among 79 78 education starts at age six, 29.9 per cent of six-year-olds and 5.9 per cent per of seven-year- and 5.9 cent per of six-year-olds 29.9 six, at age starts education a child’s enrolment is terminated. –although primary is common late In addition, entry 14 years of requires age a petition for an extension of toyears, up and beyond two that children (UNICEF, 2012d, in education basic beyond Continuing education basic in press). administrative (14 of age attendance regulation amaximum on places which years of age) In Turkey, ahigher beingoverage risk about of brings exclusion due to from education an the problem of overage school. pupils and children not of out dropping attendingor primary rate potential children. This a of out of school suggests linkbetween thehas fifth-highest children of and out Ukraine school, of primary-age countries the with highest proportion 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 10.0

Education Equity Now! Equity Education 0.0 region. However, even iftherevised figureisonlyhalfofthe existing figure,it would stillbeoneofthehighestratesin As notedpreviously, theoutofschool children figure for Albanianeedstobe adjustedbasedonnew census data. isfrom2006. **data isfrom2008; indicated:*data unlessotherwise is from2009, Data

Bulgaria

Romania

Bosnia and 77.9 Herzegovina

Croatia 75.3

Serbia

The former Yugoslav 72.8 Republic of Macedonia 78

79 Belarus and Azerbaijan are also among the are among also Azerbaijan and

Moldova 82.3

Armenia Primary (%) Primary

Azerbaijan 74.0 Kyrgyzstan

Uzbekistan Figure 42 – Over-age enrolment ratio (2010) ratio 42 enrolment Figure –Over-age risk example, of (for out et dropping Hammond al., 2007). of range research as awide concern, studies have found that overage children are at greater is a serious This data. cent per enrol(2006) only around eight at 30 age to according MICS seven, at age but starts education Primary common. is also very education to primary levels, levels, low education parents and whose are unemployed. late In Kyrgyzstan, entry areolds not enrolled. children These are more likely to from low be with households income 80 tasks at the lowest reading level, 1b, lowest and second 59): reading level,2010: 1a (OECDa, reference with understood to the seven levels of literacy. following The is of adescription deviation of implication standard of better countries. these for be 100 The scores can OECD areading It has scoreand of 314, of in amean PISA. with 500 compared participating scores of science and the countriesthe lowest has mathematics reading, Kyrgyzstan also countries participate). can non-OECD is (though which coordinated by the OECD 2009, in PISA countries that participated for andmathematics science those CEE/CIS show the average in Figure achievement in 43 reading, charts levelsThe of 15-year-olds analyse the differences in achievement learning of are those who in school. others. Consequently, in any analysis of exclusion to it is from also important education not – as childrensome are who have in school for much greater learning than opportunities simple dichotomy anddo those who have –those to who access opportunities learning from Moreover, school. as shoulda andof out not construed in being school be school is poor, quality whereIn schools educational students are more like to drop withdraw or out below academic expected standards Children performing 2011b UIS, Source: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Armenia, which isfrom2007. is from 2010Data except for Hungary, Turkey andGeorgia,which Montenegro, which isfrom2009; and isfrom2008;

The former Yugoslav 0.7 Republic of Macedonia 0.8 Serbia . 0.9 0.9 Uzbekistan

Montenegro Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern .41 4 1. 4 1. Croatia

Kazakhstan .7 1. Armenia 2.3 Kyrgyzstan 2.5 Bulgaria 2.8 Moldova 3.6 Hungary 80 3.9 Romania 4.8 Turkey 5.0 Belarus 6.9 Albania .1 7. Georgia .7 7. Azerbaijan 8.2 Ukraine

in theregion from 0.7-8.2% children range of overage Percentages 2

93 Profiles of excluded children assessment OECD’s PISA according to skills, and science mathematics basic reading, mastered have not 15 yearolds About halfof 2

94 Profiles of excluded children Figure 43 – PISA Reading, Mathematics and Science scores (2009) Science scores and 43Figure –PISA Mathematics Reading, Source: OECD, 2011a OECD, Source: Education Equity Now! Equity Education Mathematics Reading Science

Source: PISA, 2009 PISA, Source: below of pupils who are –Percentage 44 PISAFigure level reading 2(2009) means they are at either level 1a, level 1b below or level 1b. shows the ofpercentage reading areFigurepupils level who below 44 PISA 2, which cent of pupils have not lowest reached the second reading level. where per around is Azerbaijan, 36 in PISA participating lowest next country The scoring above. described lowestreached the second literacy level (1a) and are to unable tasks do at level 1a as level of literacy. cent,have means that per more This not than halfof pupils, almost 60 cent per of pupils fall and almost 30 below the minimum (1b), scale score for the lowest cent per of to close In Kyrgyzstan, pupils are 30 at the lowest level of literacy in the PISA 100 At At There is minimal information. competing In tasks requiring interpretation the reader to the reader,support such as repetition of information, pictures familiar or symbols. provides such as anarrative textcontext asimple or list. typically The and text type, information simple text in a familiar with a prominentsyntactically in position a short, At directed to relevant consider factors in the and task in the text. is prominent and there ifany, is little, information. competing reader is explicitly The Typically, knowledge. text everyday and common, the required information in the text afamiliartext about topic, to or make information between asimple connection in the explicitly stated information; to recognize the main theme author‘s or in a purpose 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 level 1a level level 1b level may need tomay need make of pieces adjacent information. between simple connections , tasks require the reader to one locate or more of pieces independent , tasks require the reader to of asingle locate piece explicitly stated A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Below level 1b 1b Level Level1a

95 Profiles of excluded children families than wealthy poor families areas andin than inurban in ruralareas much lower generally on PISAare outcomes Learning 2

96 Profiles of excluded children for all countries participating in PISA, with just with afew exceptions.for in PISA, all countries participating region, trendthe same and indeed is true plot wouldinfollowed the be scatter for the CEE/CIS countries, assuming that the trend shown issue many is asignificant in ofCEE/CIS education Figure 45 – PISA mean reading scores plotted against GDP per capita at PPP at GDP (2009) capita per against 45 plotted Figure scores –PISA reading mean on PPP based capita in termsper of GDP Azerbaijan Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and and Moldova, Uzbekistan Ukraine, Albania than are all poorer is not of limited education quality topoor the countries listed Georgia, above. Armenia, Therefore, in all in likelihood PISA. countries not did participate the CEE/CIS poorest Albania, the exception With of and Kyrgyzstan versa). vice (or PPP on based capita per decreasing GDP shows plot reading trend in scores Figure aclear scatter with in decreasing 45 PISA The than one third of pupils are level 1b below. or Montenegro In Bulgaria, more and Romania cent). per (83.3 and Kyrgyzstan cent) per (58.6 Kazakhstan (72.7 cent), per Azerbaijan cent), per (57 lowestsecond Albania reading level: countries, more than halfof pupilstasks are above to the unable perform In four CEE/CIS 81 2011a; IMF, OECD, 2011 Source:

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Current internationalUSD.

PISA mean reading score GDP percapitaatPPP 81 (IMF, 2011). It is likely quality that poor UNICEF CEE/CIS programme countries (2006) countries programme CEE/CIS UNICEF PISA mean in science by school scores locationin –Differences 46 Figure data). 2006 PISA on programme countriesCIS (based shows which CEE/ score science mean differences forthe linein Figure UNICEF graph 46, in large cities, followed by smaller cities, towns, small towns is shown in This and villages. gets progressively lower the smaller and more remote scores are the highestcommunity; tests is generally muchlower PISA on in rural areas areas,Performance than in and urban programmes (UNESCO, 2007). It also typically features amore It also typically specialized teaching staff. 2007). programmes (UNESCO, and consistsof schooling diverse structures,often tracks marks and the endof compulsory level 3) (ISCED education secondary Upper 2005). (UIS, education secondary upper with more and has countries insome common education it is institutionally distinctfrom primary although in schooling, aimsgenerally maintains of the educational primary and deepens level (ISCED education Lower education. secondary toneed beyond go lower secondary and skillsthe required knowledge for in competing aglobalized the youth world, of today level. In order to acquire secondary still fromat withdrawing or out upper dropping school arenumbers significant but education, cent and lowerper enrolment secondary in primary countries are reaching 100 noted As in the introduction,education. anumber of CEE/CIS are at or of out risk of school exclusion, to secondary at also upper look it is important who age school children with is of mainly concerned compulsory this report Although 2.12 data 2006 PISA on based UNICEF, 2009b from adapted Source: 300 400 500 350 450 550 Upper secondary education secondary Upper village A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern small town town city large city Kyrgyzstan Romania Turkey Serbia Bulgaria Federation Russian Croatia Azerbaijan Montenegro

2 )

countries many CEE/CIS decade in over thepast significantly increased have secondary in upper Enrolments 2

97 Profiles of excluded children Uzbekistan per centin to over100 in Tajikistan 61.3 percent ranges from secondary in upper enrolment Gross 2

98 Profiles of excluded children trends over time, selected CEE/CIS countries (2000 countries –2010) over CEE/CIS selected trends time, education, upward 47Figure upper secondary in ratio enrolment –Gross gross enrolment secondary ratios in upper toDue for of the lack data net enrolment rate this secondary, focuses section in upper on 83 82 61.5 cent per in 2010. was in where Kyrgyzstan, the gross enrolment to ratio from declined 87.3 cent per in 2000 cent per in 2010. steepest to decline The it dropped 78.3 to 2003, cent per 100 from 2000 In Ukraine, where the grossshown in enrolment Figure 48. ratio to was close above or In afew steep declinesare countries is negative, the slope and those particularly with 2012 UIS, Source: secondary education combined education secondary 2000 to 98 per cent per in 2010. to 98 2000 by 2010. the Ingross Romania, enrolment cent per in ratio increased steadily from 69.9 to down 58.1 cent per cent,the gross per enrolment ratiotoin 2000 increased rapidly 86.3 Moldova, decline In following a significant therethough decline2009. in was a significant to 81.3enrolment cent per fromin 2010, ratio cent almost 42 per doubled in 2000 even to 61.3 cent per in 2010. cent the per gross in 2000 In Albania, ratio increased from 45.2 gross enrolment are shown in Figure 47. In Tajikistan, gross enrolment secondary the upper large increases secondary in upper countriescent particularly with Those in Uzbekistan. gross enrolment ratio from ranges secondary 61.3 cent per in Tajikistan to over per 100 2012). Across the region, the upper countries (UIS, in manyover CEE/CIS decade the past terms of gross enrolment) (in have increased significantlyEnrolments secondary in upper

Education Equity Now! Equity Education group. educationexpressedof thepopulationinthatage asapercentage educationenrolledinsecondary group for secondary netenrolmentrate(lower-Secondary combined),isthenumberofpupilsintheoreticalage anduppersecondary education. ofthepopulationintheoreticalagegroupforas apercentage uppersecondary grossenrolmentrateisthenumber ofpupilsenrolledinuppersecondary, regardlessofage,expressedUpper secondary % % 100 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0 Tajikistan Tajikistan Tajikistan Tajikistan 45.2 45.2 61.3 61.3 83 . 42.0 42.0 Albania Albania 81.3 81.3 82 and net enrolment rates in lower- and upper Republic of Republic of Moldova Moldova 58.1 58.1 86.3 86.3 69.9 Romania 69.9 Romania 98.0 98.0 2010 2000 2010 2000

trends over time, selected CEE/CIS countries (2000-2010/11) countries over CEE/CIS selected trends time, education, downward upper secondary in ratio enrolment –Gross 48 Figure 85 84 children ofout school in the region. cent in 2010, one of has the and at highest time the rates same the country of primary-age centper in 2011 in the latest available data to down 7.2 (but were age still in of out 2009 school centper of children of primary-school that 8.3 considering when receives –especially education relatively high priority secondary indicates This that higher was actually by 2.7 education cent per in 2009. in secondary the innet In contrast, Uzbekistan enrolment education. rate than toeducation secondary that incent. suggests these This countries was given to muchgreater primary priority and Turkey Kyrgyzstan Georgia, In Bulgaria, there is adifference of more than 15 per are shown in Table is available for data for both indicators. 5, countries where (recent) adjusted net net enrolment enrolment primary ratesDifferences between and secondary ratios have increased to over to cent,up per 100 129.3 cent per in 2011. since but then gross enrolment indecline the gross enrolment and 2002, ratio in 2001 cent per in 2011. subsequentlybut to rebounded 86.6 steep there In Uzbekistan, was avery cent to per in 2008, 67 the cent gross per enrolment in 2000 ratio from declined 99.5 48) uneven inProgress been Figure has in countries. some example, (shown For in Kazakhstan 2012 UIS, Source: where the secondary gross enrolmentwhere ratio the secondary

Data for secondary netenrolmentwas for notavailableData secondary for Moldova. isfrom2009. For netenrolmentrate, thelatestdata thesecondary % 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 100.1 Ukraine Ukraine A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional 78.3 and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern Kyrgyzstan 87.3 61.5 85 84 2010 2000 increased from 86 per cent in 2003 to per104 cent per in 2003 increased from 86 ). The same appears to for true be appears Moldova, same The ).

% 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 Kazakhstan 99.5 67.0 86.6 2011 2008 2000

99 Profiles of excluded children any otherlevel level thanat secondary at upper- is greater inequality Gender 2 100 Profiles of excluded children 88 87 86 1.13) 1.21) (GPI and Azerbaijan (GPI isopposite the girls far with case, more in Belarus, likely to enrolled secondary be in upper Source: UIS, 2012 UIS, Source: 2010) (%, net enrolment secondary and net adjusted enrolment primary between enrolment in Table 5–Differences enrolment ratio for upper secondary 0.7) and Turkeyenrolment ratio forsecondary 0.85) upper (GPI Index in countries, some of such as Tajikistanthe gross Parity secondary upper (Gender in theboth ways. region goes Boys are inequality Gender far more likely to continue to on ofboys out school. boys than girls were −the of out situation school now has reversed, more with girls than However, (represented by line). the middle equality gender in Ukraine − where more once progress are and are shown particular in seen Figuretomade converging be 49, towards situation improved has in many countries have Countrieswhich over decade. the past level than at any is greater other secondary inequality level, atGender upper although the enrolments of boys to girls in the region. this Since refers of the to parity gender one the it had highest when years justpreviouslythe was the opposite two case (2007) currently which one of has in the Azerbaijan, highest ratios of girls to boysin the region, countries. For example, manyin CEE/CIS significantly changed has secondary in upper

Education Equity Now! Equity Education Armenia Belarus Bulgaria Croatia Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Romania Serbia Tajikistan Turkey Ukraine Uzbekistan Data is from 2009 for is from 2009 Data Azerbaijan for and from2007 Belarus. is from2008. Data for isfrom2011,Data Kazakhstan andfor Georgia,Romania, Turkey from2009. andUzbekistan enrolment rate (%) rate enrolment net adjusted Primary 96.2 92.0 99.5 95.9 100.0 99.5 95.3 90.1 92.4 94.5 97.8 97.5 91.1 88.7 88 . In terms of gross enrolment, the ratio of girls to boys 86 enrolment rate (%) rate enrolment netSecondary 86.3 86.5 82.7 91.0 79.4 89.6 78.9 78.6 82.3 90.2 85.0 74.1 86.0 91.3 87 . In other countries the other In . countries Difference -9.9 -5.5 -16.8 -4.8 -20.6 -9.9 -16.4 -11.5 -10.1 -4.4 -12.8 -23.3 -5.1 2.7 gross gross 0.75 addressed. to countries. needs This be inthe of many challenge providing data CEE/CIS timely education highlighting countries), of countries the (seven 22 missing for around one third of the CEE/CIS level. level However,is data atin the Bulgaria lower at secondary-age lower secondary-age secondary over time, selected CEE/CIS countries over CEE/CIS selected time, secondary upper in ratio enrolment Index gross of the 49Figure Parity –Gender overage pupilsgirls boys. or among enrolment ratio, taken it should be intolarger also that account itreflect could numbers of 89 exception of countries such and asTajikistan Kyrgyzstan has where enrolment in pre-primary were fairly well throughout established the region, the with pre-schools in the 1990s, period to risk. Prior the transition drop-out is an important well of and lack established pre-primary is for stage primary as apreparatory education However, of pre-primary the importance children are not technically considered in of out those countries. school primary-age in many countries in the is region not pre- and hence compulsory education Pre-primary rates enrolment Pre-primary Montenegro to childrencentof cent 16.8 per per in and Kazakhstan from school in ranges Bulgaria 0.5 of percentage region. out The million 2.5 Around children are in of out the CEE/CIS school 2.13 that largeconsidering of numbers children level. are still at of out primary school level enrolment and Uzbekistan, is evenCroatia, Serbia high, at surprisingly secondary and in terms education of parity. gender countries, In some such as secondary in upper Overall, exceptions,some with the region is progress making both in terms of enrolments 2011b UIS, Source: 1.25 0.5 1.5

1 based onnewatthetime ofthewritingthisreport. censusdata the region;however thisfigureislikely toohighduetoinflatedpopulationestimates.Itisintheprocess ofbeingupdated According toUIS2012 theout ofschool data, children level rateatprimary-age for Albania is 20.1 percent,thehighestin 1998 Analytical summary Analytical 1999 89 at the primary-age level, to and from cent 0per 12.7 in Kazakhstan at the primary-age cent per 2000 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Tajikistan Turkey Ukraine Armenia Latvia Belarus

2 101 Profiles of excluded children 2 102 Profiles of excluded children of school. are age out three almost one million countries combined, children of lower secondary-school children ofout school in the region –Turkey, In thethese Russianand Uzbekistan. Federation threeJust of the countries total for account number of over lower two-thirds secondary-age and 2010cent) (12.7 cent). per per (2.3 2003 between children of out school increased more than five-fold secondary-age at three least and Romania countriesMoldova − Bulgaria, level the number of children of out in school risen has significantly At lower secondary-age −atotalschool of 51 the serious most to cent. poses challenge per This policy-makers. children of out are school who expected to never enter of primary-age highest proportion the region the with Africa, 2010. is, aftersub-Saharan is that Central Asia concern Another also seen steep increases inchildren, of out school although the situation improved in trend. countries –have Three additional Ukraine −Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan worrying children of is out which avery increasing school been has in decade, the past primary-age −the Montenegro, number of and Serbia countries Romania CIS −Azerbaijan, Moldova, children to begin drop However, out. there exceptions. are important some CEE/ In five level countries, that and it is larger of mainlyat numbers lower secondary CEE/CIS of levelchildren of out school is relatively the proportion low in most At primary-age school children of out of Profiles cent per of pre-primary-age moreUzbekistan than 45 Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, former Yugoslav The Turkey of Republic Macedonia, and countries they are level. Bosnia still and Herzegovina, below the pre-1990 In Azerbaijan, enrolment rates have increased across steadilythe region, over in some decade the past programmes and frameworks significantly.pre-primary dropped Although in pre-primary always low. been However, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union enrolment rates 91 90 the acute of needs children from the families. poorest and targeting education role of the governmentimportant in meeting of the costs pre-primary quintile are of afraction enrolment rates the among wealthiest quintile. highlights This the enrolment rates the among poorest countries shows that pre-primary for anumber of CEE/CIS enrolment are likely to related closely levels be to by disparate region. data Household poverty regional Hence, differences in education. pre-primary and lower secondary than are primary is generally affected far education more by poverty enrolment in pre-primary of pre-primary, levels tend to poverty higherand because be in rural areas. to Due the relatively high cost enrolment tends infrastructureprimary to lower be in rural areas, dueto of the lack pre-school enrolment cent. is below 3per inIn general, districts some pre- in pre-primary Kyrgyzstan children are and similarly in school, region of TajikistanDRD cent 4per of only pre-primary-age rates are far lower than in others. example, For in the regions pre-primary districts or in certain differences: enrolment rates disguise and significant regional sub-national pre-primary National

Education Equity Now! Equity Education countries. isnotavailableAs Dimension3data for seven countries,itispossible thatthesituation isdeterioratinginmorethanthree Children oneyear ageaccordingtotheDimension1definition. younger thantheofficialprimary 90 children are not in school. 91 . In Bulgaria, the rate. In Bulgaria, of lower and reflect the complexity ofand reflect addressing the problem of the complexity children. of out at school A look differences are differences oftengreater between-country than Within-country of school. countries the situation is reversed and boysare more likelyCEE/CIS than girls to out be cent per of the other boys.On girls in are 6.0 some with hand, compared of out school cent per of cent per lower of and boys, 6.5 5.0 secondary-age with compared of school girls are out are averagecent on per of more primary-age likely 5.4 to of out be school: groups of children areCertain more likely to of Acrossthe out region be school. girls

© UNICEF A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

2 103 Profiles of excluded children 2 104 Profiles of excluded children pre-school and secondary levels is particularly low. levels is particularly and secondary pre-school large of numbers children disabilities with remain excluded fromEnrolment education. at disabilitieswith are integrated into mainstream Progress is patchy, schools. and currently towardsshift and towards a ‘social of disability inclusive model’ where childreneducation, differentiation impairment,illness between and disability, made although there is agradual is still treated little largely with into condition, Disability as schools. amedical special recognized and care and tend also not often do to receive segregated be adequate support and carethe they 1.5 In addition, need. support are million who children adisability with in the region arerecognized, and are adisability with not not hence officially thereceiving a disability. with an estimatedthe million population this on Based benchmark, 3.6 children to make estimates using as aguideline the international of for benchmark the proportion to analyse the severity of the situation.However, difficult it is ofvery lack data possible it is Children disabilities with are also much more likely to out of although due tobe school, the disabilities with Children girls areRoma muchmore likely boys. to than Roma of out be school foris available separately data which for girlsMacedonia, and it boys, was found Roma that at risk of excluded. being example, For former in Croatia Yugoslav and The of Republic profiles childrenRoma of who specific are usedtochildren. be could betteridentify This of Roma sub-groups for statistics children, for Roma education including data particular ofnumbers children. Roma Thereis agreat for need more recent and more detailed the on actual includingsituation data of for data, children of Roma the because scarcity obtain accurateto an analysis It is difficult of schools. the countries attend secondary an estimatedOnly to 20 cent 25 per of children Roma in central and eastern European education. and many lower or population drop before out secondary completing primary children Roma are muchmore likely the with non-Roma to compared of out be school children Roma early. girls isof worse, school as they are muchmore likely to never enter drop or out school shows that boysare more likely to than girls, the of out situation be school for out most data to from illustrate serves Kyrgyzstan data (2006) this complexity. MICS Although as 0.5 per cent in the capital Bishkek cent per in the capital as 0.5 cent per in to the province 62.5 of Issyk-Kul. example, in the Kyrgyzstan ofpercentage children involved from ranges in child as low labour work year round. Therealso tends torates. variation significant regional childin labour be For areaswhereas in urban working children are more often family to bread need winners who children because in be rural areas agricultural seasonal could unpaid work, generallydo This children are more than three times as likely as rural working children to of out be school. influences therisk of exclusionFor fromeducation. example, in Tajikistanworking urban many children inof kind some are work in the engaged agriculture sector. of kind work The communities ruralin risk in the particularly and region, drop-out asignificant poses Child labour labour Child Education Equity Now! Equity Education children out of school these countries were also those among countries the with highest rates of primary-age of overage childrenproportion is around the exception above or cent. 7per With of Georgia, of enrolledquarter children arethe overage, and Albania Georgia and in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, countries of have overage around pupils. a high In Bosnia proportion and Herzegovina, one risk at factorsadditional Looking for out of it wasdropping found school, that a number of children Overage forboys. 100 education every girls continued to on 69 secondary only education; – girls were earlier – inmuch more 1990 likely decades two to stop after primary schooling Just was achieved in 2008. parity and gender 31 cent per in 1977 cent per in to 2008, 96.7 transition rates and in reaching parity.transition gender rate The increased from just Turkey progress enormous both in over terms made has of decades the past increasing thewith exception of where cent. Bosniaper the and Herzegovina transition rate is just 83.6 countries, Transition are generallyhigh in to CEE/CIS rates lower from secondary primary education secondary to Transition rates 92 whereasdecline in Ukraine there and Kyrgyzstan over asignificant been same has the gross enrolment overthere ahugeincrease secondary decade, been the has past in upper in Tajikistan and Tajikistan to Romania Moldova, over cent per In Albania, 100 in Uzbekistan. from ranges Across the 61.3 region, the gross enrolment cent per secondary ratio in upper enrolment – in terms of gross enrolment rate over – risenhas considerably thedecade. past However,as many education. children drop at out the endof compulsory secondary upper enrolment rates enrolment are secondary muchlowerUpper rates, than lower secondary enrolment secondary Upper contributing factor to theimportant high rate of drop-out. children is likely of haveeducation in out these low countries. quality dropped to The an be have through 15 as byof alreadyprocess, passed age aselection proportion asignificant tests are the those andPISA Kyrgyzstan taking those who Azerbaijan in Albania, addition, they not do have the literacy basic skills fully toand meaningfully in society. participate In cent per system of children. education failed has The these children, for asthe case 83.3 where and Kyrgyzstan, this cent) is per (58.6 Kazakhstan (72.7 cent), per Azerbaijan cent), per pupils tasks are above lowest to the second unable reading perform level (57 −Albania countries, more than halfoftasks above lowest the second reading level. In four CEE/CIS are to unable perform morecent per of than 20 15-year-olds in PISA, countries participating of CEE/CIS In the inmajority school. risk factor is low performance important Another in school performance Low

in theregion. Butevenpopulation censusdata. ifitisonlyhalfofthislevel, itwouldhighincomparisontoothercountries stillbe very region, althoughthisfigureislikely toohighduetoinflatedpopulation estimates. Thisfigurewillbe revisedbasedon new As indicatedpreviously, theoutofschool children level rateatprimary-age for Albania is20.1percent,the highestinthe A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 92 .

2 105 Profiles of excluded children 2 106 Profiles of excluded children out of school. This is looked ofout This at school. in more detail in the chapter. next and will those who never enter) thedifferent reflect why reasons underlying children are different of entering categories children of out school (those late, out dropped those who differentThe profiles children out of of school discussed in thischapter as well as the childrenof other with school compared countries in the region. of the region, out although at time the same they have relatively high rates of primary-age 93 Moldova level trails behind by moreat secondary than 15 cent. and per in In contrast, Uzbekistan children,are although enrolment to close reaching universal enrolment for primary-age reveal the different and Turkey Kyrgyzstan across priorities the Georgia, region. Bulgaria, adjusted net net enrolment enrolment primary ratesDifferences between and secondary seen for to moving towards the be gross enrolment parity gender ratio. level, although all countries increases aresecondary at upper inequality Gender period.

Education Equity Now! Equity Education cent in2010. netenrolmentwas for notavailableData secondary for Moldova,grossenrolment ratiowas 104 butthesecondary per 93 enrolment at the secondary education level is very high compared with the level with rest high compared education is enrolmentvery at the secondary

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school 3 children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Barriers and bottlenecks in school achievement enrolment and hinder girls' over women favouring men and attitudes practices Social norms, 3 108 Barriers and bottlenecks Attitudes towards adolescent girls adolescent towards Attitudes needs. children education disabilities with and special to focusing towards as barriers education, attitudes on act which children girls, Roma and and at school in community the household, practices discusses socio-cultural section This 3.1. at or of risk of school out. dropping it isalthough in often reality of a combination children cause which these barriers to out be insightdeeper into to the different lead which exclusion, and bottlenecks of kinds barriers This division is gaining of bottlenecks. for thepurpose and financial a governance, capacity and barriers, political, supply-side economic barriers, cultural demand-side barriers, socio- demand-side into and bottlenecks: chapter of barriers isThe divided four types region. to leading exclusion and bottlenecks barriers in from the CEE/CIS education countries, it should not of seen as acomprehensive be all summary within afew CEE/CIS chapter related concentratesprofiles, and bottlenecks mainlyand barriers on to specific Tajikistan Initiative: Romania, Kyrgyzstan, the OOSC and Turkey. the analysis in this As of causes exclusion, countriescorresponding in the on participating focusing in particular It links the profiles children of out of school discussed in theprevious chapter with the chapter keyThis to analyzes that lead andexclusion bottlenecks barriers from education. and/or living in urban areas. inurban living and/or inliving rural areas are far more likely to than girls offrom out be school wealthy families for data Tajikistan indicates that families girls from poor and/or (2006) example,For MICS rural areas, favouring where and attitudes practices men over women are more common. aggregates and the situation for and households in poor girls worse is oftenin significantly the region. noted It should be that the trends in discussed the previous chapter are national countries are still those the among with lowest levels in in education of girls’ participation and to strides, enormous alesser extent made has Tajikistan,in particular althoughboth asin discussed the previous education, chapter. and secondary Turkeygirls in primary countries have progress towards made inclusion of the otherOn many hand, CEE/CIS more restricted. becomes freedom levels many theirof girls girls drop reachfamily out because puberty, Once obligations. education customsSuch adolescent girls, and at lower- affect mainly secondary and upper awife joins the extended family (when of her husband following marriage). patrilocality of the women practice wearing aveil kidnapping, and bride child marriage, marriages, arranged include of These the collapse Sovietcountries rulein CIS some (UNDP, 2010). favouring and attitudes men overPractices since women have acomeback making been Education Equity Now! Equity Education Demand-side socio-cultural barriers socio-cultural Demand-side –Female participants in a focus group in Panjakent Town, Tajikistan (UNICEF, 2011e: (UNICEF, Town, Tajikistan 114). Panjakent in group afocus in participants –Female outcome, an such parents see not do their support daughters’ education.” forcefully.marry for As educated girls, to not work, are their allowed they as and “In the of majority girls to not cases, continue are allowed their education, they and A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

and learning participation children's to Roma a majorbarrier communities is of Roma discrimination exclusion and Social 3 109 Barriers and bottlenecks pressure societal and strong expectations to cultural families due support their financially to workand leave school Many boys 3 110 Barriers and bottlenecks important reason for many drop-outs in Tajikistan. reason for manyimportant drop-outs youth among interviewed (UNICEF, 2011e).the top reason for drop-out was also This an was of study found youth in Georgia marriage conducted that early UNICEF same The their education. support expected to workof outside their household responsibilities, parents reason to see little to females continueexpected encouraged or As are their education. often not allowed or that parents were or unwilling are their They unable education. frequently to not support (UNICEF, 2011e). youth Female were around three times as likely youth as male to indicate female among in rural areas youth, in particular cited reason as theof cause drop-out of study youth in TajikistanA UNICEF found was the most that of a lack parental support behaviour, they are because or not allowed to travel alone to school. to as well drop out, as families’ unwillingness to send girls to for school fear of immoral girls cause can themmarriage cause toof Early can miss familyThis school. members. Turkey, girls have greater responsibilities at home, householdchores doing care and taking woman’s role is to ahomemaker, be in As take care of the her children in-laws. and serve identitiesgender and roles, where isa boy considered a future breadwinner whereas a Tajikistan (UNICEF, 2011e; UNICEF, 2012c, Traditional in press). values emphasize strict Similar reasons for girls’ exclusion Georgia and have fromin identified education been been identified (UNICEF, 2012d, identified been press): in In Turkey the following groups of gender-related values to leading exclusion of girls have their families In due to cultural andn.d.). strong expectations pressure societal (Hashmi, many boys leave to In Armenia, school worksupport and financially Chapter 2). (see particular, and− boys Belarus are more Armenia likely than girls to drop out of school countries −in CEE/CIS In some boys’ also affect can participation. norms Socio-cultural boys towards Attitudes ■■ ■■ ■■ Education Equity Now! Equity Education to excluded be from education. significantspend amounts of time householdchores on during the week are more likely terms of householdchores doing care of to andneed taking familyGirls who members. girls boys, generallyhave with muchgreaterCompared responsibilities in the in home prospects. for employability and motherhood girlsto rather than marriage good envision agood is lower job,for to as families girls education the find priority agood tend agood need of inequalitiesmen’s between and women’s boystypically Whereas opportunities. of the lowest ranked Empowerment Gender Measure countries –ameasure in UNDP’s It is alsothe one greatest in disparities female (UNDP, to income earned male 2007). workers, female one of legislators and seniorin and correspondingly the world, officials one ofhas the lowest representations of women professional among and technical Family’s of expectations achild’s future are which around roles. shaped gender Turkey girls at riskplace of from out dropping school. for practices girls. These marriage and early engagement or child marriage arranged particular in of ’chastity-honour-sexuality‘, axis from the arising practices Patriarchal

children’s schooling. spoken their language at and home parents’ marriage, of to early practice support ability exclusion nature: social and discrimination communities, against Roma the socio-cultural There are many reasons whychildren Roma face exclusion, them among reasons of a in discussed the previousAs chapter, excluded are Roma disproportionately from education. children Roma towards Attitudes and Kelleher 2006). (Jha activities and learning-related constructive factor, may asignificant alsorole be models male boys as work inteachers to engage this provides another incentive to of lack remainteachers male as potential The in school. Girls tend education. to have fewer forin secondary ‘unskilled’ opportunities and jobs few, demand which ifany, of goods), and transportation qualifications formal educational boysareaddition, more likely to work in ‘unskilled’ example, (for fishing jobs construction, their children, and the teachers and staff are more accommodating and understanding understanding and are more accommodating staff and teachers the their children, and materials, are to known better their communities, are nearby, located are safer for in the form of and food provide support their with peers, additional educated Roma forfamilies their children feel to that segregated offer be the schools opportunity parents Roma preferSome to enrol Roma their These children schools. in special the children’sexacerbates and compounds these barriers exclusion. systemscircumstances these school of accommodate inflexibility to The pre-school. children to casein fit in absence thestructure. This the ofto the school is especially make of outside school it hard for Roma support of and alack academic barriers, of in lack or the of adequate home, lighting books space linguistic and table scarcity such as characteristics, the for Additional education. reduce their opportunities and pregnancy marriage women, early Roma some communities For hinder access. for especially girls, culturalIn cases, some pressures and social from within Roma Position paper). (Roma study have limited of understanding the environment that their children to need and support to help theirhomework. children Parents homework,and with oftenthe capacity lack of amenities deter the acquisition of hygiene basic and hinder the of habits completion Crowded and the education. settings lack to access settlements, quality also impede such in as living remote,are barriers, Other homeless. isolated and crowded Roma mayto need the family leave because migrates school they for or because work, sector, while to girls home stay to attend children and chores. In other children cases, boystend toRoma to activities. education helpeconomic with operate in the informal for increasingly common children become It has school. attending their to abandon restricted many householdincomes, families cannot afford of the associated costs that create childrenMany Roma to With live barriers access. inof conditions poverty exclusion social and Poverty of Roma children of Roma. Some parentsof Some may also Roma. explicitly request the transfer of their A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

to access create barriers of povertythat in conditions children live Many Roma 3 111 Barriers and bottlenecks learning school and access to children’s can impede migration Frequent 3 112 Barriers and bottlenecks Education Equity Now! Equity Education a focus achieving on and demonstrating results remain adistant goal.” attention to inclusion Roma across countries, most integrated inclusion with policies that there reported are been has “increasing signs of and more enhanced systematic ensure Watch their Updateit 2007 implementation. stated thatalthough Decade The to drafted improvebeen will there ofto alack education, political been has Roma decisions areinfluence stilllargely missing. Evenwhen measures policieshave and and mechanisms forplatforms communities Roma to voice and their concerns Roma needs of for inclusion intospecific system,educational the appropriate and Governments across thefail region overwhelmingly to prioritize the and consider protection. likelywith reunified families to to able traced, be be provided withappropriate and sexual situations, exploitation.unregistered conflict or In emergency children are less protection state under legislation relating to child labour, or commercial marriage early children have toable vote. noguaranteed certificate abirth without Furthermore, the closes which door, to or card being an identity for example, to apassport, getting them all invisible but in many municipalities. result It can in denied being citizenship, paperschildrenRoma some for identity renders lack The of official significant. be can the low level registration communities, of in Roma birth for the which consequences the on Rights of attention drawn Committee the Child manyto on has The occasions ofare and the costs registration. written, inhibitedbe by their of lack literacy, in thewhich unfamiliarity forms thewith language unregisteredmay be themselves −fear from authorities hostility so, doing when or parents unaware maybe simply of the requirement to register their child − or they to present register themselvesor in hospitals their children. young other In cases, haveRoma wed before young of age mothers marriage, thereluctant legal may be increasing in hospitals, the risk thatbirth their child will not registered. be Where into communities Roma a result,in areas.some As many Romani women not do give arehospitals not mothers welcoming, are not insured will and ambulances not drive reasons areThe there many: mistrust is a widespread of state institutions, many registration.children children of –alack Many Roma birth are not registered at birth. linkedClosely to exclusion migration and social is another facing Roma barrier major to is also needs abarrier of endingthese segregation.special practices of lack willingness and preparednessThe of regular to schools integrate children with schools. of communities special resistancefaced and from the staff both the majority frequently has attempted, wherebeen has it Desegregation, children disabilities. with children in order to to to school able be receive aspecial the allowances available for Weak legislation continues to aproblem. At be the national level, not all EU countries for childrenaddress education Roma also remain inadequate. issues, such as discrimination. monitoring Regular and evaluations of initiatives to notbut in terms of programmes integrated or that would policies addresssystemic governments inclusion think Roma in terms measures about of and projects sporadic have specific anti-discrimination laws on education, and the laws education, implementationon anti-discrimination have specific 94 In fact, most In fact, adequate care of and familychildren In addition, additional members, neglected. may be children’s emotional well Relatives being. may also not have the time and resources to take tobehind need to adapt new family structures, of and the lack parental affects guidance theirwith parents as well they as when are behind in the left care of relatives. Children left (UNICEF, 2012b, Children are at risk in press). of they both when of out being migrate school the community. children cause can to This fall miss school, behind and ultimately drop out another inside to according the for season, dynamics of reasons social economic because or may move Roma from to one place to participation. as abarrier education also acts This are and manyRoma nomadic traditionally families continue to migrate frequently today. children from and increases attendingschool, the risk of drop-out. staff, teachers and sometimesdeters children motivation performance, affects and school children Roma lead tocan drop early. out from Discrimination andat bullying school school negative system, perceptions and the ofeducation in which education turnunderstandably communities Roma cause to issuesto can in These much poorer thesehave be schools. where children Roma areover-represented. unjustifiably education of tendsThe quality and many schools, countries have schools special countries in the region have all-Roma to inclusive lead has which the systems. segregated education, education Manysupport parents, parents, andRoma some hesitant toof communities Roma make non-Roma of marginalization. exclusion and social Decades ofand segregationchallenges poverty communitiesDiscrimination Roma against exacerbates, andto is largely for, blame the of attainment their theon educational children. have shown that parents’ level an has impact of and SACMEQ) education PISA as TIMMS, children require, to able less support provide theand numerous educational studies (such parents low with levels Parents of education. of children low with levels are of education (UNICEF,of 2012b, school these and hence children themselves future become in press), families were muchmore likely tochildren drop primary-schooled out only or of unschooled contributes to circle the vicious of exclusion it was found fromIn Romania, education. that of parents low with levels proportion The This is higher of Roma. among education 94

States (CEE/CIS), 2011.States (CEE/CIS), Office Regional Central for and Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth ofIndependent From: in this lacking mostly region. toand education, afew name areas means for include which –or are compensation, protect against all forms of discrimination – from to racial gender, in employment as aright. But more comprehensive provisionsthat declarenon-discrimination Europe,constitutions include South-Eastern those in EU countries, specifically of directives and legislation remains legislative environments weak. The in non- of Roma Inclusion2005-2015, Hungary, 2007, p.18. Decade Watch,

The RightChildren of Roma to Education: Position Paper, Geneva: UNICEF Decade Watch: Roma Decade activistsassesstheprogress ofthedecadeRoma Inclusion , 2005-2006, A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

3 113 Barriers and bottlenecks nalization and institutio- rehabilitation health care, remediation, tion requiring medical condi- as achronic seen primarily disability is widespread; disabilities is children with tion against Discrimina- 3 114 Barriers and bottlenecks the exclusion of children disabilities with in various ways (UNICEF, 2012b, 2011c): in press; can impact attitudes Discriminatory (UNICEF, 2007). process disabilities aslow and difficult makes inclusion of educational disability negative associated with children stigma The with disabilities children and special needs with towards education Attitudes brothers, children the may cause older which to withdraw from school. siblings may assumeolder parental responsibilities, care of taking their younger sisters and effort that is not worth it.” (UNICEF, 2005a: 53). it.” that is not worth effort (UNICEF, 2005a: Even toschool. teacher] ifshe more decides pay [the attention to her, sheit an considers adisability,with expressed this help as from follows: “She little the teachers is getting at motherOne frustrated in Bulgaria, of the with negative teachers attitudes towards her child ■■ ■■ ■■ Education Equity Now! Equity Education make progress, the and maytraining lack and resources to so. do problematic. Teachers may not see the potential for children to difficulties learning with of negative teachers attitudes towardsThe children also disabilities be with can to achieve.difficult as their in class the children, needs same inclusive education making special education Parents of children disabilities the against without inclusion may be of children with labelling theirassociated with child. disability. Parents may not get theirof stigma the child because social assessed resultDiscrimination can in parents’ reluctanceto their label children as having a © UNICEF children disabilities with and recognizing their rights and their needs. to towards areovercome obstacle attitudes acrucial in disability registering Socio-cultural are needs children currently education disabilities with and special registered in the region. in discussed the previousAs chapter, 1.5 only million of an estimated total of 5.1 million institutions.special 41Furthermore, that said centchildren per of disabilities with people kept should be in per cent of people would accept achild woulddisabilities cent with friend accept ofper as abest of their people child achild disabilities with to as theiraccept going and that school child, 20 the only same In Montenegro,2010 aUNICEF discovered survey would cent that 42 per only of people discrimination face (57.6 of most cent) the per time, always or (UNICEF, 2012d, in press). discrimination found that more than half of a disability with individuals disability-based In Turkey, discrimination children against to disabilities Astudy with is measure widespread. 95 (UNICEF, 2012d, in press). as in Turkey line in rural areas as many wherelive the more under poverty than twice levels and rural areas. are urban In rural areasbetween often poverty muchhigher, such within countries,different between significantly levels andregions vary can Poverty exclusioneducational families. of poor loss Such and naturalof jobs. events hazards,violent conflicts aremore likely to lead to the more to vulnerable repercussions the economic of shocks such as disasters by caused are for costs also unaffordable makes families. some Poverty familiesand transportation expenses uniforms, of such as school schooling and other textbooks materials, school lunch even if there participation are school no enrolment impacts fees.Poverty indirect The (UNDP,Kyrgyzstan 2011). World Bank, 2010; aday,third rate is which similar than $2 ofless on in living to the population the poverty high levelslevel and correspondingly one of of inequality poverty, about income with as wealthy (IMF, is twice Georgia 2011). theamuchhigher has other On Georgia hand, muchhigher and Tajikistan, than Kyrgyzstan cent), even capita in though termsper of GDP the has highestGeorgia rate (13.6 of out age ofschool children per of lower secondary poverty, to distribution varies as income greatly from another. one country example, For indicator of ownis its not on agood capita per in discussed the introduction,As GDP at risk of exclusion are from education in discussed separate below. sections and more likelypoor to excluded be profiles as aresult. from children education of two These families, are who needs, more and children likely education disabilities with and special to be themselves workingwith children, in order toand their miss school who work and support on exclusion and exclusion from Poverty education. associated fromis closely education ofreasons. discusses economic section the highand inequality impact This levels of poverty refer barriers economic to families’ to sendDemand-side their inability children to for school 3.2.

http://www.unicef.org/montenegro/15868.html Demand-side economic barriers economic Demand-side A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

95 .

process difficult a slowand disabilities children with inclusion of educational makes with disability associated Stigma 3 115 Barriers and bottlenecks studies with their to fallbehind causes them because it hours, butalso during school need towork because they from school to dropout children not onlyleads Child labour 3 116 Barriers and bottlenecks education, in the wordseducation, of children from Tajikistan 41-50): 2007: (Saidov, following the situationThe describes of working children to and why it leads exclusion from children working Exclusion of may be recorded as enrolledmay be even they though miss many daysof school. from completely. school absenteeismchildren as Such statistics, from hidden may be official forschool just a few months. However, this increases of the chances the child out dropping in parents picking Tajikistan).cotton work, seasonal may For intend for their children to miss togo In rural areas, school. work is often agriculturalor seasonal example,mobile work (for an income, theearn temptation for families and children to greater be work can than it is to children Because are combined. mayproduce. Workbe more and school likely to to able be and selling boys) money. older trucks (mainly unloading often work They in markets, typically exclusion areas, Inchildren alsourban from differs. education are more likely to work for of kind work tendsThe to areas, in rural differ and and urban as aresult on the impact saved expenses. –by not itschool on spending well as their families. through is Money generating as well both made income activities, as working children income themselves The make alcohol. or as for is often crucial supporting parents in families are disabled, many with children and where parents are to addicted drugs where fathers), (usually otherRussian or Federation countries not do but provide support where the case parents 41). have 2007: to is(Saidov, particularly left This work in the their families.money to families, In some support these children are thebread-winners only families many to childrenneed and the earn Caucasus, fromIn Central Asia low-income Education Equity Now! Equity Education –Rahima, 13 years of age, Dushanbe. age, of 13 years –Rahima, their had supper." have they as soon as fall asleep hard to study completely work and and exhausted time.home at the come same They go to work at theof to market. Some drop them oftenout have it of is because school toclose Manygo the to in school. schoolchildren school the morning afterwards and families poor from children many are "There is located inmarket The our school. Kanibadam. Gunbazi, 14 age, of –Daler, years their help cars,wash handcarts, draw families can.” way in they whatever conditions that alot of not do children go totoo or often. skip school They classes for everything we need Textbooksus school. It expensive. of are is because life “Our cannot buy trying parents desperately both are They meet. to make ends group, 6-11–Focus Ragun. age, of years homework.” tiredreturn home at night straight go to and sleep their do away. never almost They their textbooks leave home, run notebooks and there, change go out and again. They thinking something to how earn to feed their families. usually they the After classes theirsupport family. while sitting During classes, behind their keep they desks notebook.buy families poor from Children aregular working are to classes after afford“Many cannot of even some to my oftextbooks; classmates not do have us greater risk drop-out. of early too be homework, andexhausted may simply to study. these them factorsat All place Children work who are more likely to absent be from have school, timeless to do them it causes to also but hours, because fallduring school behind their with studies. children leads toChild labour they drop fromnot out to need because only school work and drawing handcarts. goods unloading work such as construction, in physically heavy incentives for boysto work instead of to going Boys are school. also more likely to involved be and workthe home. outside Boys are more likely increase can which than girls to work, paid do Girls are also more likely to suffer burden the triple of housework, schoolwork (UNICEF, 2006). to vulnerable exploitation violence, and makesabuse of This all occupations. girls particularly or other families’ children, work Domestic isthe work. domestic among regulated least and do boys’ exclusion fromGirls are education. more likely to work in theaftersiblings home, looking of differentiation,kinds This work. on girls’ asrural with versus anhas impact work, and urban girls and boysoften work in sectors, the theyAlthough same tend to involved be in different 97 96 for reason is continued an additional for education drop-out. their to family. couples work to married on support In Tajikistan, support of alack spousal to children and family responsibilities, including financial responsibilities,pressure putting female youth and male and mainlyfor in Georgia female youth in Tajikistan. leads Marriage factor and Tajikistan in both Georgia –for both drop-out was an important marriage Early youth Kosovo in Georgia, 2,444 is often of acombination involving children factors study lead which to drop AUNICEF out. of pressures in different countries –including family, pressures and school societal –and it youth and male Female different face education. theyonce kinds have completed compulsory in discussed the previousAs chapter, risk especially of are adolescents out, dropping at particular adolescents Exclusion of Kosovo for to exams. for pay inability private The tutoring was indicated as one of the key in difficulties as many barrier youthan economic feel they to need for pay tutoring outside in order to prepare also of poses education low quality an earning income. The to wished start and/or of education 2011e). reasons Financial featured foremost in their they not responses: could meet the costs quality,education including reasons for (UNICEF, from withdrawing or out dropping education financial support from parents – was the most cited reason as the cause of drop-out. fromparents –wascited themost cause support as financial the reason drop-out. of may requiregrades form some of bribery. In Tajikistan, –including of alack parental support of youth issue, one fifth good earning in thatcountriesthese respondents as about reported

Ibid. UNSCR 1244. 97 and Georgia. In Georgia and Tajikistan, In Georgia and Georgia. cost to asignificant alsobe appears corruption –22 year-old male living and working in Kurgan-Tyube, Tajikistan (UNICEF, 2011e: (UNICEF, Tajikistan 110). Kurgan-Tyube, in working and living –22 male year-old to money.” more school work make and more didn’t anybody have to me... support left finally and Istarted to [a shoemaker] help “I my profession. to school learn left young Iwas did and not it take seriously, I and A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 96 and Tajikistan and looked at education on youth perspectives

in Tajikistan female youth mainly for Georgia and male youthin female and – forboth and Tajikistan both Georgia to dropoutin factor leading important was an Early marriage 3 117 Barriers and bottlenecks lunch money textbooks and uniforms, such asschool schooling expenses of the indirect fees dueto enrolment there areno even if participation impacts school Poverty 3 118 Barriers and bottlenecks 98 youthamong in Tajikistan, of respondents naming aquarter with this as akey factor. not interest me” cited factor commonly most was the as the second reason for drop-out were more optimistic the usefulness about the other On “school of hand, education. did required for and nepotism work, and discrimination in market.the job In Tajikistan, youth high levels of unemployment, mismatches the and those skills at between school learned that they not did perceive to their relevant education be and useful to their cited They work. In Kosovo East. Middle was the third This highest unemployment rate globally, and the Africa 2009. following North Employment are in prospects bleak the region, 21 with cent per of youth unemployed in many factor youth that isdeters another important youths from continuing their studies. of absence astrong forThe and employment link formal prospects education between

Education Equity Now! Equity Education UNSCR 1244. © UNICEF/SWZK00184/PIROZZI 98 and Georgia, around and Georgia, halfof working youth interviewed indicated problematic for should children they to impaired need with mobility take the stairs. prohibitive. be achild of can cost accompanying Even be of out the getting can home severe their on disabilities oftenown, and the cannot take time and transportation public (UNICEF, Moreover, 2012a). cannot afford transportation public children moderate with or example, For in many Kyrgyzstan families 2010). of of Central Asia, children disabilities with FoundationEurasia (UNICEF, is also an issue 2005; of transportation and difficulty cost The forup (UNICEF, 2012c, lostwages in press). toneed take care of parent asibling, relative or adisability, with to need or work to make of children disabilities may without who participation the alsoschool affect can Disability are to already struggling make meet. ends for crippling families be can costs who 21). The 2010: of Foundation Central Asia, (Eurasia of Because work. my Istill son have to live my with parents, they helphim” mewith one mothercontributing “I factors. indicated, As have to aftermy look son,soIcannot take as welland other care of are children costs as associatedmedical all adisability with to vulnerable from poverty. wages Lost having toof particularly children a disability with systems make support employment,healthfamilies and care,legal as social education, disabilities, also but their to immediate access resources of families. equitable such Lack not children only and it affects with of is and aconsequence disability both acause Poverty disabilities children and specialExclusion of needs with education also lead toalso lead falling levels spending. of education forceshrinking labour and resulting strains protection the on social system. However, it will including for challenges consequences, health, public a many has important population ageingas shown in Figure An 51 −the projected pyramidin for2050. population Serbia rates growth In therun,low are long population projected to to lead anpopulation, ageing Figure 50. countries have rates, negative growth as shown in CEE/CIS unemployment. Thirteen conditions and levelshigh economic latter theflows, which causedof arepoor by of rates in rates, countries some of and migration low an increase birth in adult mortality region overall rate the has lowest growth in the population world−a result CEE/CIS The context Demographic discussed. arebarriers subsequently being haveas strongly affected by identified supply-side been ofoverview profiles expenditure public children The of out whichof school education. on region andimplications, followedits by an contextregional ofdemographic the CEE/CIS looks toat the It first unique barriers education. analyses the section supply-side This 3.3. Supply-side barriers Supply-side A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

spending in education inefficiencies cuts and lead to populations and aging birth rates Shrinking 3 119 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 120 Barriers and bottlenecks the CEE/CIS region (1.7 cent per forthe CEE/CIS Tajikistan, 1.3 cent per for Turkmenistan, 1.4 per also have rates Kazakhstan along with the growth highestand Uzbekistan in population Figure 51 forFigure 2050 Serbiain population pyramid –Projected (2011) Bank /World UNPD Source: (2010) countries CEE/CIS in rates 50Figure –Population growth 99 as shown pyramids in inUzbekistan, Figure the population 52 in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, of isage, particularly of the population school Turkmenistan and for is opposite the case countries young andThe in CIS some alarge populations, proportion 2011 DESA, UN Source:

Education Equity Now! Equity Education http://esa.un.org/wpp/population-pyramids/population-pyramids.htm 99

. Tajikistan,. Turkmenistan going to school. going familiespoor many with children to may not the able expense be bear of all their children In addition, in education. and equity quality system, access, education in which turn affects 2011b).in the world(OECD, haveon financing the of theeffect asignificant Demographics average is the among highest to even GDP expenditure though in proportion education on in expenditure Kyrgyzstan, population pupilis below per the international large school-age example, For as aresult 2010). of the UNESCO, 2003; DESA, expenditures pupil(UN per ratios, teacher and public salaries pupil-teacher impact negatively for and can schooling pressure put populations resources on levels and large school-age growth of population Figure 52 – Population pyramids for selected CEE/CIS countries for 52Figure CEE/CIS selected –Population pyramids 2011 Bank, (UNPD/World cent for cent per and 2.4 for Uzbekistan Kazakhstan) 101 100 2011 Bank, ratesare growth muchhigher (UNPD/World than rural population countries rates growth in to CEE/CIS most population Due urbanization, rapid urban 2011 DESA, UN Source:

Ibid. is from 2010,Data isUNPD accessedthroughthe originalsourceofdata World Bank database. A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

101 100 ). Urban ). ). High).

3 121 Barriers and bottlenecks children marginalized for themost later learning a barrierto which creates and services facilities of pre-primary great shortage There isa 3 122 Barriers and bottlenecks Republic ofRepublic Tajikistan and UNICEF, 2009). facilities on Statistics of werethe Committee available (State was that no pre-school than half of respondents) far By reason the most common (more children to pre-school. asked why fromhouseholds survey they 2007 not did sendtrend TLSS continued. has The there aslight been has upward trend, whereasareas in urban the downhillsince 2000 severe, In rural areas particularly the drop been has although 1991 between and 2008. 485 to institutions from school 944 dropped number of pre-primary The is shown in Figure 53. institutions in Tajikistan in decline the number ofThe permanentpre-school during transition (UNICEF, 2007). institutions in theformer poorer deteriorated,Soviet has countries particularly pre-school facilities. infrastructure The of crèches, nurseries and of pre-primary is a great shortage Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan, countries such as Kazakhstan, low, is very and Uzbekistan and there in education enrolment expenditure inlevels thePublic world. pre-school on of pre-school and andTajikistan secondary, enrolment with compared in primary one of has the lowest low region are very enrolments rates in the CEE/CIS in discussed Chapter 2,As pre-primary Lack of pre-primary infrastructure to increasing average school. distances smaller schools, topressures the lead shrinking could financial population on and eventual merging of facilities increasing with to to need expanded enrolments, be cope whereas in rural areas implications forhas planning areas. areas, in both rural and urban Ineducation urban 2.1 rural; This 1.6 and Turkey cent cent per per urban). rural; (-1.26 cent per urban) (-0.27 Georgia 1.2 cent per rural; cent (-1.28 per urban), Bosnia and Herzegovina centper urban), 1.9 cent per rural; (-0.83 rates growth Albania include population rural and urban between rates are negative. the Countrieswith highest levels of urbanization in terms of difference rates growth arepopulation above cent 1per even in countries where national growth institutions in 1990 down to 400 in 2000, followed by aslight increase in recent in 2000, years, to down institutions 400 in 1990 institutions, from 1,696 thereIn Kyrgyzstan, in wasdecline asimilarly pre-school sharp 2011 TAJSTAT, Source: Tajikistan in pre-school institutions 53Figure of permanent –Number Education Equity Now! Equity Education 1000 200 400 600 800 0 urban areas Cities and Total Rural areas

especially teenage girls. separate toilets for girls children some and boys also discourage from to going school, facilities, of and lack of lack privacy to In addition the sanitary (UNICEF, 2010b). supply found that 41 only cent in per 2008 an of schools adequatehad water schools supported awaterlack system supply (UNICEF, 2012c, analysis of Amapping UNICEF- in press). Tajikistan, in rural areas, have simple where pitlatrines only and particularly many schools, infrastructure. facilities problematic of in absence is waterespecially The and sanitary areas,urban and the situation due to worsenedhas in some areas deteriorating since 1990 in waterregion is marked and sanitationfacilities rural and disparity by asharp between Central Asia facilitiesgirls, is theof absence The adequate in water schools. and sanitary of adolescent the participation barrier,affects particularly which supply-side important An facilities in schools and sanitary water adequate of Absence soas which, to avoid investigationsprivate pre-schools and taxes, are not registered. (UNICEF, To 2012a). there meet in 2008 the demand, are many unaccounted forto 488 provision for children disabilities. with of ‘defectology’, in the box below, described continues todesign the influence educationof tothe concept childrenIn addition, disabilities. with ministries providingbetween services providers and human resources,coordination and insufficient ofis a lack social-service to for access schooling childrenand equitable disabilities with (UNICEF, 2012e). There region, many countries are still to struggling provide inclusivedisabilities in the CEE/CIS In spite in advances ofrecognizing significant therights childreneducation of to with special needs education children disabilities for with and and resources infrastructure of Lack care as the solution best for for or young caring newborns children disabilities, with profession,medical trained recommend in institutional ‘defectology’, would typically and protectedthey grow can from and develop general society. support, with The ofplacement of disability, children, to in according residential type institutions sothat the of systematic been has consequence this approach The education. of special to determine the defects means of and compensating through correcting asystem approaches pedagogical and psychological physiological, clinical, employs and science, from evolved It has the norm. as adistinctand separate discipline from educational in children which approach disabilities with in amedicalised are considered ‘defective’ is a discipline are rooted provided. ‘Defectology’ correctedifappropriatebe services the on philosophy inand based thethat 1920s disabilities are faultsVygotsky that can treated through the lens of ‘defectology’, aterm developed in the Soviet Union by region, during the Soviet era children disabilities with were the CEE/CIS Throughout region CEE/CIS discipline of ‘defectology’the in The an approach reinforced by the virtual complete lack of any community-based reinforcedan approach complete of lack any by the virtual community-based A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

stage at anearly learning needs in identifying important role can playan needs, asit educational and special disabilities children with is vitalfor Pre-school 3 123 Barriers and bottlenecks be inschool motivation to pupils' challenge learning and detract from environments learning Poor quality 3 124 Barriers and bottlenecks transportation to school is a major barrier to for to barrier is amajor education children school disabilities. with Theretransportation above, discussed teachers and assistants. leaders, As and trained school transportation, UNICEF, In particular, 2012a). there ofis a lack 2005; adequate infrastructure, accessible countries (UNICEF, in many needs children CEE/CIS education disabilities with and special of facilities there and trained schools, personnel to isWithin ageneral shortage work with aredisabilities even scarcer. programmes for children with facilities, and pre-school ofis ageneral lack pre-school in discussed the previous As there section, (UNICEF, 2005). stage disorders at an early health problems and roledevelopmental in identifying asan theyplay important needs, can for children educational disabilities with important and special is particularly Pre-school Education Equity Now! Equity Education Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2012.Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), to Office InclusiveCentral for Education.Regional Geneva: UNICEF and Eastern From: region. invisible. Regrettably, of muchthe it remainspicturethe today in very many parts of was that which children disabilities with were highly marginalised and largely disabilitieswith at the fall of the Communist regimes years 20 the ago, consequence then, for was theThis, context policy children informed which and educational social venturing in out public. their families were often shunned that soshamed or they in spaces avoided public and recreationeducation were unavailable, largely and children disabilities with and life,normal given that streets and buildingswere not community-based accessible, confined to the home.Children with their did stay who chance families of had little a for were who ‘uneducable’ their Those deemed needs. were sent to institutions or aremedialwith curriculum, where they were unlikely to receive appropriate support disregarded altogether disabilitieslearning sent or were to schools typically special and children’s administered homes Children milder bywith the health department. ministry, homes for boarding the severely operatedservices, by social disabled by run the education schools) institutions special hospitals, internats or (boarding of institutions from off families.cut existed, of types Avariety including infant homes, cateredeach for large of numbers children, segregated from their communities and institutions where they the would rest spend of their lives. Invariably these facilities in residentialdisabilities being placed transferring schools, as they to got older adult numbers children of significant to led with medium and very severepolicy This system. are thought to hinder their optimal development within the conventional educational are‘defects’with those mentalphysical or that‘handicapped’ as arewho classified families choseto available who to ignore support Children this advice. care services or The Right of Children with Approach Disabilities to Education: ARights-Based obstacle faced in the faced region. obstacle teachers of and counsellors lack is education specialized another This special schools. teachers in these education of and alack for special needs children education special with support introduced needs in 1997 haveeducation hindered been by inadequate in-class in Turkey, evidenced disabilities.with As mainstreaming for practices children special with countries across the region, as well as the use of to remedial approaches teaching children is aggravated This needs. by an education antiquated,special inflexible curriculum mostin of teaching willing diverseschools that andclassrooms children capable include with teachers students’ consider care, and learning development, teachers with in mainstream However,cost-effective. this requires in thesystem, way ashift the and education schools morecanbe also mainstream benefits to in which and addition social personal schools, areInclusive entails needs in educated education that childreneducation special with signalling. crossings not generallydo have audio-visual is often to notproblems, and pedestrian accessible children mobility transport with public options for children ofis alack free disabilities. transportation with In addition, affordable or

© UNICEF/UZBEKISTAN/WG9P2409 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

disabilities children with services to providing ministries between coordination insufficient resources, and and human providers service lack ofsocial There isa 3 125 Barriers and bottlenecks disabilities children with intended for institutions schools and to special unfairly tracked are often Roma children 3 126 Barriers and bottlenecks by segregation, as explained in the box below. inadequately implemented. existing children by Roma faced The are barriers exacerbated children.Roma Yet throughout the regionare policies fragmented overly simplified, and of range complexaddress awide and interrelated in order to barriers achieve results for evenrather, to are free school, and freeinsufficient; textbooks transportation policies must childrenFreein facing Roma addressing education. thein barriers accessing education, illustratedAs by this grandmother from community, a Roma a single strategy is insufficient children Roma in education of Segregation existing disabilities. with compounds prejudicefrom people against society Moreover, the segregatedand that the children fact upbringing disabilities with are hidden makeschildren for it difficult adjustto if to theythe outside world leave the institution. (UNICEF, 2012c, never normally They leave the grounds. level in This press). of segregation world and havethe with outside schools in generallystay boarding nocontact education example,For in Tajikistan those children disabilities are with who not excluded from an issue forIsolation is especially children disabilities with in staying residential institutions. Education Equity Now! Equity Education educational outcomes educational of poor causes and education in of Roma children Segregation The segregation of children takes Roma The in education three key forms: ■■ ■■ ■■ This phenomenon is phenomenon justifiedThis in terms of the ‘socialization defects in the and family’ factofunction as ade parallel substandard system for of children. education Roma indicates evidence Available and anecdotal that schools the remedial data special Europe, children Roma streamed are into disproportionately schools. special South-Eastern Segregation and of manyCentral countries In intoschools. special into or the class, entirely separate classes. segregated may be They in by classrooms intoclasses. put being areas specific of students into are by often placed being separated fromremedial the majority Segregation within Even are where schools. more schools heterogeneous, Roma of students Roma is rising result facto in de segregation of entire schools. students pulling ofwhere out schools the proportion and non-Roma demographics that existschools in predominantly areas. Roma Ghettoization, changing Segregation students Roma Roma-majority attend between Most schools. to insufficient kindergarten attendance among Roma, leading to leading the Roma, children among to attendance insufficient kindergarten being socio-culturally disadvantaged and, as a consequence, unable to asunable aconsequence, and, study disadvantaged socio-culturally being whose parents had migrated abroad. migrated had parents whose grandchildren multiple of care taking Albania, in ashack in living grandmother –Roma with me transportprovide and to school?" ahome my to granddaughter if Isend school doesn't should Why the government we live! to live like beings human not and like Look animals. in conditions what terrible "The first thing that to my comes mind is that food we need to agoodhome, eat and children’s educational success. for inclusive are education not often meaning in inhibit place, that schools Roma system. within synthesized the education As unsupported below, the prerequisites cumulativestudents. of The this impact leaves children Roma and vulnerable tend education to for missing be for quality Roma necessary all aspects Almost ■■ ■■ ■■ areas, and sometimes are sanitationand facilities, basic without negatively which areschools also often in neglected terms of infrastructure, built or polluted near of qualifiedequipment staff. and supplies, and haveRoma-majority shortages are schools of in buildingsin of special need repair,the majority space, lack that are as schools residentially quality substandard segregated. In Hungary, environment.School infrastructure The is often of schools of the same special to mother teacherequipped children tongues. minority with may experienceas an alien and often hostile environment. are not Schools also culture, have that to is steeped in in the aschool they majority which learn contextsocial and culture students Roma directly influence and speech. language occur, in communicationcan gaps language, sincechildren the majority speak other with inchildren.at comparison asignificant disadvantage Even ifRoma them of place instructionis notand does language in can their This first language. Language. of teachers were unskilled. centstudents, than 25 less per with an Roma averageat schools of 17.4 cent per cent cent of per of pupils were teachers were an average Roma, of unskilled; 30.8 for example, showed in that where 2002, in those schools over 75perHungary Research findings in than elsewhere). classes and in special schools in special of teachers having nodegree at all is proportion muchhighermainstream (the than teachingis perceived in the as both more satisfying and less demanding job,which is alow-prestige school special or Teaching in aRoma-dominated is worse. ofIn residentially education the quality schools, segregated and special and socialization to the ofchildren. needs impossible Roma most accommodate in abilities and skills that stem from cultural differing backgrounds, it making methods are across the region. common teaching Such over glosses variations Teaching teaching quality methods. and Undifferentiated and child-unfriendly to of equal astandard regulareducation schools. students not do school, receive in aspecial children an Once for schools. special ethnic, linguistic for patterns Roma and behavioural disabilities, learning earmark to evaluation distort serve and do scores. In other instructors, mistake who cases, by examiners, linguistically and culturally insensitive compounded partial tests, can examinations and Superficial school. testing regular primary children when start of aconsequence unfair negative assessments These are,class. entry in part, aremedial or tools school and methodswithin aspecial use pedagogical of special as otherat speed the children. same It is therefore argued that they require the affects the health of children. the health the affects Many Roma children face huge challenges in school because the children because Many Roma in hugechallenges face school A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

barrier they createa sometimes children; marginalized of themost and learning participation not enablethe legislation do Policies and 3 127 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 128 Barriers and bottlenecks Education Equity Now! Equity Education States (CEE/CIS), 2011.States (CEE/CIS), Office Regional Central for and Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth ofIndependent From: input from and little the inconsistency parents. in quality absentor services, resulting lack continuity in a of for families,patchy to for five-year-olds, three- services forare children often fragmented, three under services with years separated old from do theyEveneducation. exist, where services tosuch fromprimary benefit capacity oflack readiness tofor negatively on children’s inwhich turn serves impact school, exist that do in the of region. lack provision This and care services contributes to a communities are excluded largely development from childhood the education early for infantsand health services also has and toddlers diminished. However, the Roma population’s to situation economic deteriorated has access prenatal care since 1989, for the youngest children and their mothers not do exist. as the Furthermore, Roma approaches and community and home-based and culturelanguage is acknowledged, available, to there create effort is usually little adiverse environment in the which Roma is akindergarten families, When not do have and are adequate space underfunded. that remain areof Kindergartens the too countries expensive in CSEE. for Roma most there elimination widespread been has of 1989, Since free from most kindergartens their own children. them making empowered less education, to for the claim education right to quality of the parents of childrenmajority Roma have themselves received an inadequate young by that the children. a offact problems are very education The compounded for the institutions development, care and and support non-existent or quality poor to attributed be achievement low educational in large part The can Roma among ■■ ■■ children speak primarily Romani; bilingual absent. is learning mostly children Romani; primarily speak to relate to the material. also overlook mostly Curricula that the many fact Roma theirignoring interests skills, and individual it harder making for these children limited mention and culture. of history Roma render children They Roma invisible, Curricula. transition levels between of education. enrolment performance, esteem, and retention academic to rates, ability and apoorer these it isUnder not conditions, children surprising that Roma suffer from lower self- are Roma schoolteachers, the preferred least Hungarian students of out all minorities. students to is not According ofof classmates asurvey uncommon. Roma by majority systematically ignore Verbal process. them in the educational and physical castigation by theconducted European Rights Centre, Roma children testified that teachers In asurvey peers. believed than their children that Roma non-Romani are capable less cent per Slovakia believed children and that88 Roma notin school, could succeed and inspireexpectations weaker example, instruction. For 47 cent per of teachers in children are across the widespread region. held by Stereotypes teachers lower their Prejudice hostility. and assumptions the Negative intellectual about inferiorityof Roma The Right Children of Roma to Education: Position Paper, Geneva: UNICEF Most national curricula remain monocultural and non-inclusive, with remain national curricula Most monocultural and non-inclusive, other factor found been has school to have quite as teachers. of kind the same impact gains in student muchbigger producing learningthan other teachers year afteryear. No 2011).(Hanushek, of have teachers –and Ateachersome are can ahugeimpact capable factor pupils’consistently affecting school learning achievement the most important However, is the indicates evidence that teacher quality to another (UNICEF, 2009b). greatly from one country vary results, can although thea minimalPISA impact on impact ratios have resources found been School and pupil-teacher toeducation. generally have of the factorsquality affect which tospecific conclusively difficult identify It is very prepare them to adequately exams, youth pass to driving for pay tutoring. outside (UNICEF, 2011e). also felt that proportion their classes and didnot Asignificant teachers and how of it reduces and interest engagement education quality education in further interviewed Kosovo in Georgia, community, all increase of the can which likelihood that children drop Many out. youth in pupils, low results in achievement perceptions tests, of in and poor the schooling the previous chapter indicate. learningenvironments Poor to lead motivation reduced can results countries, asin thediscussed PISA is low of in many education CEE/CIS quality The education of quality Low 102

UNSCR 1244. © UNICEF/ALBANIA A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 102 and Tajikistan and the with expressedtheir dissatisfaction

outdated practices are and teaching Curriculum 3 129 Barriers and bottlenecks teachers working as many from salaries deter Low teacher 3 130 Barriers and bottlenecks from the situation a decade ago (UIS, 2011b) (UIS, from ago the situation adecade cent per in Tajikistan, cent per in and 88 Kyrgyzstan just 64 although this is an improvement due isteachers percentagequalified Theto migration.of trained external primary in teachers (UNICEF, 2012a;opportunities UNICEF, 2012c, Tajikistan in press). also has lostmany causingtalented and ofteachers qualified individuals betterto seekto job out ashortage and Tajikistan,In Kyrgyzstan low deter salaries many from working as teachers, leading 103 inherently discussed later Financial bottlenecks, in approach. this requires a multi-sector inter-sectoralinsufficient as thewhich coordinationcrucial issue – is children of out of school and devolution of responsibility, weak monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and roles and defined mechanisms, of lack responsibilities, clearly lack of delegation effective of commitment, oflack the includes transparency lack political andThis accountability and implementation of effectiveand strategies policies targeting children. of out school and administrativelegal environment, forwhich the creationvarious reasons block can are bottlenecks related to institutional, thePolitical, governance political, and capacity olitical, governance, and financing capacity 3.4. duration of the programmes (Engle et al. 2007). duration of the programmes (Engle after(five adjusting even tosix moreyears childrenage) older of benefit than for the of age) from to children, these programmes three than advantaged and younger children years (two childrenmore for in life, benefit children Disadvantaged households. from particularly poor later in order to performance increase school is importance of crucial education pre-primary groups. Therefore,in achievement investing pupils of between differentin socio-economic and futurebenefits economic returns. interventionEarly can also futurereduce disparities in achild’s period life is the to cost-effective most investprimary to in respect with cognitive et al., Moreover, WalkerMcGregor 2007; et al., shows evidence 2007). that investing in pre- oftenbut recognized insufficiently governments(forby example, Grantham- Engle et 2007; al. programmes in cognitivedevelopment is well established, early-childhood quality role of high- laterpositive in life. factor toperformance significant, leading school reduced The important countries is also an 1) in CEE/CIS some programmes (Dimension of lack pre-primary The to reform the curriculum. than their mother tongue. to attributed efforts Estonia’s its partially be can in PISA success of instructionis the other language because at school and childrenlearning, poorly may do to materials ofabarrier also be instructionand education can language The 2012a). of arelated In Kyrgyzstan, (UNICEF, textbooks quality issue is the poor (UNICEF, 2009b). are emphasized over thinking skills higher-order –aremnant of Soviet the old approach number of words torules, memorizingminute andable being per read facts, acertain countries, rote memorization of formula anddated teaching In many practices. CEE/CIS factor related of important toAnother teaching the is quality the curriculum and out- to jobs additional supplement their teacher income, andperformance. affect professions,attractive reduce teacher low motivation, can salaries teachers lead to take on Education Equity Now! Equity Education

Data is from2008. Data P bottlenecks 103 . Besides losing qualified individuals individuals moreto . Besideslosing qualified

migrant children from excluded being from education. all. these For reasons, administrative increase the risk regulations of foreign particularly encounteredbeen moreover, and, in practice unregistered migrants are at to unable apply asylum seekers are exempt from these fees, problemstheof but with waiving fees have resident requiring the permit, payment of an initial as well as an annual fee. Refugees and inliving Turkey citizens but require of another country aforeign number and a identity the previous system allowed enrolment for temporary of these children. Moreover, children recordsthe and have population acitizenship number in order to enrol whereas in school, lateschool not or at all (UNICEF, 2012d, Children now to need registered be in press). in In Turkey, children cause can to administrative enrol in regulations introduced in 2008 Administrative regulations children of out affecting school and funding and children gaps at risk of out. dropping relatesection, to and resource allocations issues budget such as inequitable distribution,

families to thepoorest are inhibitive school fees informal Formal and 3 131 Barriers and bottlenecks nagement in schoolma- inefficiencies can leadto tion processes Decentraliza- 3 132 Barriers and bottlenecks weakest elements (UNICEF, 2009b). targeting hinders the identification, and improvement performance and school of the of absence monitoringmonitored, and coordinated. The systems managed to schools track limited resources. Consequently, such decentralization initiatives to need carefully be communities inwith andpoor those schools schools inequalities well-resourced between havecan programmespositive projects and can also lead outcomes, greaterit to of specific greaterWhereas autonomy of such decisions as teacher requirement and the implementing greaterwith autonomy may also have similar mixed outcomes (UNICEF, 2012b, in press). marginalized.get further provide in which Similar Romania schools decentralization efforts wealthier communitiesenables to create communities may elitewhereaspoorer schools, governments parentsfor with and education local also to has led greater inequality, as it However,needs. in moves Kyrgyzstan towards decentralization and sharing responsibilities and responding local to not have the powerdecision-making and flexibility for independent mandated prescriptive authorities innovation regulations hamper do can Local and action. UNICEF,in press; 2012d, centrally emphasiscontrol on with The and compliance in press). reducemechanisms exclusion could which (UNICEF, from 2012a; education UNICEF, 2012c, reforms systemof in enacting as theabarrier education acts and implementing and policies countries such asTajikistan Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey,In CEE/CIS the highly centralized nature and bureaucracy Centralization as a percentage of GDP is comparatively low iscent comparatively −below 4per −incountries of theas apercentage CIS GDP centone of per in the Moldova, highest rates education on in the Expenditure 8.2 world. region, from ranging 1.9 one of the cent lowest per in Azerbaijan, rates in to the world, varies expenditure greatlyPublic in asof apercentage the CEE/CIS GDP education on financing Education Education Equity Now! Equity Education States (CEE/CIS), 2011.States (CEE/CIS), Office Regional Central for and Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth ofIndependent From: segregation. of in-school their of lack training of the and understanding issues resulted in the continued practice make sure were schools the right to upholding inclusive for children, education Roma Inspectoratesa national were policy. School set althoughto County up In Romania, is an illustration of application offunding inappropriate arrangementsin Hungary local counter to at the established anational objectives level. misuse The of per-capita characterized in countries some in implementation, the region runs which by poor to and initiatives been it andhas priorities, policy needs to according local decentralization apositive oftenWhile development, be can allowing for adjustments by decentralization. to for problem of is compounded access education Roma The on Roma of decentralization impact The The Right Children of Roma to Education: Position Paper, Geneva: UNICEF (2007-8) %of CIS GDP Europe in and on as 54 education –PublicFigure expenditure 2010d). centaround per (OECD, 4.6 average is the OECD comparison, For cent). per as well as in Slovakia (3.6 cent), per (3.5 and Tajikistan (3.1 cent) per Armenia cent), per (2.9 Georgia cent), per (2.8 Kazakhstan 104 terms education. on of spending actual other with expenditure high countries, in may be comparison not but GDP education in on and TajikistanKyrgyzstan are the countries poorest in the region, of soas apercentage burden on the financial system.addition, In system. aheavy the educational places This internationally, of is enrolled the arelatively population in because mainly large proportion spite ofbudget allocated theeducation, significant to belowperpupil expenditureis average the highest of fraction 2011b). total expenditure public allocated to (OECD, education In as welltotal to as one of GDP its expenditure the countries in with proportion in education Kyrgyzisthe is among wellRepublic countriesthat the with education The highest funded. mean not necessarily does A high expenditure public asof apercentage GDP education on 2011b UIS, Source:

Data forData Belarus, Croatia,Germany, Poland, Kazakhstan, Romania andUkrainearefrom2007. 104 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

3 133 Barriers and bottlenecks areas marginalized remote and in themost especially at schoollevel, implemented are oftennot national level are inplaceat policies that Education 3 134 Barriers and bottlenecks highest rates of primary-age children in of out the region, school and this rate more has highest rates of primary-age higher than in many much wealthier countries, yet at time the same one it of has the was in 2007 expenditure of secondary education upper on the proportion In Moldova, many countries. indicator for is countries missing –although data for this particular than in other CEE/CIS for these 2011b). countries is lower (UIS, expenditure education on The pre-primary on of as apercentage total expenditure public to attributed low expenditures pre-primary on TajikistanKyrgyzstan, and Turkey in discussed the previous directly chapter be can countries such as Azerbaijan, in CEE/CIS some low enrolmentsThe in pre-primary as wellconditions as illness and resulting from (UNICEF, absence 2012c, school in press). or continue light, early close and inadequateon in learningcandle heatingto leads poor todetrimental schools cause during winter effect can time, of the when lack electricity In Tajikistan, of the of consequences the lack funding for an has especially schools press). in other ratioswith compared regions (UNICEF, 2012d,and muchhigher student-to-classroom investments than other regions, and the region is characterized by lower enrolment rates example,For Eastern region Anatolia the of South Turkey received has lower educational maskcan figuresuneven spending National withindistribution countries.spending of the Education Equity Now! Equity Education

© UNICEF/BELARUS and excursions, limit their participation” (UNICEF, 2011d: 21). lessonscharges… even ifpupils are to able incidental fees, learn, such as extra-curricular is free, “fiscal reform measureshave brought and unofficial the introduction of official including the Roma”populations, (UNICEF, 2011d: 21). Moreover, education although basic the regions poorest andexcluded most affects disproportionately [which] individuals from and have costs fund the education state public increasingly educational shifted to exclusionary and unfair, whether deliberate not. or Many countries in the region “under- both thediscriminatory,be In level addition, can and mannereducation of financing share of theallocation. budget excludedbeing in those regions levels or that low ofreceive education adisproportionately different regions, between between or levels increase thecan of risk ofeducation, children and by levelcountries Uneven bothof geographically education. spending and unbalanced It is therefore to theexpenditure consider distribution of education important within one of the lowest in the world. is still spent primary on was expenditure lowerthe on proportion Nevertheless, secondary. was asincreased, and wasreduced significantly expenditurepre-primary on secondary in recent ofthan doubled years. expenditure However, the upper on proportion in 2008 Two forms of equity can be distinguished (Ross and LevaTwo distinguished be (Ross can forms of equity provide funding communities. to additional poor funding is to ensure theper-capita fair and transparent distribution of resources, as well as distribution moreto of equitable significantly resourcesOne ofof thepurposes to schools. if well of implemented the funding formula, lead into andas taking part can account equity toneed ensure funding, distributedis that financing equitably. The introduction per-capita of toIn addition ensuring different at adequateeducation financing of levels,countries also disadvantage socio-economic for compensation equity: Vertical in in 2. 1. aredisadvantaged more schools likely to have backgroundeconomic of highlighted the pupils Areas in that school. in green background –i.e. the socio- socio-economic the school with mean characteristics school it correlates various from 2009, data countries. PISA on Based across the participating Table 6correlates equity light and bysosheds thedoing two, differences on in vertical 2012). (Schleicher in PISA countries participating countries member and partner OECD background ofacross schools examined socio-economic and mean characteristics school Preparing report OECD TeachersThe Leaders Developing School and for the 21st Century The figures areThe in bold

red V H differ. differ. ertical equity: the application of differential the application funding levels equity: for recipientsertical needs whose orizontal equity: the likeorizontal treatment equity: of recipients are needs whose similar. indicate that advantaged are that more schools likely indicate to have more better or resources A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern ifthe relationship different is statistically average. from the OECD more better or resources č i č , 1999: 29): , 1999: . Areas highlighted . Areas indicate that indicate .

and inefficient are inadequate on education expenditure Budgets and 3 135 Barriers and bottlenecks classrooms and difficult in diverse to teach not prepared Teachers are 3 136 Barriers and bottlenecks economic background (2009)economic background socio- school and mean Table of school characteristics 6. Comparison in school conditions favouring socio-economically advantaged over socio-economically over advantaged socio-economically favouring conditions in school socio-economically countries there gap is awider exception is to That say, of Serbia. CEE/CIS in participating than there countries, the with notable is in in PISA OECD countriesCIS participated which In general, in terms listed of characteristics the school in above CEE/ there is equity less disadvantaged. socio-economically lower in rural and remote areas – exactly those areas where are schools more likely to be notpositive sosurprising sign,given perhaps but that student-teacher ratios are often is a This schools. disadvantaged student-teacher ratio is for better socio-economically except for Turkey, in PISA, countries tookwhich part and CEE/CIS In most OECD the Schleicher,Source: 2012 Turkey Serbia Federation Russian Romania Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan Croatia Bulgaria Azerbaijan Albania Germany OECD average OECD Education Equity Now! Equity Education inbold resources, are likely more to better have or more schools dvantaged A D Within-country correlation is not statistically significant not statistically is correlation Within-country average OECD fromthe different statistically average OECD the from different statistically is isadvantaged schools are more likely to have more or better resources, inbold resources, are likely more to better have or more schools isadvantaged 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.09 -0.08 -0.08 0.05 -0.25 -0.25 0.15 - -0.07 teachers of full Percentage Simple correlation between the school mean socio-economic background and: background socio-economic mean school the between correlation Simple ‑ t ime 00 0.04 -0.04 .60.06 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 .7 0.17 0.17 -0.06 -0.06 0.00 0.00 00 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.04 teachers full-time among all teachers certified of Percentage 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.35 0.34 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.38 0.15 0.15 full-time teachers full-time all among 5A) (ISCED degree university-level withteachers of Percentage

.4-0.06 0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.26 0.26 0.20 -0.07 -0.07 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.44 0.24 0.24 0.44 0.06 0.13 0.13 resources educational school’s of quality of Index 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.13 - 0.12 0.12 - 0.17 0.17 - 0.17 0.17 - 0.18 - -0.08 -0.08 ratio student Computer/ if relationship is relationship if if relationship if

-0.26 0.11 0.29 -0.02 0.27 0.44 0.32 0.21 0.23 0.15 0.28 0.15 ratio teacher Student/

which need further analysis and consideration. and analysis further need which previouslydiscussed in this chapter,disparities as well theregeographical are significant as In addition, schools. advantaged the current favouring imbalance socio-economically funding formula would tocapita need take this information into in account order to correct backgrounds. per The than children conditions better or same from wealthy socio-economic backgrounds the with inshould schools be Ideally, children socio-economic from poor not and do show the disadvantage full picture. forcompensation socio-economic it should taken of be course into that account these figuresgive a only indication of rough the in Table arelatively with 6as an example of high level acountry equity. of However, vertical is Germany included disadvantage. resources school better to compensate for socio-economic have schools slightly disadvantaged ofRepublic Korea. In these countries, socio-economically countries of such as Estonia, OECD Hungary, Ireland, equity Germany,vertical and the Poland countries reach theresourced. level There is still of way along to before go these CEE/CIS are and schools staffed muchbetter advantaged strong where imbalance, socio-economically to respect these With factors there is a and Kyrgyzstan). computer to student ratio (Albania and the and the Russian ofFederation), the Albania school’s resourcesquality educational (in the index of and Kyrgyzstan), Croatia, Kazakhstan Azerbaijan, Albania, teachers (in full-time degree among of percentage teachers auniversity-level with and the Russian Federation), average in termsOECD of the of percentage full Moreover, schools. disadvantaged in anumber of countriesworse than the it is significantly 105 Disabilities with of Persons Rights the the convention which have countries ratified on signed and Table 7–CEE/CIS Convention. the Disabilities.with However, as shown in Table 7, anumber of countries have not yet ratified countriesMost in the region to are Convention the signatory UN the on Rights of Persons disabilities with Children bound tobound implement inclusive for policies children disabilities. with countries Disabilities, arewith asThese of of the writing therefore this report. not legally Tajikistan have and Uzbekistan notConvention yet the ratified on theRights of Persons iswhich inclusive of all Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia B A Armenia Albania Country B

ulgaria elarus zerbaijan http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&lang=en 105 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional Although they are Although by the bound Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern children, Albania, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Belarus, children, Albania, 29 Jul 2009 Jul 29 - 30 Mar 2007 Mar 30 2009 Dec 22 Signature

27 Sep 2007 Sep 27 9 Jan 2008 9 Jan ‑ t ime teachers (in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan, ime teachers (in

- Ratification

2 2 1 2 - 2 Mar 20102 Mar 8 Jan 2009 8 Jan 2 Sep 20102 Sep 2 Mar 20122 Mar

3 137 Barriers and bottlenecks the region countries in in anumberof are prevalent of corruption and highlevels accountability and transparency A lackof 3 138 Barriers and bottlenecks addressing these issues are in discussed the following chapter. and achievable. of the potential Some simple. But and strategies it is necessary policies in towards shift The inclusive for education children disabilities with is therefore far from parents. and teachers level of the government also but within communities of including the attitudes and schools, Moreover, beyondlevel the policy is also what required not injust attitudes, is at ashift the even that the suggests provision evidence though of inclusive is cost-effective. education of resources the on ground. inLack practice is often tohappens cited as abarrier change, of integrationconcepts and inclusion. and what there In addition, policy is agulf between indicators and implementation and there committees, is still confusion the between frameworks, action support, parallel systemsbecoming budgetary lack They of education. are generallynot harmonized planning (UNICEF, general2011c), education with effectively are which policies implemented being strategic in national and included education plans at thepolicies ground level takes commitment. time and political Inclusive education towardsshift an inclusive strategy and implementation education of inclusive education Even for those to countries committed inclusive for education children disabilities, with the 143 and 177 of out 182 countries (Transparency International, 2011). in education Corruption highest perceived levels of rankings in between with sector the public world, corruption the with countries those are countries among Transparency International, eight CEE/CIS number of countries in the to region. According and surveys assessments by conducted and high levels ofA lack transparency and accountability are of corruption prevalent in a Transparency, and accountability corruption Education Equity Now! Equity Education G Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan Croatia Montenegro Ukraine 2007 Mar 30 of Macedonia Yugoslav former Republic The Uz T Tu T Serbia R Ro R urkmenistan ajikistan ussian Federation ussian epublic of Moldova epublic eorgia rkey bekistan mania 10 2009 Jul 21 Sep 201121 Sep 11 2008 Dec 2007 Mar 30 27 Sep 2007 Sep 27 27 Feb 2009 Feb 27 2008 24 Sep 2007 Mar 30 - 2008 24 Sep 2007 Sep 26 2007 Mar 30 17 2007 Dec

- 4 F 4 S 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 N

- - - - 5 Aug 2007 5 Aug 1 Sep 20101 Sep 1 Jul 2009 1 Jul 20111 Jan 5 Sep 20125 Sep 8 Sep 2009 8 Sep 9 Dec 20119 Dec eb 2010eb ep 2008 ep ov 2009

countries very little data is available on education spending. is available education on data little countries very discussed as in theprevious for indicators; financial section, inmany particular for CEE/CIS At the government level, there of is ageneral lack transparency in terms availability, of data et al.,and regulations 2009). in (Plikšnys order to survive the result of avalue system continues which have to to persistin people which rules bend circumstances, such as the low and prestige salaries of the teaching profession. It is also economic and social explained often by be the can difficult in education Corruption computers forschool learning” (UNICEF, 2012c, in press). somoni, then they usetwo the computer. can they are not Otherwise, allowed to use the by achild in Tajikistan: described As withheld. is “If otherwise any student pays one or canbe alsopayments required pay to Unofficial or for useinstruction computerswhichof payments to for theirleading enrolment. unofficial they not often because vulnerable do have the requiredparticularly registration documents, since the breakup of the Soviet Union (UNICEF, Children 2012a). of migrant families are have education payments increased for free compulsory unofficial In Kyrgyzstan, and for children families. from poor increase the risk of in particular exclusion costs informalHence, from and bribery education and Poisson, 2002). is muchgreater in bribes paid income for (Hallak households poorer burden in of terms The corruption of of the fraction tuition for 2005). their children (Dedze, requesting tuition additional fees, and teachers pressurizing parents to forpay private takes such forms as selling answers to examinations, to pass exams schools bribery or schooling. to transcend all and make these barriers it all the way through to the endof compulsory in this chapter. It is remarkable that asmall of percentage children manage in the community risk the Lyuli groups. to discussed In fact, barrier education facesalmost every community by tochildren faced multiple to barriers education belonging multiple children of out school the previous chapter. Lyuli The illustration provides avivid community of of the impact focuses section This the on Lyuli in continuing Kyrgyzstan, community the discussion from exclusion muchhigher. become can other excludedbeing factors onetwo or with the risk fromcombined of when school, child labour, below. discussed is which further one factor Whereas may not to lead achild achievement than children from wealthier is also families. intrinsically linked Poverty to children disabilities, with and children families from poor average on have lower learning levelsexample, are generallyhigher poverty communities in Roma families and among with is often linked other with profiles children of out of school discussed in thischapter; for to leads which in childrenparticular at or of out risk being of school Poverty out. dropping tobelonging multiple children of out school risk groups. It is often of acombination factors facing childrenrriers belonging multiple to children by barriers faced on theeducation areflection chapterto with This concludes 3.5 Ba OOSC risk groups A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

many youth learning for barrier to creates a prospects employment education and formal link between The weak 3 139 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 140 Barriers and bottlenecks community only goes up to up goes 9 only community Discrimination also prevents youth from continuing 9 past also which preventsneighbours, jobs. more them respectable from obtaining better-paid, is facesfrom the discrimination their the community non-Lyuli of cause Another poverty factor children causing supplies is anotherafford school to important not to go school. their of families families. working ininability order manyto toage The children support start as from an early of causes drop-out, and is one of common the important most is very labour Child cement. to Many also begging. resort and carrying metal,scrap cleaningbottles plastic oftenand adults have noother such optionto but as collecting jobs take strenuous low-paid and completion. In order to Lyuli survive, and continued participation low education children to in which turn leads continuing prospects, job toof leading poverty low poor education to attributed be thecircle vicious Lyuli among partially can people poverty widespread The by the barriers faced education of to One poverty. the significant most is community Lyuli make education. it to of the grades compulsory last –although not many education girls girlssome to to drop prior out completing compulsory leads which is common, marriage early boys.In addition, with compared of out be school in discussed the previousgirls’ As chapter, education. as likely girls are more than twice to towards attitudes are education also a barrier, towards attitudes in particular Socio-cultural community. of their outside Education Equity Now! Equity Education term and underfinanced. and term short- are ad-hoc, they comprehensive; are not children marginalized at targeted Policies th grade and they grade discrimination face andin bullying schools th grade, as the only school in the as theschool grade, only

© UNICEF drop before out 9 childrenof children. majority the Because for sizeallits school-age capacity to have sufficient currently school runs in threeThe even but shifts, would thento need the school three be times 120 children, even children there though in the community. are an estimated 1,020 school-age only for capacity is so smallhas it community in the The school barriers. supply-side significant also faces the community barriers, and economic socio-cultural toIn addition demand-side cycle poverty. vicious factorsthe of make which and corruption, to escape it more difficult preventsdocuments to access governmentmakes and benefits vulnerable them harassmentto circle where obtaining by one documentof isof the complicated lack lack other The documents. leads vicious to a card and ID registrationdocuments) certificate, as amarriage (such documents parents’ and More than halfof lack thecertificate, childrenof have in the nobirth community higher risk of of out being school. fend for themselves. of absence parental The involvement them also at places and supervision relatives with stay elsewhere.or households, to need or children These live in single-parent There are also many children of migrant parents have who migrated to the Russian Federation their own language –neithertheir at nor home. at ownlanguage school Moreover,challenge. a significant poses theyhave materialsor books other noeducational in resembles Tajik. adifferent to at while need Kyrgyzhome speaking at learn school The language children barrier,The also alanguage face as instead of which Kyrgyz they alanguage speak facilities.and there are nosports during winteris crucial time, and there is no running water. or computer lab There is no library is alsoexceed almost school devoid which The heating, lacks of capacity. facilities. school The their owntheir education. about decisions to contribute to opportunities few very have adolescents and Children th A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional grade, it is particularly at the lower grades where demand is starting to at the lower where is starting grades demand it is grade, particularly and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

groups marginalized children from facing many is abarrier registration Lack ofbirth 3 141 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 142 Barriers and bottlenecks birth registration. It isbirth this of combination factors of exclusion makes which children Roma at home, as well and exclusion related as social problems of such as lack and poverty cultural nature, for spoken girls and the including marriage discrimination, language early childrenRoma face many them differentare those ofAmong kinds of barriers. a socio- girls –having fewer – have agreater such opportunities incentive to in stay school. boysare morein Armenia likely whereas to work inexample, unskilled (for jobs construction) cultural pressures their families. to For drop fromto out example, school support financially tomay keep decide bothAt girls and boysin time, school. the same boysalso socio- face in both Tajikistan and Turkey 2011). Bank, pressures, financial reduced (World With families have significantly at aday PPP declined rates in termsPoverty $2 of under living the population in the context barriers of barriers. economic usefulIt is perhaps to also socio-cultural consider enrolment was muchlower in Tajikistan narrowed has notably in the decade, last and Turkey. likely than boysto are ofbut out be school, example, in Tajikistan girls in wealthy families areas in and living urban are not For characteristics. according to significantly socio-economic and region sometimes varying − country and within each education, Dimension 2to Dimension 3and beyond compulsory countries boysare more likely trend to over of out The also be changes school. time –from region, asin discussed Chapter 2. However, averageon –in the CEE/CIS in CEE/CIS some the worldgirlsThroughout are more likely to ofand out this be school, is – also the case barriers Demand-side those issues are which relevant broadly across all countries in the region. to the profiles children of out of school discussed as Chapterin on 2, and particular focusing in region, this analysis sought has and disentangle to of some the identify key factors, linking them it isto not possible generalizeAlthough of causes exclusion for the entirety of the CEE/CIS different bottlenecks. differently profilesand barriers areof types by thedifferent affected very they separately have by profiles analyzed been children, of out of school children as with addition, In bottlenecks. and financial governance, and political, capacity barriers, supply-side barriers, economic demand-side barriers, socio-cultural to – demand-side the different types to leading exclusion and bottlenecks barriers The according have from analyzed education been 3.6 to arebarriers education in discussed the following chapter. required to remove the different to Strategies barriers education. for and policies removing unlikely to of acombination have strategies In such cases, are muchimpact. and policies is approach illustrated one-dimensional or of in the the case Lyuli –asingle- community children visibly to multiple face When is –which often barriers schooling the and very case, 106 child marriage and patrilocality women are the on increase following of the collapse Soviet marriages, rule, such as arranged in countriesthe some one hand, favouring of and theattitudes region practices men over familiesfrom poor the is causes On or live also not in straightforward. rural areas. Analyzing Education Equity Now! Equity Education

Patrilocality iswhenawife joinsthe extended family ofherhusbandfollowing marriage. Analytical summary summary Analytical 106 . On the other hand, the gender gap in the countries other. On gap the where gender hand, girls’ far more likely to ifthey of out be school are much more more much the are, work activities and ultimately how they their school. with affect engagement factors the influence amountThese of time howthey stressfulspend working, draining and whereas boysare more work such likely as construction. in physically heavy to engaged be the restaffect of the year. Girls are more likely to work in the and take home care of siblings, intensive of time,agricultural very period work be not but is more It can for common. acertain boys. girlsby ruralarea and In between areas, significantly and seasonal this vary in itself can of work duration –and and regularity to varies according the impact type, from The school. totheir concentrate these ability factors All inincrease school. their of out chances dropping likely to to able homework. be do pressures Financial interfere work and long hourscan with is not likely to the same. Work be them may cause to absent and less be for periods long Evenshoulders. working though children may still their attendschool, level of engagement Children may even thebreadwinnersin families, only some be ahugeburden their on placing families theirmany families. to childrenneed money to earn from support low-income linked is closely Poverty to and the Caucasus child in labour, Central Asia and particularly they not often because vulnerable do have the requiredparticularly registration documents. have increased since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Children of migrant families are education payments example, For for freebribes. compulsory in unofficial Kyrgyzstan and uniforms, and other materials, textbooks school lunch money, and even costs transportation make it prohibitively expensive for families inliving includes theofpoverty. cost This school free,Even is supposedly there ifschool are many can which of indirect costs education to school. of transportation and other –such and asdifficulty the cost costs fromlost wages having to take as well care of children as associatedmedical adisability with also makesrights and their Disability families needs. more to vulnerable of poverty, because toare overcome obstacle a crucial in registering children disabilities with and recognizing their towards attitudes aredisability needs currentlyeducation registered in the region. Socio-cultural chapter, 1.5 only million of an estimated total of 5.1 million children disabilities with and special having their child and make assessed them reluctant to in discussed the seek previous help. As parents of discourage the parents. from attitudes alsowhich can ofstigma affects Fear social Children disabilities discrimination with widespread face in the region –including from teachers, interlinked and should not considered as separate be barriers. to fall miss school, behind and ultimately these factors drop All out. are therefore closely and also children causes of the community) ofexclusionitself acause social part being (not also drives migration for reasons,poverty. Poverty economic and frequent migration is exclusion fromand low levels exclusion education, social to leads of further education and to leads whereexclusion cycle social to address.It is aself-perpetuating and poverty likely to ofandparticularly out also makes be school, difficult their situation particularly school institutions dropped from 944 to 485 between 1991 between and 2008. to 485 institutions fromschool 944 dropped in theformer poorer Soviet countries such as Tajikistan, where the number of pre-primary institutionsinfrastructure deteriorated, has of particularly crèches, nurseries and pre-school infrastructure.in Chapter The 2, and one of the key is of causes the lack pre-primary region, as discussed enrolment rates low are in the CEE/CIS generally very Pre-primary barriers Supply-side A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

3 143 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 144 Barriers and bottlenecks from the teaching profession to professions, more attractive as well as to other countries. prestige of the teaching profession is a key issue. results This individuals inof aloss qualified and Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan children. countries, In some levels particularly and the low salary disadvantaged of socio-economically the opportunities learning affects factor especially which aspreviously, discussed of lack pre-primary, The is of another education. important quality memorization over thinking skills higher-order –areobstacles to improving also significant the is looked at in more and teaching emphasizing detail curricula below. practices, rote Out-dated indicative of the large inequities within which of countries to respect schools, with the quality achievementlearning tends to much lower be areas. inis rural areas urban This with compared in discussed the previous As chapter, increasingof in school, engagement the risk of drop-out. is problem of ina major many education lowcountries quality ofThe the region. to It leads a lack continue into mainstream education. are available dueto or to their reducingsuccessfully their prohibitive opportunities further cost, none –either because fewhome. Into addition, havepre-school attend Roma opportunities of instructionisthey the not at language thespeak because language hugechallenges face not do which curricula take into and culture. language account Roma children Many Roma have facilities schools and tended mono-cultural poor with to neglected, be Roma-majority –and in asimilar way tends schools to of sub-standard special be quality the The classroom. children have tended to segregated be by within or classroom non-Roma with school attend children. Finally, children those from Roma did who non-Roma segregated geographically remaining schools, children attend regular have who schools in up oftenRoma-majority ended children are to unable follow in regular Even education schools. a standard those Roma factors, have which to led the mistaken evaluationissues and other that socio-cultural these in justified been has terms This of schools. special defects‘socialization in the family’, language childrenRoma in many countries segregated of into the region have disproportionally been is often to problems. not accessible children mobility transport with Public needs. special and counsellors, curriculum while for many countries children agood lack disabilities with and region. Typically, teachers resourced are education specialized and lack schools poorly special barriers to inclusive education children for withdisabilities there in the are supply-side significant Given the historical marginalization of children not disabilities, with it surprisingis perhaps that of children is also related to prevailing asabove. discussed discrimination stigma, and social disabilities,with many with children disabilities with This also confined to thetreatment home. considered ‘defective’ to fromled has institutionalization This the the mass norm. of children disabilitieswith − rooted in children which approach indisabilities with a medicalised are continues to ofprovision design concept ‘defectology’ the influence education of children for the often required lack generally schools infrastructure and resources. Unfortunately, the andare classrooms often to notSchools accessible children disabilities, with and more teenage girls from discourages to going school. particularly This for girls and boys, the infrastructure itself may not provide an adequate level of privacy. facilities themselves, is also an issue. privacy In manythere schools are noseparate toilets in rural areas −have simple pitlatrines only awater-supplysystem. and lack Besidesthe situationIn Tajikistan, worsened has in areassome since 1990. many −particularly schools of adolescentgirls. Moreover, the participation affects the particularly which in schools, facilities is of the lack barrier adequate water and sanitary supply-side important Another Education Equity Now! Equity Education and unbalanced spending geographically (for example, between regions), or between example, (for regions), spendinggeographically and between unbalanced unevenconsideration in identifying is an financing important distribution of education The communities. disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged in socio-economically schools between the gap widen for empowering By communities, corruption. theyalso further opportunities can up open decentralization initiatives arewhich not carefully monitored, and coordinated can managed to lead mismanagementcan of by adequate funds training. ifnot accompanied Moreover, children are who excluded at or risk of exclusion. Newprocedures and responsibilities moves towards implemented decentralization worsen the situation can ifpoorly of At needs. and time, respondingthe to same local for decision-making independent reduce exclusion authorities not do have fromLocal the education. power and flexibility barrier to a significant reforms and policiestheadoption and strategiesof couldwhich centralizedThe nature of system the education in countriessome in theas region acts financing and bottlenecks capacity Political, governance, A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

3 145 Barriers and bottlenecks 3 146 Barriers and bottlenecks combination with other characteristics and corresponding barriers to other barriers with education. combination and corresponding characteristics significant on theirbecome in barrier but – areown and gender asignificant not necessarily from In the way, same education. other such as those barriers related to poverty, disability in and ofthan ethnicity itself, greatly which increases their likelihood of excluded being moremay be likely to get involved in child labour. It is this of combination factors, rather of resourced instructionat not the home, do language speak and schools, poorly attend education, many children Roma are also poor, to access cannot or afford lack pre-primary children.to the nomore other On be likely hand, to than were of out be school non-Roma example, For childreneducation. Roma in the wealthiest quintile of wereRomania found of children, of out to school itlead is which often of acombination exclusion barriers from in ofprofiles relation this barriers chapter to differentAlthough discussed has specific types parents. and teachers of the government, also but within communitiesof including the attitudes and schools, beyond level the policy is what also required not in just attitudes, is a shift at the level that the suggests evidence provision Moreover, of inclusive is cost-effective. education of resources on the ground. practice Lack is often cited to as a barrier evenchange, though integration andin inclusion. there happens Inand addition, what policy is a gulf between and implementation and there committees, is still of confusion the concepts between frameworks, action indicators support, budgetary lack planning. They general education are and inclusive policies generally not sporadic education been has harmonized with children disabilities. with Moreover, even for those countries arewhich progress committed notConvention yet the ratified and arebound notto legally implement inclusivepolicies for Convention on the Rights of Persons Disabilities.with However, a number of countries have there progress. some countries been has Most in the region to are the signatory UN In terms of measures adopted to inclusive for advance education children disabilities, with have muchlower levels resources. of educational degree. also They tend teachersto a with university-level full-time teachers, in particular are schools in likely general less disadvantaged to have full-time Socio-economically countries examined, the with exception of Serbia. in is theopposite the CEE/CIS case in –as is countries the case schools such as Estonia, Hungary, and–the Poland Germany disadvantaged Rather than providing resources better or additional to socio-economically schools. disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged socio-economically between reveal –the results differ needs in PISA forinequalities glaring countries participating of differential –the application funding equity levelsIn terms of vertical for recipients whose where there not are do which have schools adequate heating during winter time. of also funding result region.can Lack such conditions, as in inTajikistan harsh school children in of out the school time, same one itof has the highest rates of primary-age leveleducation other with compared countries in the theAt region world. indeed –or the to going the primary low proportion and avery expenditure tosecondary going upper ofdifferent education levels high proportion example, For of avery has education. Moldova Education Equity Now! Equity Education The global economy has become much more integrated and competitive than in the past. © UNICEF/SWZK00152/PIROZZI©

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school 4 children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Policies and strategies economy oriented knowledge- a globalizing, challenges of addressing the means for is acritical education makers, decision For many 4 148 Policies and strategies susceptible to (UNICEF, 2011e). corruption allocations, budget culture and apolitical of less-than-transparent and policy-making, monitoring and evaluation involvement mechanisms, theof absence community in planning managementor at administrativevarious in finance public levels, absence the of reliable to challenges These effective from governance stemof lack formal in training the large part structures, fewer financial resources and stable less loweredand governing capacity. newly autonomous countries in the region weakened have with struggled administrative former and Soviet newly independent Union and Yugoslavia. decades two the During past foremost fallout from and demographic economic the is dissolutionthe of political, the these stem from recent transformations historical and political in the region. First and countries there are that challenges have of additional Most emerged. CEE/CIS For clear implementationof strategies. and the specification goals policy on marshalling concrete depends forevidence the formulation ofpolicy-making realistic not an unmitigated Effective educational acute panacea. is Education certainly challenges. It is not entirely whether, clear and to addressthese extent,progress what can educational countries haveand between also increased. underemploymentunemployment and rates have within inequalitiesboth risen.Economic criseshave Recent financial consequence,As a theseexacerbated problems. structural predictingindustriesFurthermore, ‘sunrise’ eroded. has industries provenhas difficult. markets manyof established while the than arein profitability the Labour past, stable less knowledge-oriented economy in economy the 21 knowledge-oriented means for as acritical addressingMany view the of challenges education aglobalizing, and regional challenges:lobal context 4.1 region. and reforms policies education in the CEE/CIS examine context to the wider act which and challenges, both constrain and enable policiestwo and strategies, sections out of school the next to specific Prior describing organized around the nine profiles children of out of school presented Chapterin 2. key and strategies policies usedin these of main sections countries. the chapter The are It drawn. is not be an exhaustivelessons can provides list,but of an overview of some the Tajikistanin Romania, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey, from relevant which reports, country on based in discussed Chapter It takesin education 3. at and strategies the alook policies employed in Chapter 2, reported and overcomeand patterns and bottlenecks the exclusionary barriers policies and strategies thataddressprofiles chapter the out This at looks of school specific However, in other ways the onset of the 21 forconditions improving their in country’s competitivethe world. advantage skill acquisition and fostering training job are treated as necessary,not though sufficient, rates, improving outcomes,learning ensuring relevant reducing drop-out education, quality to expanding driven access by in massive ICT. further changes many For decision-makers, muchmore integrated become has and competitive trends than in These theare past. economy theglobal information, flows people, ideas, and border of capital technologies, Education Equity Now! Equity Education The role of education of role The G st century. substantial increases With in the cross- st century has underscored national vulnerabilities. national underscored has century

political identities. political around the European Union and Eurozone −creating new and reconfiguring cultural and in areas. some Regionalization processes also took −for hold example, and in the Baltics have hardenedin muchof the region, tensions, unleashing deeper intolerance and violence Finally, ethnic identities support). and community assignments, student transportation issuessteps such as teacher that create (involving re- challenges of policy amultiplicity families and fewer children have pressured authorities schools, to merge or close local Concurrently, rates are fertility countries. declining Smaller in many, not but all, CEE/CIS region. inthe countries they −but are salient especially in smaller gain’ exchange’ ‘brain or 2008) (Brzozowski, outmigration of labour, educated mixed be −in can other words, there a‘brain be could of consequences this drain’, ‘brain The et al., 2007). or Russian (Docquier Federation countries and the in haveOECD who sought employment more opportunities attractive to challenge Another the region involves the migration of and skilled educated workers, politically stable countries like stable politically Slovenia. reversals of existing coherent contrast, By policies. and systematic reform in occurred uneven implementation reforms of educational to in cases, some and, sudden and/or ministers Frequent of have leadership education. in political contributed changes to partial nine having had and Serbia and Moldova different ministers since 1990, serve of education and Estonia 10 Bulgaria having with had era, each in the post-Soviet decision-makers education countries have changeover arapid of experienced high-level CEE/CIS Certain reforms.educational constraints, such as those previously slowed mentioned, the further implementation of reform reversals apparent. economic fatigue In addition, became and administrative controls over system. and quality considerable this adiversifying efficiency During stage nationalwith and priorities predominant sought ways values.to Policy-makers retain initiativesthird ensued, in educational which stage were brought into alignment closer systems education as disconnected from diversified, a national As traditions and goals. perceived reforms these educational decision-makers Some and sector-specific. more coherent ‘frameworks’, and coordinated policy although still externally conceived ofand rational new appraisal initiatives. steps Manyto countries undertook develop excitement enfolded in countries stage which asecond exerted abated, greater caution contents,and curricular the initial often influenced As and byconcepts. external models many countries drew their newlyfound upon freedom to alter structures educational followed which stage, of the collapse communist regimes, was one of in which euphoria first The several reform of era(UNICEF, educational 2007). stages in the post-Soviet Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS) Education for more some than others? Aregional study Central in education on and report reforms,various educational initiatives UNICEF legal The policies. and public region have advanced In response to these many challenges, countries in the CEE/CIS 4.2 Contemporary education reforms education Contemporary A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern describes

advantage competitive global countries’ as crucialfor are treated job training and fostering acquisition relevant skill and ensuring dropout rates reducing education, quality Improving 4 149 Policies and strategies strategies plementation of clearim- specification goals andthe realistic policy formulation of dence forthe concrete evi- marshalling depends on policy making educational Effective 4 150 Policies and strategies Education Equity Now! Equity Education

a national learningassessment –namely, Tajikistan Belarus, Albania, and Turkmenistan there are still countries in the region that in have either an international not participated or Nevertheless, a national assessment and Tanner of learningoutcomes (Benavot 2006). countries have also conducted relatively been has halfof the frequent. CEE/CIS About to and, Federation alesser extent, Turkey in international assessments −participation and the Romania Russian in Bulgaria, one suchleast assessment. −notably cases In some the former Soviet then, Union Since in countries andmost Romania. at have participated in international countriesCIS participated assessments, learning the with exception of national against and international Beforeperformance benchmarks. almost noCEE/ 1990 and implementation of assessments, learning are which meant to evaluate student reform educational major One to have taken across the region place is the development 107 difficult for familieswithprocesses difficult outcomes. and limitedof school knowledge and interests needs meetchild which arechoices the particular especially of aparticular appropriate making Furthermore, education choices. means restrict their school-related and inequalities parents when feel financial isolated fromlife school iftheir or (limited) and to makeopportunities more informed However, choices. to also lead it can disparities to information, parents should enable and students to avail themselves education of quality level. greater with Increased choice, combined at transparency the secondary and access pathways, educational as welland corresponding inofferings, especially curricular as choice reform major A second the introduction been has of more in terms choice types of school

http://itac.fhi360.org/projects/teaching.shtml http://bep-ks.org/assessment-new/ In Kosovo, alearningassessmentprogramiscurrently beingintroduced, fundedby USAID and carried out by FHI360: A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

4 151 Policies and strategies one year of primaryby entrance age lowered the primary or year ofpre- preparatory compulsory introduced a have now the region countries in A numberof 4 152 Policies and strategies primary programmes to prepare children for schooling (UNICEF, 2012a). Pre-primary programmes to prepare childrenprimary for (UNICEF, Pre-primary schooling 2012a). pre- and 240-hour theIn Kyrgyzstan, government 100-hour recently shortened launched school. preparation for primary accustomedto to environment become the school and acquire learningskills basic in programmes year is topreparatory children enable have who never in pre-primary been asin discussed andChapter Romania, 1. Kazakhstan Bulgaria, include of this goal The They year of are or pre-school. established, in the of process acompulsory establishing, countries haveseven to six years current of under age CEE/CIS some Furthermore, plans. from changed be In Tajikistan, will in 2020 education entrance to age the primary statutory tendthese gaps to rather in widen than close subsequent grades. groups already exist 1and 2, and in inschools most grades from different socio-economic result − and herechildren between the gaps isevidence quite learning − significant clear weakskills language, a healthsocial or nutrition and undiagnosed problems. As a majority to learn‘ −in other words, their abilities learning are proficiency of compromised by poor have who or only at age the theirof seven, school first experience are insufficiently ’ready education, seven.typically, at age Many children have exposure who little had to pre-primary relatively schooling late − primary countries start discussed in ChapterAs 1, many CEE/CIS education. pre-primary nationwide, high-quality groups. Therefore, there are hugeincentives for governments to ensure free affordable, or lever for reducing achievement pupils of between disparities different socio-economic a young person’s life in governments which invest. can policy crucial It is an especially in period is the cost-effective most education theseFor and other reasons, pre-primary increased from learninglevels education, basic and higher future earnings. in and drop-outs cognitivedevelopment, enhanced include: fewerexceed benefits The therepeaters costs. programmes far generated the benefits by enrolmentsexpanding in pre-primary effective such an investment may seem onerous, there and convincing that evidence is considerable requireshouseholds, commitment significant and investment fromgovernments. While rural or children among especially from to low-income schooling, prior the onset of primary families dueto high fees and other expenses. to Increasing access ayear of education areaspopulated −as well to existing asaccess the inability facilities by low-income in rural, remote facilities −particularly and sparsely duetoprimarily of alack pre-primary region is in the CEE/CIS education previously low enrolment discussed, As in pre-primary exclusion and policies the addressing trategies 4.3 the of violations exposing remain human and opposing rights in education achallenge. oversight is devoid the human education basic of right to meaning. Recognizing, quality the stipulated provisions listed and education on therein. yet, follow-up proper without And and documents countries havesignatories become to these norm-setting CEE/CIS most subsequent international major covenants decades, and agreements. two the Over past and in other of 26 the of Universalas enshrined Rights Declaration Human (1948) in article A third reform major is the recognition of the right to as afundamental human right education Education Equity Now! Equity Education of pre-primary-age children pre-primary-age of S

marginalized communities (ISSA 2008). 2008). (ISSA communities marginalized or children among especially in minority education, toof expanding access pre-primary as ameans learning, families and engaging and communities in early-childhood pedagogy through education, child-centred programme focuses of improving on pre-school the quality Step-by-Step The Foundation). Institute (Soros Society of the Open thewith support programmes and kindergartens, serious reform undertaken has ofAzerbaijan pre-school its facilities. toaccess pre-primary preparedness programmes are to also needed reach children live who in areas without tois needed help children successfully school transfer In addition, education. into primary education 2011a). and UIS, Framework At pre-primary one year least (UNICEF of full-time Methodological Conceptual and OOSC in the as defined school the year precedingprimary enrolment in programmes are relativelySuch not short equivalent pre-primary to full-time this in principle is asound initiative, While access. up solution. it is more of atemporary enrolment low and these initiatives way in is Kyrgyzstan very of scaling are acost-effective A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

primary school transition to successful children's needed tohelp school is pre-primary full yearof At leastone 4 153 Policies and strategies from education Roma children exclusion of address the region which across the adopted have been strategies Innovative 4 154 Policies and strategies barriers towards Roma children. As part of the policies: towardsbarriers children. part Roma As example, implemented has Romania of seeking arange to policies overcome socio-cultural address the exclusion of children Roma (UNICEF, from 2012b, education For in press). countries have developed new and strategies policies to specifically Several CEE/CIS exclusion and policies the addressing trategies 4.4 ■■ ■■ ■■ Education Equity Now! Equity Education Romani languageteachers; monitor, enrolling Roma/ schools students Roma and staffing and support advise inspectorate school is an to has inspector job for whose county matters Roma each teachers; and primary-school have classes to established kindergarten been train language Romani language Romani before you them!; judge the Roma!’, discriminationKnow ’Roma is picked at up home,’ and ’Get to know them Leave Your including ofstereotyping the ‘Dosta! Roma, Prejudices Behind, Get to have aimed run at campaigns reducing been prejudice and media social towards and Learning begins at birth. at begins Learning © UNICEF/MCCONNICO S groups children Roma of minority ethnic and other an awareness-raising campaign involving home visits. A specific disadvantaged on focus involving Aspecific visits. home campaign an awareness-raising recreational event of organized year, the school at the start by would preceded which be quite costly, organized they be could at alower –such and smaller as aone-day cost scale not do existwho in the records such ofprogrammes are government Although databases. increases. Moreover, such programmes help ‘invisible’ to identify children of out school their willingness to their school attend families), childrenof Roma among (and schooling children –regardless of gender, wealth, disability. or ethnicity improving By the image environments, programmes presentSuch aswelcoming more all schools child-friendly to aplace have be can fun and make friendsand not learning. for just aplace academic other marginalized children in interesting recreational to activities demonstrate that aschool innovative summer programme is ofinvolvingAn school the and Albanian aspect Roma and reaching to out in identifying children at or risk not of school attending out. dropping to work staff together and school staff office education of local also developed the capacity continued the programme In addition, to afterthe summer ended. school attend school were children at risk to of many Furthermore, out, dropping participating school. attend and other Roma marginalized children, were who previously3,000 or not school attending about programme encouraged successfully Thisone-time Offices. District and Education of NGOs andEducation Science, including the Ministry various with partners, collaboration meals were also provided. It was coordinated andby funded UNICEF, and implemented in and excursions. and recreationalmixed activities such asFree sports educational activities those regularly and at not summer risk attendingschool of The programme out. dropping children are who not registered in the system, thosehave who never and school attended and other Roma marginalized‘invisible’ aimed at disadvantaged, children. It was specifically asummer programme in was launched 10 school In Albania, targeting districts economically tochild education parents guardians of legal or children at risk of early. out dropping and also provides information alternatives andeducational counselling for on pre-schoolers, communitieseight It substantialprovides fromwith populations. disadvantaged Roma 420 ‘All inThe First Grade‘ All programmes are aimed at in children Kindergarten, five aged to communities arefrom who disadvantaged at risk of (UNICEF, out dropping 2012b, in press). targetchildren also has Romania initiatedRoma aseries of programmes specifically which training is also needed. in teacher pre-service education multi-cultural such measures in For their outlook. to agreater succeed emphasis on mono-cultural largely continue which implemented. in fundamentalschools, isto change undercutting This be environmentschool to children, that Roma they suggests evidence have not fully been these measuresAlthough are contributing to the provision of amore welcoming ■■ ■■ ■■ diversity. programmes have andto extracurricular established been promotenon-formal ethnic and for Research, Education, UNICEF; with Ministry Youth in partnership and Sports, intercultural children’s education, by the values, rights and Roma have supported been teacher professional development focusing activities, inclusive on education, teachers; non-Roma communities, and sometimes and involve community the Roma between mediation mediator positions haveschool and to established schools been interface between A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

4 155 Policies and strategies practice way togoin there isalong although Disabilities, Persons with the Rightsof Convention on the UN have signed the region countries in Many 4 156 Policies and strategies where parents wish to send their the children to cannot but afford to school so(see do Significantly, barriers not lawthedoes educational address economic to the exclusion, Tajik in the regulating modern acts and morality behaviour the important most society”. of the of Republic Tajikistan stated to the supreme legislative body, the law is “one of regulation of morality, the President and cultural behaviour As norms. as astate-imposed disabilities. However, this law generated has controversy considerable due to perception its for to children the provision pertaining opportunities withsections of education equal parental duties and responsibilities by ensuring of their the education children, including for of Children. the and Upbringing Education lawResponsibility seeks The to enhance children ofresponsibility educating parents, on through the recently law Parental on passed governmentThe of Tajikistan initiated to the adifferent byplace appearing approach 2009). Education, on Forum Asia (Central However, at and communities, best schools are real the on ground, in changes local partial childrenneeds. and include special with procedures and establish toeducation support address the issue resolutions havespecialof laws legal or passed thatothers) specifically and Uzbekistan Armenia, region (including Quite afew governments in the CEE/CIS children disabilities. with andof stereotyping mobilized practices to to discriminatory combat launchcampaigns society, civil of the private NGOs, organizations sector and media should alsosupport be in children separate for needs reconsidered schools should special be and reformed. The that foster the inclusion of all children Institutionalized in education. care and education Government regulations ministries and legal policies should clear establish and agencies toeffort. is barrier a major needs their inclusion and requires in education amulti-pronged towards and practices attitudes Changing children education disabilities with special or exclusion and policies the addressing trategies 4.5 newborn children. providing incentivesand 2) for recent for their parents Roma to certificates acquire birth documents who currently for those do not haveand other necessary them; certificates government 1) expanding the provision strategy: of birth children requires atwo-pronged of their children status not of the to legal going Resolving unregistered school. Roma which in turn increases and other benefits, the likelihood social for child support applying to register families Roma documents proper their have Without children difficulty at birth. certificates) wedding parents the not required do and/or possess cards ID (i.e., documents their exclusion thatthe their itfact reflects from system. the education In large part, This reinforces issuechildrenA major facing Roma certificate. is that many avalid lack birth rates. reduce drop-out eventsschool increase children’s can system the with formal engagement education and and recreational educational such outings asand clubs, after- activities general, non-formal children are who or arenot attending school at risk of In out would dropping crucial. be Education Equity Now! Equity Education education needs education childrenof disabilities with and special S continuing problem in the region. Of the 626,000 children in the CEE/CIS region are who children in the CEE/CIS continuing problem the in 626,000 the region. Of discussed previously,As the institutionalization of children disabilities with is a increasing of children the visibility disabilities with through such campaigns. reinforces which doors, behind closed Clearly, and stereotyping. stigma by much is gained adisability. with person In many countries children disabilities with remain invisible, living half of respondents indicated that they they when see feelachild or uncomfortable less towardsbehaviour their behaviour, children changed those who disabilities. with Of over and their attitudes change them made had campaign the that conceded one-quarter almost cent found per and of respondents seenafter the thatthe had campaign 82 campaign, out promote helped celebrities of Asurvey in carried adults some, local the campaign. friendships‘. Music festivals, were in children which also disabilities held; with participated, children disabilities with in apositivelike light, slogans with see love’ see ‘We and ’We 2012). Various strategies were employed, including the creation of showing billboards 2010 to people’s change towards and behaviours attitudes children disabilities with (Zec, inIn Montenegro, by was launched UNICEF Campaign‘ asuccessful Change ‘Behavioural exercise their right to education. from the state,disabilities are inof need sothat their support especially children can state responsibility, enshrined in many international covenants. Parents of children with to somakes is do a sense. provision education basic little The of free and compulsory parents Obligating to their educate children they when section). havenext limited means A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

level policies tion ofnational implementa- is neededto more attention policies, so sive education spite ofinclu- practice in predominant remains the disabilities children with Segregation of 4 157 Policies and strategies faced byboys challenges the specific needed on attention is policies; more the regionby neglected in been largely dropout has of boys’ The issue 4 158 Policies and strategies education, the right to quality education, and the for respect the education, right rights within toeducation, education. quality framework ofthe right to three on the of document is based access simple principles: Convention the on Rights of Persons Disabilities with (UNICEF, 2011c). conceptual The for both on the inclusive Convention based education, the on Rights of the Child and the to Approach InclusiveBased Education, introduces the region to ahuman rights framework The document, The Right ofeducation. Children with Disabilities to Education: ARights- the to region and beyond provide in an aconsolidated effort framework for inclusive from lessons-learned and documentgathersbest-practices haspublished a that Office Regional are and patchy scattered CEE/CIS efforts across the region,While the UNICEF monitored. they are not implemented, being and implementation ineffective may be ifit is not closely as a reminder implemented.been serves that This laws and regulations are useless if no administrative exists the current data about status and the extent to this which has disabilities with to(UNICEF, –to 2012d, accessible schools people be However, in press). Turkey, requiring all institutions public –including and agencies in 2005 alaw was passed institutionsEducational to alsoaccessible children to need made disabilities. be with In policy. this children three year; aged by school 2010/11 to 14 over benefited from 35,000 the 2004/5 Turkey from to home for free during school children bus services disabilities with started families, ofthe needs poor and those children whose have disabilities. example, For in vehicles step is acritical towards meeting in handicap-accessible subsidized transportation families for region,CIS especially poor and those children with disabilities. with Free or Transportation to as previously costs CEE/ barrier in school, the are discussed, asignificant towards (UNICEF, as well 2010a). inattitudes societal as ashift disability focused services, andrequires family- intervention from in approach medical ashift towards child-centred the on ground. Comprehensive and practice and systematic policy between reformgap spite of being introduced the inclusive in there policy the region; education remains a wide comprehensive. of Segregation children disabilities with is still the predominant in practice, is often and even not out, sufficiently non-free, ifit is carried is often non-compulsory, assessment Early as in discussed the chapterand bottlenecks. model, barriers on recognized and are invisible. largely Many countries continue to rely the on ‘defectology’ worse 1million is million that between and 3.6 children disabilities with are not officially institutionalized, are regardedas children 219,000 disabilities with (UNICEF, 2012e). Even secondary levels, where theresecondary is still room to considerable expand enrolments, policies and upper strategies to and policies address existing At disparities. the gender pre-primary must developcontexts, gender-specific the converse such, policy-makers is theAs case. levels,countries, girls andare at certain more likely in other to than boys; of out be school and by country. In some and secondary) primary level by educational (pre-primary, vary previously differences shown,As in gender the of numbers children of out school and youth and policies gender addressing trategies 4.6 Education Equity Now! Equity Education S discrimination where there is a gap in enrolment in favour of boys. of favour in enrolment in agap is there where countries in girls' of education cost opportunity high the address must policies Education © UNICEF/SWZK00149/GIACOMO PIROZZI A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

4 159 Policies and strategies 4 160 Policies and strategies school or drop or out. school both strategiesEvenpolicies to and in thesefor have countries, it is important gender-specific or whereequal girls are more likely to out of However, be school. this is far from the truth. boys’ exclusion is are from in education notcountries needed where participation gender and this is an area It may seemand strategies of that policies concern. oriented towards region point from of apolicy view, received has far attention less in the CEE/CIS drop-out strategies aimed at to boysneed differently. designed be that the issue of It appears boys’ pressures and societal expectations girls, and with therefore compared programmes and Boys and Belarus. different face in Armenia of kinds cultural ofparticularly out school, countries boysare more previously, discussed likelyAs than girls to drop in CEE/CIS some withdrawal from school. that addressthese issues would reduce the under-enrolment of girls as well as their early strategies Undertaking 2007). (UNESCO schools girls for potential of single-sex benefits Recent studies have also emphasized the 2005). (Subrahmanian and girls’ participation of female teachersclassroom environments teachers, and gender-aware influences which the lack and 4) arrangements); and roads transport teachers, well-lit and/or abuse by peers provision of facilities required example, by girls (for sanitation facilities, protection from environments that reinforce through the low ofnon- expectations girls’ in part education, unfavourable for school concerns girls’ 3) safety; particular with access, affects which offrom the distance schools marginalized 2) communities, to female early drop-out; for labour productive work and contribute tasks domestic thatunpaid release adult (female) of costs girls’ where girls are education, a vast array of expected to perform opportunity 1) addressthe high region that: should also policies consider Governments in the CEE/CIS teacher-training programmes. and Centre of audits textbooks for Pedagogy,gender curricula, conducted has Gender which and other organizations. initiative Another in Tajikistan the establishment been has of the by of UNICEF girls’ havecommunities education to supported also been the importance initiatives seeking to sensitise local programmes. andMedia-based radio through TV to barriers girls’ education strategy aims gender to addresssocio-cultural cross-sector This Women’s Roles‘, from Development the Asian Bank and the UNDP. support developed with governmentThe of Tajikistan recentlyStrategy the on Promotion adopted a‘National of are boys. are girls and 100,000 of around whom 250,000 education, children enrolled in primary resulted has campaign This in an estimated 350,000 raise awareness of families the value and persuade of to education enrol girls in school. ofnetwork volunteers frontlineand public workers such as andmidwives teachers, who operates (UNICEF, 2012d, through education campaign avast The in primary in press). effective in increasing very and been thehas enrolment of girls as wellin 2003 as boys in Turkey,A successful campaign Girls asLet’s ‘Hey known was launched to Go School‘ practices. discriminatory strategies address explicitly should maturation), related andto taboos practices sexual dowry example, societiessome marriage, (for early female that discourage norms autonomy in socio-cultural given deeply-imbedded Also, gender-sensitiveshould in be order to minimize the creation of future disparities. gender Education Equity Now! Equity Education girls and boys, in order to address the specific girls and inwhy boys, order boys toreasons girls and are addressthe specific out of

educational equity.educational to raise scores efforts at end of the bottom the distribution, therebycountry improving −improvements in reading and Latvia Poland wereincluding Albania, driven by concerted 2012). countries In some (UNICEF − theon otherdecline shows hand, asignificant Slovenia, aslevels did in and Montenegro Kyrgyzstan 2006). (from improved 2003), (from time reading spans, shorter levels Over and declined. Turkeyit has in Serbia noticeably while in and Poland, the Czech Republic Hungary, Latvia in Albania, 2000) literacy (since region, there amarked been has improvement of time.in readingperiods In the CEE/CIS countries have achievedprogress significant outcomesin learning over relatively short makecan are policieseducation difference. a in neither Public fixed. nor Indeed, inevitable levels that indicating student performance and 2009), 2006, 2003, assessments (2000, there levels that, said Having have in average changes across PISA been performance market and create in society. to barriers effective and meaningful participation withdrawal from reduce future in school, the formal labour employment opportunities assessment. outcomes learning increase Poor PISA the likelihood of studentthe 2009 region areCIS not literacy basic acquiring and numeracyskills as measured in school, by in the CEE/ of 15-year-olds in discussed Chapter large proportion 2,As an alarmingly and policies learning poor addressing trategies 4.7 learning outcomes andlearning ensuring a outcomes more distribution of equitable learning opportunities. of quality the improving at aimed policies initiated have region the in countries Many outcomes S © UNICEF/SWZ/00503 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

outcomes learning to improve intention governments’ region show in the assessments international national and An increasein 4 161 Policies and strategies children marginalized the most access for to ensuring as afirststep school fees and indirect abolish direct Policies must 4 162 Policies and strategies water and sanitationfacilities in schools. and improved supplementation andfortification, food vaccinations, micro-nutrient include children initiatives are covered. for important Other improving children’s health and safety not all Nevertheless, poor (WFP, schools 2010). in around children 2,000 school and staff primary feeding programme in Tajikistan today which feeds approximately in 1999, 360,000 aschool- launched and marginalizedfrom (WFP) poor Programme families. World Food The nutritional levels and learningoutcomes, of they but children also increase the participation of the these region. do programmes only Not improve parts some their ‘readiness to learn’, programmes have shown also to been asuccessfulrates. strategy be in School-feeding and Tajikistan,were in launched Azerbaijan by UNICEF, supported to reduce high infestation campaigns de-worming National children (UNICEF, 2009d). of malnutrition in school-age children’saffect to cause amajor be concentrate ability Worms can in school. and learn tocrucial ofimproving nourishment health learning outcomes.strongly Lack and poor and strategiesProgrammes aimed at improving children’s health andare safety also to below, discussed reduce inequities. is further This financing. in education on the section designed funding is specifically capita ifper will happen only This schools. disadvantaged role and thereby in insocio-economically improving increasing equity opportunities learning is inconclusive. However,performance and should an play fundingimportant can capita per (UNICEF, 2012b, whether on Evidence performance competitionimprovesschool in press). introduced and improve in also schools Romania aims competitionbetween to boost recentlyin Similarly, the provision model education. student‘ per of quality a‘funding compete in schools for which approach, students,This is intended to to lead improvements to tois allocated according schools the number of students they enrol (UNICEF, 2012a). is currently funding model example, piloted being capita in aper Kyrgyzstan where funding For outcomeslearning as well distribution of asmore a opportunities. learning equitable countries inOther the region have initiated aimed at of policies improving the quality countries such and Tajikistan, as Kyrgyzstan Their cannot affordof the costs education. inand overcoming low-income to Many families, barriers education. economic particularly and vulnerability role protection in alleviating alsoSocial an play policies important poverty for restrictions. of the or demand lack legal child labour circumstances touniforms that lead as well exclusion, and books, as particular such as the school transportation, associatedwith costs include These ofindirect costs education. to need policies beyond go side economic the reductionfees of school and addressthe is a direct ofschooling violation national and international demand- that, laws. said Having fees. ofthe abolition school Charging parents fees school during the years of compulsory condition lowerto insufficient, the though childrennumber A critical, of out of school is atlooks strategies seek which to and policies overcome these barriers. families’ to send their inability children to dueto constraints. section school economic This highlight which barriers economic previous several chapterThe discussed demand-side exclusion and policies the addressing trategies 4.8 Education Equity Now! Equity Education of poor, disadvantaged families poor, disadvantaged of S such as in the form of rehabilitation and socialization (UNICEF, 2012a). disabilities is currently development, under completed once which will allow targeted support isbut not linked of into children in any Adatabase with education. way participation with to able alleviate for needs, is partially caring achild associatedwith special with the costs withdisability,persons benefit for in categorical the children, country.including additional An children identified out for barriers of school economic to lowering of some the demand-side protection to social measureswill thatcontribute arevalue pre-conditions benefits effectively related to of children. the education Increased coverage of the quintiles poorest and higher- too low to make adifference in terms of poverty, and too low to cover the informal costs children from extreme are in the poverty.country benefits In addition, school-age vulnerable familiespoor of benefits withchildrenfor the cash do not ensure theprotection of themost families current is The challenges identifying in and and targeting households need. design protectionSocial measures currently limited. in are Kyrgyzstan of in One place very the Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan and Turkey, as well as issues that limit their effectiveness. protection to in Romania, Kyrgyzstan, programmes in barriers reducing education economic role of following expenses. social The at looks the section important school-related bear poormaking it families costs, evenfor more difficult unofficial additional to also adds countries, CEE/CIS problem in some asignificant in education, Corruption opportunities. their dueto children’sineligibility impede of lack can documentation to access educational

© UNICEF/SWZK00306/GIACOMO PIROZZI A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

education in basic learning for improving a keystrategy education is childhood access toearly Increasing 4 163 Policies and strategies regions schools and between of education in thequality disparities to remove strategies supply side to consider Countries need 4 164 Policies and strategies the conditions and quality of schooling. Often in the communities, poorest where of Often the schooling. the and quality conditions strategies aim which to and policies removeshould supply-side consider in disparities also contribute to parental to decisions withdraw their children from Countries school. teachers and limited opportunities learning poorly-trained with schools Finally, poor-quality uniforms.and school expenses expenditures boarding meet education such as student transportation, housing, There are also various forms in Turkey assistance of social families for poor sothat they can Anatolia. Eastern and Anatolia Eastern South is regions distributed poorest assistance of in theeducation two the country: cent per of year. forthe school school attend at 80 of least conditional Alarge portion is providedthat the children on cent condition 6per poorest of Assistance the population. was initiated assistance education in TurkeyConditional and aims to reach the in 2003 is acute. exacerbated. the to need Thus, and resolvefunctioning transfersof social the inefficiency current protection social similar policies, to the situation in Tajikistan, then inequalities are quintile families (UNICEF, in 2012d, Turkey Iflow-income in press). are by not served being cent to per go centthat 2per the reach only richest the quintile, poorest whereas 44.6 analysis of transfer monthlyAn social payments to in Turkey and orphans widows revealed Turkey and to the relateddifference to poverty determinants children driving of out school. in current expected, its system cannot be form in the and size, country to make much lackstransparency process andselection accountability. In a nutshell, protection the social are eligible whereasfamiliesfrompoor benefiting assistance are The currentexcluded. familiesreach. Thereare also issues whereby theprocess with selection many non-poor since familiesto todifficult maybe inwhich person to need government apply offices, procedure in for Tajikistan assistance forThe social applying also creates problems, the current exchange rate –it is insufficient tomeet costs the of schooling. at children with sevenhouseholds aged to 15, year somonis per –around $8.50 at but 40 programme providesassistance incentiveslargest social cash to the 15 poorest cent per of second cent. per The by 0.3 only have the reduced number of in households poverty theon plight families of poor (UNICEF, 2011c). programmes in assistance Tajikistan Social in Tajikistan’s Kyrgyzstan, As for budget protection social is too low to have much impact Tajikistan families. to will lead an policy increasesocial in the enrolment of children and attendance from poor was reinstated in 2011 (UNICEF, 2012b, and the government that in this press) expects conditionality The in the following year ofthe (2007/8). cancellation conditionality school its enrolment rates and lower Aslight followed secondary attendance. dropschool in primary allowance available aspecial families to on poor was conditional untilIn Romania, 2006 Romania Education Equity Now! Equity Education Hagemann 2008; Sakurai 2006). Sakurai 2008; Hagemann excluded and Allais from to school, enrolleddrop out once or to attend irregularly (Blanco In general, working etchildren (Yacouba al., arevaries considerably 2010). more likely to be childrenespecially and those working hazardousconditions of below under the age 15, also market −and varies over prevalence time The and place. of noxious forms of child labour, the family home, and farms, in fields informalapprenticeships or in the labour formal for of demand children the labour The and youth takes many forms −namely, work inside exclusion and policies the addressing trategies 4.9 tostandards increase the provision education. of quality communities communities –including Roma the disadvantaged –adhere most to minimum Bank and the Government, Romanian was introduced to ensure in that the schools poorest by the for the financed Education, WorldIn Programme Romania, InclusiveChildhood Early of children disadvantage.conditions are schooling at are thepoor afurther worst, placed

© UNICEF S of working children working of A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

coverage amount and in termsof are insufficient allowances assistance Social 4 165 Policies and strategies 4 166 Policies and strategies legal age standards for are standards work, age prevalent. less legal Government to abusive actions hazardousforms or combat of child labour, beyond setting economies. Historically, many of these were policies also prevalent in today’s more industrialized for workingof youth the demands work sothat and schooling. balance theybetter can offer an evening schools areas missedon of lessons.urban in In some Albania, classes shift daysover school additional schedule the weekend to working students enable to catch up also can families; schools toseason allow their children agriculture-producing to support weeks during harvest of for close two-to-three schools aperiod of Armenia, parts In some calendars. and school for tothe (linked demand seasonal child the labour agricultural cycle) region, governments some have taken stepsbetween to In reduce the conflicts CEE/CIS for to instead lostifachild goes income school of working. families is far too limited, in terms of both amounts and coverage, to compensate families the family (UNICEF, budget 2012c, government The scheme to assist the poorest in press). cent per their said basis of were earnings the 3.4 and familyonly budget, not children their said were earnings “substantial”, 7.2 cent per their said formed earnings the in survey Tajikistan of working found that more than three-quarters ((ILO/IPEC) Labour the on Elimination Programme Organization of /International International Child Labour the families, poorest example, For budget. For crucial. this be an contribution can by contribution to working children earned income the family is oftenThe an important Education Equity Now! Equity Education

© UNICEF/00547/GIACOMO PIROZZI significant for for significant action. action. children and their families in government these communities strong demand and concerted useful may be in contexts, partnerships some theWhile acute by multiple faced conditions facilities −including other adequateor school −to education basic providers. NGOs quality imperative that governments not do relinquish their for responsibility the provision of organizations.illustrated As by the example of thefaith-based Lyuli community, it is protection, andin perhaps the social sectors as well health society and education as civic involving government approach, authorities requires multiple-stakeholder cross-sector, a must develop comprehensive implementation and targeted of The such policies. policies to exercise ability whose their right to is severely education governments undermined, remain To in school. addressthe multiple deleterious by these faced conditions children, to their on and attend ability negativelyimpact which ofdocuments, and lack legal statusresidence, rural poverty, discrimination, ethnic gender factors, including minority and policies children addressing trategies Previous chapters that the underscored many fact several with children grapple overlapping 4.10 all students with the support of trained specialists, including psychologists and special of including and special psychologists trained specialists, all students the with support At level, the school astrategy of teachers inclusive should to enable education teach at all shift is levels an attitudinal system. ofimportant the education of and allocation human financial (UNICEF,resources addresstasksto these 2011c). Equally ministriesbetween involved to children in providing disabilities, with and the services and coordinationexclusion −collaboration below) − including children disabilities with (see strategy to the include continuouseducation They work. monitoring of children at risk of and communities. schools Many elements to need local together come for an inclusive recognition of, and thefor, need inclusive and the realities education the on ground −in exists official gap between awide Incases, most 2010a). toup the national level (USAID, limited pocketsbe more and, often to than not, have geographical select yet to scaled be region,tend often inclusive pioneered in to education, by NGOs, practices In the CEE/CIS environments (UNICEF, 2005). and physical social of his/her aspects the disabling itchild, is preferable to (re)consider for: of is called rather the shift than concentrating aspects the on a paradigm disabling needs, children these For with education needs. disabilities with and special in accordance strategies andstyles learning pedagogical arrangements, classroom appropriate curricula, Inclusive recognizeschools. schools the diverse of needs their students and develop differences, have and should have to the education right access to neighbourhood aquality Inclusive conveys education or thattheir allregardless the idea of learners, their difficulties strategies and policies inclusive Rights-based, policies finance and governance anagement, 4.11 M and strategies belonging multiple to groups risk OOSC S A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

national level been scaledto have notyet pockets and geographical to select to belimited the regiontend practices in education Inclusive 4 167 Policies and strategies education access to ensuring their is crucialto their exclusion leading to the barriers of schooland numbers ofout Monitoring the 4 168 Policies and strategies which requireswhich more information child. It also considerably necessitates each greater about ofout In theinstance, latter children school. at monitored,risk and to need identified be ways is finding step.to intervene Equallyearlier, important before child a is riskat droppingof first is an important education Monitoring excluded and secondary children from primary thetrack movement of isdevelopment. under children schools between systems, electronic and amore system advanced paper-based one to would which enable forms are replacing traditional gradually country. spreadsheets In Romania, and web-based as apilotlaunched and is to project to in schools some expanded be throughout all schools the Information sophisticated with monitoring been has Systems.capabilities aSMIS In Armenia, are and Romania also movingArmenia towards Management the implementation of School thus, and, of in reliability the system. the data the quality concerning not registered records inelse or population are citizens of other countries, as well as issues limitations. its revolve mainly without These around the enrolment of children are who either 2010. in December However, to approximately 100,000 this system 2008 December is not in from 300,000 time childrenperiod: over short a very reduction ofenormous non-enrolled their they enrolment reside in Turkey). (if Turkey’s newlydeveloped system resulted in an children and initiate to ensure allows This efforts in authorities school. non-enrolled to identify of enrolled those age with theactually schooling record reach thepopulation who compulsory 2012d, of One the system’s in press). functionalities is to children compare registered in the arewho excluded as well from education are as those who at risk of exclusion (UNICEF, children usedto be identify can which Information System in was2007-2008, established children.of example, and out ofat-risk For school in Turkey Management an e-School countries have recently initiatives undertaken to improveSeveral CEE/CIS the monitoring children and children at risk. essential steps first developing in policies effective to the reduce numbers of out of school monitoring strategy are arobust informationThus, management system and an on-going and totarget childrenorganize actions. inof need support appropriate, early-intervention of detailed information on childrenandto identify and their it characteristics, is difficult ofthe excludedwhereabouts children and those at risk withdrawal. of In the school absence entails regional national or disaggregating enrolment figures,or school, district to identifyby prevention. This step is acrucial in needs, drop-out educational disabilities and special continuousThe monitoring of excluded children, including and at-risk children with excludedMonitoring children and exclusion children of risk at strategy. initiatives These implemented, when and policies, not do involve exorbitant expenses. programmes to addressinclusive issues also education strengthens an inclusive education development teacher of education existing teachers. Adjusting the contents of pre-service the professional visit mainstream who arotating on specialists, schools basisand support the transition to involves inclusive approach Another that supports education. teams of mobile into schools approach special resource mainstream centres is a cost-effective schools serving thereconditions, are pathways clear to strengthening conversion inclusive The of education. adverse these Despite specialists. of trained limited the and availability preparation teacher Implementingeducators. such astrategy is often hampered by of the lack proper funding, Education Equity Now! Equity Education improving the monitoring of children at risk of exclusion also the chapter). next (see means forreluctant integration to an data important share Thus, becomes such data. differentin maybewho by ministries officials departments, and managed collected and fortrue children physical with learningdisabilities, or for relevant which are data typically to children. addressthe of complex is needs especially such This at-risk departments agreements different between ministries and governmental and data-sharing coordination

4 169 Policies and strategies community needs inthe responsive to and bemore resources use oflimited make better makers to local decision incentivize empower and autonomy can Greater 4 170 Policies and strategies of dropping out, and to better act upon this and toof information upon out, dropping act better through appropriate interventions. of Ministries of to Education monitorthe capacity children of out school and children at risk are just afew greatly could enhance through of advantages aSMIS which many possible to informationnational, levels) regional access and school relevant to their These needs. – by anyone, stakeholders –enabling anywhere anytime, at different levels example, (for muchmore be accessible can SMIS Finally,potential step). errors duringaweb-based each and transferredwhere several rewritten, information re-entered, copied, may times be with contrast itentered is only to because other and second (in systems once controls) quality toalsodata lead quality, (enabling muchhigher it is data enteredbecause first digitally can ASMIS information importance. of be crucial can processes wheremaking up-to-date ayear.periodically, once as only as seldom may which be greatly improves This decision- isinterface which recorded directly to also lead can muchmoreifit is entered timely data through by schools aweb-based and family behaviour background. school engagement, ASMIS school performance, children, of theas at-risk identification such informationenable related disability,to school other which on information is provided–including information by schools could which muchmoreand also enables detailedanalysisdepending through data, disaggregated level the monitoring it enables school of through children aSMIS, level, at the individual and transparency (Leva transparency and funds, dueto issues such as inadequate auditing, controls, financial regulations,monitoring implementation to is lead not and misuse problems. increased It without can corruption of there areAlthough solid justifications decentralizing for system,education the its organizations. and educational bodies governance of local Education, the Ministry between horizontal coordination and vertical to is improve hoped development of Information anManagement Education System (EMIS) the control which (UNICEF, In addition, budget 2012a). committees the school supervisory – for and reduce improvecorruption example, needs, throughlocal services, public school systemthe education are considered being to make the government more responsive to curriculum (UNICEF, 2012b,decided measures In Kyrgyzstan, to decentralize in press). or promotingby a relevant school- example,programmes/projects by developing specific autonomyfinancial studentsto meet – thegreater aneeds and of at-risk forcapacity measuresIn Romania, to decentralize were education implemented to greater give schools makers to make use better of limited resources and to more be responsive to needs. decentralized levels. Greater autonomy both empowerdecision- and incentivise can local flexible involvement,resourcemore management, community greater and autonomy at potential to reduce exclusion fromAdecentralized education. system education numerous has barrier to enacting a significant reforms and implementingpolicies and mechanisms in discussed the previousAs chapter, ahighly centralized system be education can funding and formula financing, decentralization Education recordingdigital of information is which not exclusion, many has potentialsystems aSMIS over as well advantages paper-based as monitoringFor both children excluded as fromwell education as children at risk of Education Equity Now! Equity Education advantages, including greater transparency in decision-making, more efficient and more efficient including greater advantages, transparency in decision-making, č i č and Downes, 2004). An example of An acontrol mechanism is the 2004). and Downes, in acentralized system − in contrast to submitted being at the school level. at the school is entered Ifdata at the the likelihoodthe of (Leva fraud to lead greaternecessarily transparency. the may opposite even Indeed, the increasing case, be sector. within the education practices corrupt used to identify Decentralization not also does ‘leakages’ in the due flow possible and corruption, is to justone of severalbecan which tools of the calculation enables This 2010). (Poisson Tracking Expenditure Public (PETS) Surveys monitoring of fundingdown flows fromof levelEducation Ministry to thethe school through inequality, as wealthy and improve communities are to able better their support schools Decentralizationschools. and greater autonomy levels the atrisk local of carries increasing disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged socio-economically inequities between is unavoidable to degree of reduce complexity the other On a certain hand, understand. makes which to it complexity too difficult and avoid unnecessary knowledge public be risk students. Transparency an shouldexplicit be funding aim formula –the school should to schools meet of the needs at- disadvantaged funds toadditional socio-economically and instead schools, provide advantaged currentlywhich tend to favour socio-economically in discussed the previousAs chapter, formula funding should aim to imbalances, correct interferencepossible and misuse of the system by individuals. systems is essential to the systematic running and orderly of the system. also minimizes This development, the computerization and automation ofcapacity information and management example, on financial autonomy Besides guidebooks (Poisson, 2010). and the funding formula theseon new responsibilities, and the development tools and instruments of practical –for taketo the required lack managementknow-how may otherwise who financial managers, development through training by –for capacity example,accompanied the training of school resourcecomplicate Consequently,management processes.flows and it needs be to formula greatly funding of–can schools –such as the transitionpractice to capita-based per A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern č i č and Downes, 2004; Poisson, 2010). Its implementation Its in Poisson, 2010). 2004; and Downes,

schools advantaged economically favour socio- tend to that currently imbalances aim tocorrect funding should Formula 4 171 Policies and strategies 4 172 Policies and strategies reform and even reversals of existing policies. countries, to leading uneven implementation ofmakers characterized has CEE/CIS some decision- education changeover and rapid of high-level time,the instability same political the of violations remain humanand opposing rights in education achallenge, however. At of 26 the of Universalenshrined Rights. exposing Declaration Human Recognizing, in article offerings, and the recognition of the right to as afundamental human right education as pathways educational corresponding curricularand types, in and flexibility terms of school development and implementation of assessments, learning the introduction of more choice reforms Education priorities. have which taken across the region the place include initiatives These models. have brought since been into alignment closer national with towards more coherent ‘frameworks’ and coordinated–often following policy external significant reform structurescontents, educational curricular to and followed by steps In this context, following of the collapse communist regimes there of was aperiod for the smaller incountrieschallenges, particular in the region. tensions. drain’ ‘brain or outmigration of labour The alsosignificant educated poses the creation and reconfiguring of new culturalidentities,political rise and giving to ethnic are challenges by susceptibleposed policy allocations, budget to Additional corruption. culture and apolitical ofinvolvement less-than-transparent in planning and policy-making, ofabsence reliable monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the of absence community of formal trainingmanagementor at administrativevarious in finance public levels, the to challenges These effective fromcapacity. governance stem the lack in the large part administrative structures, fewer financial resources stable andlowered less and governing and newlyautonomousindependent countries in the region weakened have with struggled Following the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the newly regional challenges reforms and education Global context, 4.12 andpromoting projects aroundin campaigns education the country. and organisationsfor-profit both non-profit with andalso cooperating increasingly engaging is of Education and 2010. National Ministry The new 2004 built being classrooms between this contributed to deduction; almost 30,000 tax donations as an income construction school transferred toinnovative Another budget. the education measure involved the recognition of and revenue ofgames chance; from theStock on Istanbul transactions are which Exchange, fromincome Television the Radio taxes from cent tax; a25 per stamp Council; Higher (UNICEF, strategiesfinancing 2012d, Thesecollection advertisement of the include press). in and to meet Turkey growing in education, needs implemented has anumber of innovative TurkeyIn this respect, taken has an innovative To approach. shortfalls addressbudgetary and strategieschildren.policies directlyindirectlyand or at-risk which of address out school barrier to the as asignificant implementation constraintsalsoFinancial act can of effective throughaddressed the implementation of transparent monitoring and control mechanisms. issues to Such need be student and numbers reduce the incentive drop-outs. to report funding may incentivise the communities. inflation than arecapita per of In addition, poor Education Equity Now! Equity Education Analytical summary summary Analytical display of showing billboards children disabilities with in apositive light, music festivals and in Montenegro, bylaunched UNICEF employed which various strategies including the Campaign‘, was example the Change ‘Behavioural ofAn campaign asuccessful media involving society, thecivil government, the private NGOs, organizations. sector and media towards and practices attitudes effort children disabilities with takes a multi-pronged implementation ineffective may be ifit is not monitored.engrained closely deeply Changing to organized. and be regulations Laws are useless ifthey are not implemented, being and to needs to school accessible children made disabilities,be with transportation and suitable stepfirst there wayislong a For go practice. in to institutionsexample,educational need to Convention,have the ratified and even laws or legal though resolutions are an important Rights of Persons Disabilities, with asin discussed Chapter However, 3. not all countries by manymade countries in to the region Convention by the signatory being UN the on to forIn reducing barriers education children step disabilities,been with has asignificant their familieschildren and them. to obtain and facilitate and otherRoma the children means not certificate, do have who for abirth of view, and strategies policies facing are requiredthe difficulties acknowledge which and excursions.recreational such asFrom sports activities, and administrative alegal point environment. and activities various educational programme included The child-friendly children awelcoming at be and risk by of demonstratingcan out, dropping that school to ‘invisible’ bring children into not do school attend who the system, as well as engage It aimed and NGOs. of and Science Education including the Ministry variouswith partners, and other Roma programme marginalized forschool disadvantaged children in collaboration inclusive and intercultural of asummer teacherlaunched training. Albania as part education inspectorates for monitoring and advisingon issuesand toRoma, incorporated specific and media campaigns to prejudice combat and stereotyping of establishedRoma, school exclusion of children Roma example, fromFor implemented education. has Romania social A number of innovative strategies have adopted across the been region addressthe which in to which period invest init is achild’s the cost-effective most life. term, in but theterm long in theit is expensive short costly not as to invest in pre-primary, is will take time. Introducing pre-primary pre-primary and up-scaling education, pre-primary Moreover, in spite of these initiatives, many in children practice to remain access without to is needed help children education successfully transfer education. intoprimary primary However, access. way of atpre- one year least scaling-up ofmore full-time acost-effective programmes, were which seen as pre-primary and 240-hour recently introduced 100-hour lowered or by one year. the entrance ofyear age primary of pre-primary, Kyrgyzstan countries preparatory have now introduced acompulsory Chapter 2, anumber of CEE/CIS low throughout the is region, very asin discussed life. enrolment Although in pre-school in narrowing continue this effects and its gap, throughout achild’s and post-school school role plays acrucial education that is evidence pre-primary clear subsequent The grades. exist tend these 1and 2, and in gaps inschools most to grades rather in than widen close groups already children between gaps from learning different Significant socio-economic children school of and policies out of specific profiles addressing Strategies A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

4 173 Policies and strategies 4 174 Policies and strategies poorly in school. School factors which influence the quality of education are education of heavily factors the influence quality which School in school. poorly to approach improvingThere is no straightforward the outcomes of children performing girls and boysare drop or out. of out school forstrategies both policies and to have boys.It is important gender-specific girls and 100,000 in enrolment of 250,000 Girls’Hey Let’s to Go School‘, in launched Turkey, resulted which in an estimated increase of both girls andsuch boys, as the participation may also encourage Campaigns account. would therefore intargeting education boys’ low participation to need take this into they strong face their pressure societal campaignfamilies. Amedia to support financially boysare moreadolescent girls from In Armenia, likely school. attending to drop as out discourage in rural areas, particularly which the inadequate sanitationfacilities, particularly discrimination. example, For in Tajikistan akey area of focus wouldthe improvement be of Strategies to need and policies take into the account context-sensitive nature of gender byalso level changes and location. and by of contextual education factors such as poverty region, girls are more likely to ofwhereas out in be school, others the reverse is true. This discrimination takesGender different forms in different countries. countries In some in the inclusive approach. education family-focused, segregation, to achild-centred, from shift a‘defectology’,a paradigm intervention emphasizes which medical approach reinforcingdoors, it requires beyond campaigns, Going and stereotyping. media stigma step, asin itselfmany an important countries children disabilities with live behind closed the involvement of Increasing celebrities. children the of visibility local disabilities with is Education Equity Now! Equity Education girls and boys, in order to address the specific girls andin boys, why order toreasons addressthe specific

© UNICEF/GEORGIA or hazardous formsor of child labour. directly preventing to abusive wouldmore be combat child appropriate labour –in particular to work out from dropping without fallingor behind However, in school. in contexts some evening for classes working youth. are These strategies children enable which to continue thereby ensuring offer that schools noone falls areas urban in In behind. some Albania daysovertime school or the following weeks example, (for duringto weekends) catch up, pupils are in any then absent additional schedule case can during this school time. The of proportion as season, asignificant during harvest to period a school for close ashort targets children working is to allow specifically which of Armenia foremployed in parts are thereforereduce poverty also effective in reducing child labour. innovative An strategy substantial be and strategies policies − even can same aimlabour which The to crucial. lostduetoearnings the child not the families poorest working. For the contribution of child may considered not in be terms only of the direct also but and indirect in terms costs, of Poverty, and exclusion child labour fromare related. education closely of cost schooling The it most. need who such problems, toidentify ensure that the funding is which available reaches those people to theto richestquintile. needs carefully assistance be monitored Social and evaluated to cent per gopayments to reach the quintile, poorest and orphans widows whereas 44.6 example, For and corruption. it was found that in Turkey cent 2per of only monthly transfer required they are documentation,because unaware of of their errors rights, because or theybecause do not have arewho the not eligibledo but receive support any sufficient or forthese costs the families. poorest around In addition, the region there children are poor dueto and Tajikistan, In Kyrgyzstan costs corruption. are benefits low social too coverto uniforms materials, school and education as well as unofficial including transportation, significant, be can theshould of indirect considered. alsoIn addition, be costs education or not whether– – compulsory to But it is farFree education. frompre-school sufficient. step is afirst of education barriersabolition fees to economic reducing for compulsory The pre-school. Many families cannot affordin simply ofparticular the cost education, and improved waterfortification, sanitation and facilities in schools. supplementation and food programmes, micro-nutrient vaccinations, school-feeding of concentration Initiatives at school. to improve children’s health de-worming, include would reduce absenteeism, ensure healthy cognitivedevelopment and improve levels factor is children’s health, improvements non-school-related to important whichAn children. disadvantaged in raising for achievement, learning socio-economically particularly role as above, discussed also plays an important Pre-school, schools. and disadvantaged advantaged the close currently least socio-economically large discrepancies between very distribution of resourcesequitable to through schools formula should which funding, at the the is strategy important Another campaigns. throughmedia and of teachers salaries the of the for teaching candidates, example profession, through increasing top-tier to attract strategy toAny improve shouldhow consider to teacher improve quality the level of prestige factor pupils’ single affecting consistently school achievement. learning the important most −asin discussed but Chapterdebated, 3−the showsis evidence that teacher quality A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

4 175 Policies and strategies 4 176 Policies and strategies automation of tasks facilitate and processeswhich this. flows and identify preventand financial to computerization and the practices, andcorrupt controls and financial regulations,monitoring tools and instruments), of practical information development through training (i.e. and the development by capacity to of accompanied be resourcemanagementFor this processes.flows and needdecentralization reason, efforts and misusecorruption to of lead funds, mismanagement and can due to more complicated morebe responsive for to But the on other needs. opportunities up it also opens hand, and greater autonomy at to decentralized levels decision-makers −empowering local flexible and more more resourcemaking, efficient community management, involvement, A decentralizedpitfalls. system to lead education greater can transparency in decision- systems. But although such systems have numerous they advantages, also have potential and in the regiontendency −both globally −to move towards more decentralized education of and strategies policies target which excluded children. a been andTherehas at-risk in discussed Chapter highly centralized 3, As systems the education implementation impede essential to the systematic running and orderly of amore decentralized system. education computerization and automationThe of information and managementsystems is also levels example, (for at national, levels). regional and school system, and tends to –by much more diverse be stakeholders accessible and at different tolead it is when much more entered timely data directly into by the school acentral children,the recording can at-risk to of characteristics detailedindividual identify better children. rather at tracking the than individual at It enables the aggregated level, enabling management information systems excluded for identifying and at-risk non-school-based Information System Management over numerous has even or paper- advantages School similar and Romania Kyrgyzstan initiativesIn Armenia, are way. under Aweb-based years. within just two to 100,000 children from around 300,000 number of non-enrolled children, resulting in alargereductionused tonumberin of the non-enrolled identify Information successfully was which System Management established was e-School monitoring of excluded children and children at risk of exclusion. In Turkey, asophisticated the improve to initiatives undertaken recently have countries CEE/CIS Several intervention. order to monitor children, children,and target and organize at-risk identify appropriate, early inclusive strategy also requires education An arobust information managementsystem in to promote society and civil inclusive in schools. NGOs with education and collaborating adjusting teacher-trainingschools, programmes to inclusive issues, incorporate education into Strategies schools costs. special converting include resource mainstream centres serving to together, come the implementation entail of not huge inclusive necessarily does education recognition of it requires inclusive implementation. and its Although education many aspects to limited be pockets between toofficial and theregap geographic select is asignificant tend such approaches In practice strategies andstyles. learning pedagogical arrangements, recognizing the diverse of needs children and developing classroom appropriate curricula, social and physical of their social environments aspects disabling the disabilities. It requires from of ashift the the consideration ofchild aspects the disabling to it comes when childrentheir with differences in –requiresparticular shift, aparadigm above, discussed inclusiveAs –foror education all regardless of learners their difficulties policies finance and governance strategies and Management, Education Equity Now! Equity Education

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school 5 children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Conclusion initiatives and policy prioritization special that require challenges set ofunique has itsown in theregion Each country 5 178 Conclusion barriers and bottlenecks to and bottlenecks exclusionbarriers from education. region, and outlines anumber of recommendations for reducing the facing the CEE/CIS remainder ofThe and adolescents. this chapter examines the key issuesout of school children to belonging multiple standards; childrento of out school academic risk groups; children; children affected by gender discrimination; children according performing poorly children working from needs; the households; poorest education disabilities and special children from age; ethnic minorities −inprimary particular, children;children Roma with focuses the on followingchildren profiles: of Itout particularly pre- of school education. countries are facing the greatest to in access challenges quality providing equitable sought has and emphasize to areas identify those report where policy This CEE/CIS also below). analyses that are (see possible of in-depth the types limits the on places monitoringand reliable children data of and and at-risk of out school projections to estimate the of numbers of children. of out general lack detailed school The will to need children ofout continue school and youth, to policy-makers rely population on Given of the lack systematicmonitoring Estonia of and Montenegro). country Macedonia, Slovenia, former Yugoslav The relatively example, small(for populations Latvia, of Republic and new estimates of children of out school are even more pronounced in countries with available, children theof out on statistics school will surely Recalibrated change. databases new estimatesincreasing population When population. by single years of become age centper since 2001, census projections whereas predicted from population an the 2001 2011 preliminary Albania census results by indicate decreased 7.7 has that the population figures is the relativelylarge numbers of emigrant families in the For region. example, in factor of and reliability undermining of out the accuracy school important and youth. An Several fluctuations and reversals are likely due children to on out inaccuratedata of school school children situation. countries have of seen the in adecline overall at one aspect least of out of the CEE/CIS therefore while countries some progress, have mixed: significant around made one-third region is overall The Montenegro, picture and Serbia. Romania for Moldova, the CEE/CIS large increases in in countries some particularly overwith than doubled decade, the past children more has of out school of percentage countries. primary-age The three CEE/CIS have lost.Enrolment been have in education at declined levels least in lower secondary countries progress towards EFA is in retreat;CEE/CIS gainsearlier in some, significant in the region uneven, in several it is reversing cases itself. example, For in at five least low achievement havelearning but secondary, very levels. progress is educational only Not level; countries or are which to close reaching cent and lower per 100 enrolment in primary education level, education low at still but the primary at very the lower- secondary upper or number of countries for in the region; example, countries where enrolment is relatively high initiatives. analysispolicy revealed ofhas The the data inconsistencies in a and imbalances also ownset its has of uniquecountry that challenges require prioritization and special ethnic minorities, communities Roma and those disabilities. with At the time, same each issues, including common face the continuing exclusion of children families, from poor region reveals that many countries children of out on school in the CEE/CIS report This Education Equity Now! Equity Education 4. 3. 2. 1. at or from risk of education, excluded: being focused has the on following report groupsThis of children are who likely most to excluded be disability, characteristics. other residence and age, social status, ethnicity, regardlessand meaningfullyof in education, family wealth, poverty sex, diversity. inclusive system education An ensures equitably that all children participate can of all children regardless of their differences. Ittoand responds welcomes needs individual to aimed atInclusive isincluding anand recognizing approach education education the needs 5.1 An effective strategy ofAn inclusive requires education the following: alsobottlenecks, need addressed.be to and financing well governance, as political, capacity as barriers, and socio-cultural economic ofcomponent the overall demand-side problem; to protection. aresocial barriers a education small only to It needs recognize that supply-side health variousand sectors including education, between and collaboration coordination toof It inherently through barriers addressed education. approach, requires amulti-sector inclusive system education An to needs nature take into the account multi-dimensional tobelonging amarginalized ethnic group to that lead exclusion. children;rather, and to than it werewas of theof out combination be school poverty non-Roma example, children Roma in in Romania the wealthiest quintile were found to nomore be likely of better understanding how inter-connected risk factors to lead exclusion from For education. beyond simple measures suchto and asethnic gender, status, and come a minority poverty to lead which children at or of beingout risk requires of school This out. dropping us to look to areBarriers school often complex and inter-connected. It tends to of a combination be factors 8. 7. 6. 5. 9. ■■ ■■

C C C and the ending requirements of legal that force parents to present papers. their ownidentity removal of registration fees, simplification of mobilization registration campaigns, procedures the right forUpholding all children to registered be −for example, through the reduction or children disabilities. with ratified the Convention –and are to bound not implement legally inclusive for policies Conventionthe UN the on Rights of Persons Disabilities, not with but all countries have to inclusive Many countries in education. the regionprovincial to are and local) signatory authorities at educational all of levels legislation committing passage (national, The C Adolescents. C C W C hildren with disabilities and special education needs. hildren education disabilities with and special hildren from children. ethnic Roma minorities, in particular age. hildren of pre-primary hildren to risk groups. belonging multiple OOSC standards. belowhildren expected academic performing hildren discrimination. affected by gender hildren fromhouseholds. the poorest orking children.orking Advance inclusive education Advance A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

education inclusive to advance are needed and policies strategies Better 5 179 Conclusion diversity and welcome differences to individual child, respond needs ofevery recognize the should All schools 5 180 Conclusion ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Education Equity Now! Equity Education in inclusive education knowledge and practices. in inclusive knowledge education teacher-training programmes to instruction include and in-service Reform of pre-service inclusive curriculum. school An formshidden of segregation. Ensuring that children disabilities with have to access inclusive systems school without region are still recognized. not officially disabilities in the CEE/CIS –currently in schools an estimated million 3.6 appropriate children support with Ensuring that children disabilities with are recognized and receive adequate and marginalized children, children with disabilities, working children and street children. use ofThe flexible programmes, together which meet the different of needs Development programmes to of action affirmative counter discrimination. Removing the requirement registration of to documents birth register for school. © UNICEF multilingual environments?; and how are human rights in discussed the curriculum? convey culture Roma and identity?; how are teachers expected to teach in multicultural and to discrimination ethnicity, on based and gender?; disability how they and do understand following they do emphasize questions: tolerance, for a respect diversity, and sensitivity and valuesattitudes in the materials employed in teacher-training programmes and ask the to teach an inclusive there curriculum. Thus, to isexamine aneed critically underlining inclusive strategy also providesAn education teachers the with resources and capacity children.among non-Roma children, also Roma spreadamong tolerance it can but for and respect different cultures example, identification not and community helps build only amore identity positive Roma such as ethnicity, and gender. disability teaching of The culture Romani and history, for traits avoids and stereotyping negative representations socio-demographic select on based A curriculum is inclusive insofar as it promotes for respect different cultures and values, and 108 procedures and measures are to in place minimize and fixdata entry errors during data analyses and inappropriate recommendationsIt is therefore and policies. that crucial worse be than noinformationinaccurate can data at all, potentially to leading incorrect account for and administrativesurvey discrepancies between In cases,some data. partly and are and reliability oftenfigures. overlooked Chapter quality Data 2), issues (see forms and systems,unwieldy and confusing entry to data leading missing inaccurate or information aregular on may misunderstand and basis, those responsible for entry data tosubsequent enter funding other or punitive the maycapacity measures. lack Schools and absenteeism figures, ifthey are especially enrolment,linked drop-out tounder-report maynot reach Schools those organizations institutions or provide support. can which information management system information in place, Even may aschool-based with countries. between, of children tracking families whose the difficulty migrate both within, especiallybut children Roma and children of in and (3) documents, particular migrants; and legal ‘missing’or from certificates government including children birth lack who databases, children are who ‘invisible’ isa uniquewhich (2) required pupilID for tracking; individual such asystem entails overcoming (1) theof absence at three least main barriers: excluded to impossible children. intervene it is nearly and support Implementingtype, students are who individual information detailed at risk of Without out. dropping of this enrolment registers,comparing lists population with and attendance and also track countries.CIS Ideally, these children of shouldout help authorities school by identify informationbased managementsystems are now introduced being in CEE/ some first step in reaching to out excluded children and children at risk of exclusion. School- A robust information managementsystem and monitoring strategy is an essential excluded of monitoring and at-risk the mprove 5.2

org/en/themes/curricular-themes/inclusive-education.html For moreoninclusive curricular strategiesseetheUNESCO-International BureauofEducation:http://www.ibe.unesco. I children children A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern 108

those atrisk children and out ofschool better monitor needed to systems are management information More robust 5 181 Conclusion on quality policy makers capacity to insights and can bringnew assessments learning international participation in development; inform policy assessment to learning national Introduce 5 182 Conclusion In Kosovo outdated. example, For for Turkmenistan available. is publicly education on almost nodata Administrative is either completely data missing for much indicators, some else or is very countries. isissue also available of asignificant CEE/CIS lack data publicly some for The information. available the todifferent monitor, government of and alack capacity agencies upon analyse and act agreements between in informationgaps flows, of lack and data-sharing coordination children of out school and children include to at These risk. support efforts hamper which accurate information emerge issues can is received from other schools, data-related cleaning’. arise,problems, inevitably which through as ‘data known aprocess Even if 110 109 and policy-making. decision- ensure greater transparency and would and promote accountability evidence-based would This accessible. easily acommitment data public and making made to data open countries will follow the example of Kenya, and theother UK countries that have thus far Hopefully, accessible. steps publicly in more making forward are data important more not released to Initiatives the public. such as theInitiative Kenya Data (KODI) Open available, may be example, but and location For by age, gender data disaggregated iceberg’, as it were −and not the more detailedinformation collected. been had which many government to choose −the ‘tip agencies publish of highly aggregated data the to the Internet the via public is arelatively recent various reasons, For phenomenon. thatmean relevant not of government exist. does making practice available data The data Finally, not noting necessarily does available that of itthe is data worth lack publicly recommendations. based attempts to carefully analyse the situation of children of out school and provide evidence- weigh any heavilyon across problems countries. certainly is often These not comparable children Roma on and reliable andchildren on data exist disabilities, with does and what of striking lack comprehensiveresidence, Thereis a particularly and language. ethnicity ofwould the availability administrative be disaggregated by, data for example, region, sex, For these major definitions step in methodologies. a and reasons, variables, forward countries is between compromised dueto of the lack standardizationand comparability to error sampling leads unreliable estimates for out-dated; smallerbe sub-populations; it may regularly, not collected be problematic: be can countries may data or CIS survey groupings. However,breakdowns in of many children CEE/ in socio-demographic major in analysing the situationdata of children of out school −for example, by providing over advantages administrative fromcertain has gleaned instruments. survey data Survey countries, administrativesupplemented be can information with data In CEE/CIS some meaningful progress analyses of and challenges. educational rates have not yet of absence such released. quantitative The been information precludes step Education Equity Now! Equity Education

See http://esk.rks-gov.net/eng/ UNSCR 1244. 110 . However, indicators for such as gross education data andstandard net enrolment 109 , education data has recently become publicly available, publicly recentlyis has which an important data become , education confidence, self-esteem and academic skills (UNICEF, skillsacademic 2011a). and self-esteem confidence, parentalActive involvement environment, build to help of and communities these familiarize school the with them the with members in collaboration designed should be classes as well as compensatory programmes are far higher these among children Pre-school than the general population. which and subsequently in school, lowerdisadvantages the rates of subsequent drop-out, (and linguistic) educational help reduce significant education, transition to primary programmes would improve their children, ethnic and Roma For pre-school minority abusive hazardousforms or combat of child labour. preventing altogether child labour is more appropriate in other to situations −in particular evening daysor classes), as catch-up alternative (such options suitable may be education strategies to targeting need child take labour into the account context. sometimes While daysoverschool the following However, of weeks Armenia. taken −an approach in parts communities catch-up time andadditional schedule is to during harvest the close school targeting innovative children working An ruralagriculturalin strategy specifically in apositive light, and the involvement celebrities. of local strategies including music festivals, the of display showing billboards children disabilities with Campaign‘, Change ‘Behavioural in Montenegro, by launched UNICEF employed which various of volunteers frontline and public workers to raise awareness of and the the value of education; Turkey’sin Albania; avast on network depended which Girls Let’s ‘Hey campaign, to Go School‘ environment an inclusive, be can was asuccessful –which approach that child-friendly school and other Roma marginalizedprogrammes targeting disadvantaged children, demonstrating toRomania raise awareness public of and counter summer school discrimination Roma; against in to campaigns and stereotyping prejudice. and media successfully combat social include They There are many examples of innovative strategies employed used in be the region can which and campaigns projects. and organisations education in for-profit various both non-profit with and collaboration deduction, tax donations as an income construction recognition of school revenue centa 25 tax, per stamp Council, from in transactions the Stock Istanbul Exchange, from of income suchTelevision as the advertisement the collection Radio shortfalls, Higher Turkey as inspiration. may serve Here, various strategies were employed to addressbudgetary barrier,constraints as a significant financial act the innovativefinancingstrategies employed in itIn most. countries need who likeit reaches those people and Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan where Consequently, to needs carefully assistance be social monitored and evaluated to ensure that ofdocumentation, lack awareness of rights, basic mismanagement and errors, and corruption. notand it often itfor reachmost does need of those who lack required various reasons: to –are for corruption unaffordable many families. welfare Social is not always sufficient, uniforms materials due costs school and education –and eventransportation, unofficial fees of abolition school step, afirst is only The as as costs such education indirect of economic barriers keep many children out of school. example, (for and discrimination, obstacles fear as social abuse) or ofeducation, violence right child Inclusive areto quality in enabling schools to every insufficient realize his/her social reduce to strategies ngage innovative 5.3 and economic barriersand economic E A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

and prejudice stereotyping combat successfully be usedto the regioncan employed in strategies Innovative 5 183 Conclusion exclusion that impact risk factors connection of the inter- understand to better status, ethnic minority poverty and as gender, measures such beyond simple must look Policies 5 184 Conclusion equity and quality in education. and quality equity backgrounds. help in to the lower Closing can gaps learning of improve grades school both and thereby pupils from narrow between different the learning gap socio-economic also improve can but ofout school, children learningamong from marginalized backgrounds, not reduces only the risk of below) children dropping (see education Similarly, pre-primary of children families. fromparticipation poor programmes are also effective in increasing theand processes.School-feeding learning all attending children means for is a critical improving children’s cognitive development nutrition to amongable ensuring focus Thus, good lessons and activities. classroom on adequatewith nutrition are stronger, more motivated, susceptible less to illness, and better − also improvechildren’s de-worming and Children food fortification opportunities. learning Initiatives to improve children’s health − for programmes, example, through school-feeding to improve tested outcomes. learning of graduates,employability and increases student motivation and retention. It is also likely theyonce enter force. the labour of aprocess alignment Such curricular enhancesthe an eyewith to competencies the and skills knowledge, required graduates of school there subjects In some of is education. apressingthe to quality need review the curriculum order thinking skills rather than rote means for memorization, is anotherimproving important Reforming the curriculum and approved greater by placing textbooks, emphasishigher- on and teaching methodsto knowledge promote studentpedagogical learning. to ensure that teachers enter re-designed adiverseshould thewith be classroom toolkit of teacher-training programmes of trained and effective teachers. pre-service In addition, bonusesor benefits for ruralworking in and remote areas,where there are shortages often individuals to join the qualified profession teaching − for example, through andhigher wages involves path effective policy teachers. This creating incentives talented to and engage pathwayis through crucial education One recruiting, to motivating quality and retaining improvements challenge. an enormous encompass of to education the quality constraints, of Certainly, conditions under financial higher enrolment 2010b). levels (OECD, outcomes, increase which returns the economic to as muchas,ifnot schooling more than, strategy are the improved the many learning justifications for thisAmong dual-pronged to made both reducebe the of numbers excluded children and improve education. quality in society. In countries where many children of out school remain, can concurrent efforts acquire relevant and skills to knowledge reach their potential meaningfully and to participate and more children countries school, must attend ensure that all children, while in school, children progress in challenge.thisis is achieved, anAs enormous goal all school-age shown, has getting this report As of education. of the quality lose sight of the importance Even in the shadow of many children, of out school it is imperative that countries not do on focusing by education of quality the mprove 5.4 themselves,schools through or parental counselling classes. and adult education in their children’s isDifferent also critical. education strategies developed by be the can Education Equity Now! Equity Education teachers, curricula and marginalized children marginalized and curricula teachers, I

pathways to improving quality education. are crucial teachers effective retaining and motivating, Recruiting, are key! Teachers © UNICEF/UNI41257 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern

has begun approach; it education inclusive focused, family- centred, to achild- segregation, emphasizes which approach intervention medical ‘defectology’, needed froma shift is A paradigm 5 185 Conclusion quality access and education – childhood Invest inearly 5 186 Conclusion and Uzbekistan more than 40 per cent per of pre-primary-age moreand Uzbekistan than 40 Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, former Yugoslav The Turkey of Republic Macedonia, infrastructure transition in the early years yet has to recover in countries. some In Azerbaijan, in children’s of stage thisthe neglect crucial development. of collapse pre-primary The countries indicates of CEE/CIS in the majority education limited toThe access pre-primary 5.5 111 societal levelsocietal productivity. in termseconomic and of greater efficiencies educational and futurecognitive benefits economic returns for theinvolved, individuals but also at the of cost is high, this not in neglect only terms of long-term programmes. The pre-primary region regions, In some ofschool. such as the Tajikistan, DRD almost nochildren attend Education Equity Now! Equity Education

Children oneyear ageaccordingtotheDimension1definition. younger thantheofficialprimary skills and competencies rather than the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. to from teacher knowledge of transfer the than rather competencies and skills thinking order higher on needed is emphasis More learning! and access to key is Quality Invest strongly in pre-primary education in pre-primary strongly Invest 111 children are not enrolled in

© UNICEF make high-quality pre-primary education available − and affordable −to available −and affordable education all families. pre-primary make high-quality However,Kyrgyzstan. in spite of this progress amuchstronger commitment is required to programmes in pre-primary and 240-hour such as the 100-hour education, in pre-primary recently introduced. Thereare been enrolment also other initiatives in the region to scale-up year has preparatory pre-primary countriesIn some in the region, afree compulsory in to which invest period in achild’sthe cost-effective most life. for governments it is expensive education, rather thanexpensivesimple being point: to invest in pre-primary revenues increased with along tax engenders, underscore a higher on future incomes) example, programmes (for theand welfare crime reduced outlays it pre-primary quality and their wealthier the on other. peers, Mounting in evidence favour of investing in high- children, the on one hand, and underprivileged future disadvantaged between disparities improves outcomes education by helping to equity reduceMoreover, to access pre-primary characteristics and needs, and some need more support than others. more need and some support and needs, characteristics treatment; it involves to children providingto opportunities according equal their different to needs beyond go in communities.equal education Equity disadvantaged economically and empower parents toengage society, and civil socio- while providing support additional facilities finally,and And in termsresources. schools of staffing, advantaged itneeds to are schools atlevel an equal disadvantaged to socio-economically socio-economically ensures least at or the very disadvantage, that compensateswhich for socio-economic and transparent equitable to with it needs formulaIn addition, coincide funding to schools controls to track informationflows and finance to preventand corruption misuse of funds. adequate to with monitoringIt needs coincide mechanisms, financial regulations and required for the systematic running and orderly of amore decentralized system. education thewith computerization and automation of information and management systems resourcecomplicated management processes and flows involved. It needs coincideto have to the with more the deal required and ability knowledge that decision-makers development to it worse. ensuremade Decentralization capacity to with needs coincide improvements to the situation of excluded children, have and andin at-risk cases some Atneeds. thetime, same moves towards decentralization have to led not necessarily and responding local to have the powerdecision-making and flexibility for independent innovation. also They hamper education. In centralized systems, authorities not do local tobarrier of the and strategies adoption policies reduce thatexclusion could from centralizedHighly systems education are still prevalent in the as asignificant region and act 5.6 Implement effective decentralization reform decentralization effective Implement not A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central Central in children school of out of situation the of analysis A regional and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States States Independent of Commonwealth and the Europe and Eastern to invest in pre-primary education. Indeed, pre-primary education is education pre-primary Indeed, education. to invest in pre-primary

flows cated resource more compli- deal withthe and abilityto knowledge the required makers have that decision to ensure development with capacity to coincide zation needs Decentrali- 5 187 Conclusion

Education Equity Now!

A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Annexes Education Equity Now!

Annex 1: Dimension 1 − Pre-primary-school-age

Annexes children who are not enrolled in pre-primary or primary school

Total Male Female

Most Region and recent Number % Number % Number % country name year since 2007 UNICEF: CEE/CIS 2010 1,627,490** 32.7** 831,714** 32.6** 795,776** 32.9** Albania 2010 16,342 35.3 8,321 34.4 8,021 36.3 Armenia n/a m m m m m m Azerbaijan 2010 84,484* 69.6* 44,829* 69.1* 39,655* 70.3* Belarus 2010 8,946 9.7 m m m m Bosnia and 2010 29,679 86.4 15,319 86.4 14,360 86.5 Herzegovina Bulgaria 2010 6,294 9.6 3,251 9.6 3,043 9.5 Croatia 2010 4,417 10.6 2,501 11.7 1,916 9.5 Georgia 2007 19,576 47.0 11,452 50.5 8,124 42.8 Kazakhstan 2009 3,285 1.5 m m m m Kyrgyzstan 2010 43,592 45.4 22,866 46.8 20,726 43.9 Montenegro 2010 77 0.9 m m m m Moldova 2010 2,682* 7.4* 1,466* 7.9* 1,216* 6.9* Romania 2010 7,582 3.6 4,365 4.0 3,217 3.1 Russian 2009 135,603 10.2 71,454 10.5 64,149 9.9 Federation Serbia 2010 10,236* 13.0* 5,459* 13.4* 4,777* 12.5* Tajikistan 2010 153,340 92.1 77,666 91.4 75,674 92.8 The former Yugoslav 2010 15,023 65.1 7,909 66.1 7,114 64.1 Republic of Macedonia Turkey 2009 649,876 52.0 323,050 50.6 326,826 53.5 Turkmenistan n/a m m m m m m Ukraine n/a m m m m m m Uzbekistan 2010 334,205 66.2 171,110 66.6 163,095 65.8

Legend of symbols:

m Data are missing * National estimation ** UIS estimation

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics database, May 2012 release

190 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Annex 2: Dimension 2 – Primary-school-age

children who are not enrolled in primary or Annexes secondary school

Total Male Female

Most Region and recent Number % Number % Number % country name year since 2007 UNICEF: CEE/CIS 2010 1,093,765** 5.2 538,827 5.0 554,938 5.4 Albania 2010 m m m m m m Armenia 2007 4,343 3.8 3,055 5.0 1,288 2.4 Azerbaijan 2010 78,445** 15.3** 40,292** 14.7** 38,153** 15.9** Belarus 2010 28,505 8.0 m m m m Bosnia and 2010 20,201 12.9 11,068 13.7 9,133 12.1 Herzegovina Bulgaria 2010 1,252 0.5 927 0.7 325 0.3 Croatia 2010 7,4 46 4.1 4,786 5.2 2,660 3.0 Georgia n/a m m m m m m Kazakhstan 2011 4,316 0.5 2,892 0.6 1,425 0.3 Kyrgyzstan 2010 18,490 4.7 9,023 4.5 9,467 4.9 Montenegro 2010 5,555 16.8 m m m m Moldova 2010 14,936* 9.9* 7,708* 9.9* 7,228* 9.9* Romania 2010 109,035 12.4 54,669 12.1 54,366 12.7 Russian 2009 220,707 4.3 127,868 4.9 92,839 3.7 Federation Serbia 2010 16,133* 5.5* 8,034* 5.3* 8,099* 5.6* Tajikistan 2010 15,013 2.2 1,756 0.5 13,257 4.0 The former Yugoslav 2010 2,212 1.8 1,730 2.7 482 0.8 Republic of Macedonia Turkey 2009 161,880 2.5 58,575 1.8 103,305 3.3 Turkmenistan n/a m m m m m m Ukraine 2010 137,694 8.9 73,454* 9.2* 64,240* 8.5* Uzbekistan 2011 148,487 7.2 62,139 5.9 86,348 8.5

Legend of symbols: m Data are missing * National estimation ** UIS estimation

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics database, May 2012 release

191 Education Equity Now!

Annex 3: D imension 3 – Lower secondary-school-age

Annexes children who are not enrolled in primary or secondary school

Total Male Female

Most Region and recent Number % Number % Number % country name year since 2007 UNICEF: CEE/CIS 2010 1,435,083** 6.2** 705,434** 6.0** 729,649** 6.5** Albania n/a m m m m m m Armenia 2007 23,940 9.5 13,462 10.3 10,478 8.6 Azerbaijan n/a m m m m m m Belarus 2010 24,204** 4.9** m m m m Bosnia and n/a m m m m m m Herzegovina Bulgaria 2010 34,462 12.7 16,948 12.2 17,514 13.3 Croatia 2010 1,535 0.8 m m m m Georgia 2009 14,443 8.0 m m m m Kazakhstan 2011 58 0.0 m m m m Kyrgyzstan 2010 44,893* 8.2* 21,575* 7.7* 23,318* 8.6* Montenegro n/a m m m m m m Moldova 2010 29,153* 12.5* 14,232* 11.9* 14,921* 13.0* Romania 2009 51,581 5.8 27,426 6.0 24,155 5.5 Russian 2009 670,803 9.4 380,285 10.5 290,518 8.3 Federation Serbia 2010 8,232* 2.7* 3,982* 2.5* 4,250* 2.8* Tajikistan 2010 31,386 3.7 m m m m The former Yugoslav n/a m m m m m m Republic of Macedonia Turkey 2009 180,877** 4.6** 51,616** 2.6** 129,261** 6.7** Turkmenistan n/a m m m m m m Ukraine 2010 92,460 4.2 49,319* 4.4* 43,141* 4.0* Uzbekistan 2009 113,951 3.7 47,428 3.1 66,523 4.4

Legend of symbols:

m Data are missing * National estimation ** UIS estimation

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics database, May 2012 release

192 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Annex 4: M ap of UNICEF CEE/CIS programme

countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Annexes the Commonwealth of Independent States

193 Education Equity Now!

References

References Blanco Allais, F. and Hagemann, F. Child labour and education: Evidence from SIMPOC surveys, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) – Geneva: International Labour Office, 2008.

Brzozowski, J. Brain drain or brain gain? The new economics of brain drain reconsidered, 2008. Paper available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1288043 or http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.1288043.

Bush, K.D. and Saltarelli, D. (Eds.), The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children, Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Insight, 2000.

Carr-Hill, R. Finding and then counting out-of-school children, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(2), pp 187-212, 2012.

Dedze, I. Transparency in education in former communist countries, IIEP Newsletter, Vol XXIII, No 4, October-December, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, 2005.

Diallo, Y., Hagemann, F., Etienne, A., Gurbuzer, Y. and Mehran, F. Global child labour developments: Measuring trends from 2004 to 2008. International Labour Office, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) – Geneva: International Labour Office, 2010.

Docquier, F., Lohest, O. and Marfouk, A. Brain drain in developing countries, World Bank Economic Review, 21 (2): 193–218, 2007.

Engle, P.L., Black, M.M., Behrman, J.R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P.J., Kapiriri, L., Reynaldo Martorell, Mary Eming Young, and the International Child Development Steering Group, Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world, The Lancet, 369, pp 229-42, 2007.

Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia, Access to Basic Services for Children with Intellectual Disabilities in Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek, 2010.

European Parliament, Roma in the European Union - European Parliament resolution on the situation of the Roma in the European Union, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0151+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN, 2005.

Fleck, G. and Rughiniş, C., (Eds.) Vino mai aproape. Incluziunea şi excluziunea în societatea românească de azi [Come closer. Inclusion and exclusion in contemporary Romanian society], 2008.

Florestal, K., and Cooper, R., Decentralization of Education: Legal Issues, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1997.

Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y.B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B., and the International Child Development Steering Group, Development potential in the first five years for children in developing countries, The Lancet, 369, pp 60-70, 2007.

194 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

Hallak, J. and Poisson, M. Ethics and corruption in education, Results from the Expert Workshop held at the IIEP, Paris, 28-29 November 2001, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris, 2002. References Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S., Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities In Schools, Inc, 2007.

Hanushek, E.A., The economic value of higher teacher quality, Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pp 466-479, 2011.

Hashmi, J. (n.d.) Boys’ Declining Access to School in Armenia, Out of School Children Paper Series, Paper 3, UNICEF.

IBE (International Bureau on Education), World Data on Education. 7th edition (2010/11), www.ibe.unesco.org/en/services/online-materials/world-data-on-education/seventh- edition-2010-11.html, 2011.

IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement), Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Minnich, C.A., Stanco, G.M., Arora, A., Victoria A.S. Centurino, V.A.S. and Castle, C.E. (Eds.), TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science, Volume 1: A-K, 2012.

ILO, Global Employment Trends 2011: The challenge of a jobs recovery, Geneva: ILO, 2011.

IMF, Republic of Tajikistan: Third Review Under the Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, IMF Country Report No. 10/374, 2010.

IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, www.imf.org, 2011.

ISSA, Early Childhood Development and Education in Emergencies, Country Profiles: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Amsterdam, 2010.

Jha, J. and Kelleher, F. Boys’ Underachievement in Education: An Exploration in Selected Commonwealth Countries. London, UK: Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth of Learning, 2006.

Levačič, R. and Downes, P., Formula funding of schools, decentralization, and corruption: a comparative analysis, Paris: UNESCO-IIEP, 2004.

Lewin, Keith M. Improving access, equity and transitions in education: Creating a research agenda. Research monograph. Falmer: Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE), 2007.

Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y. and Ota, Y. Early childhood development in developing countries: pre- primary education, parenting, and health care. Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011, 2010.

OECD, PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do, Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450- en, 2010a.

195 Education Equity Now!

OECD, The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long-Run Economic Impact Of Improving PISA Outcomes, 2010b.

References OECD, PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II), 2010c.

OECD, Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, 2010d.

OECD, Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org, 2011a.

OECD, Kyrgyz Republic 2010: Lessons from PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264088757-en, 2011b.

Open Society Institute, Monitoring education for Roma 2006, New York: Open Society Institute, 2006.

Plikšnys, A., Kopnicka, S., Hrynevych, L., Palicarsky, C., Transparency in education in Eastern Europe, Ethics and corruption in education, UNESCO-IIEP and Open Society Institute, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, 2009.

Poisson, M., Corruption and Education, Education policy booklet series No. 11, Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, and Brussels: IEA, 2010.

Ross, K. and Levačič, R. Principles for designing needs-based school funding formulae, In: Ross, K. and Levačič, R. (Eds.), Needs-based resource allocation in education via formula funding of schools, Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), 1999.

Saidov, F. Children’s Voices, A Qualitative Study of Poverty in Tajikistan, UNICEF, DFID, Strategic Research Centre Under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, 2007.

Sakurai, R. Child labour and education, Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007 − Strong foundations: early childhood care and education. Paris: UNESCO, 2006.

Schleicher, A., Ed., Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from around the World, OECD Publishing, 2012.

Solodunova, G. Young people help build lasting peace after conflict in southern Kyrgyzstan, 2011, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/kyrgyzstan_57893.html

Sridhar, D., Linkages between Nutrition, Ill-Health and Education, Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009 − Overcoming Inequality: why governance matters, 2008.

State Committee on Statistics of the Republic of Tajikistan and UNICEF, Tajikistan Living Standards Measurement Survey: Indicators at a Glance, 2009.

StatSilk, StatWorld: Interactive Maps of Open Data, http://www.statsilk.com/maps/world- stats-open-data, 2011.

TAJSTAT, Agency on Statistics under President of the Republic of Tajikistan, http://www. stat.tj, August 2011.

196 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

TransMONEE Database, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, http://www.transmonee.org, 2011.

Transparency International, http://www.transparency.org, 2011. References

UCW (Understanding Children’s Work), Inter-agency research cooperation initiative involving the ILO, UNICEF and World Bank, http://www.ucw-project.org/

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), Global Education Digest 2005: Comparing Education Statistics across the World, Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2005.

UIS, The quantitative impact of conflict on education, Think piece prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011, The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education, Montreal: UIS, 2010a.

UIS, Out of school Adolescents, Montreal: UIS, 2010b.

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), Out of school Children: New Data Reveal Persistent Challenges, Montreal: UIS, 2011a.

UIS, Data Centre, http://stats.uis.unesco.org, 2011b.

UIS, The Quantitative Impact of Conflict on Education, UIS technical paper no. ,7 Montreal: UIS, http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/tp7-quantitative-armed-conflict-impact- education-2011-en.pdf, 2011c.

UIS, Data Centre, http://stats.uis.unesco.org, May 2012 release.

UIS, UIS Fact Sheet, June 1012, No. 18, Montreal: UIS, http://www.uis.unesco.org/ Education/Documents/fs-18-OOSC-2.pdf, 2012b.

UIS and UNICEF, Children Out of School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary Education, Montreal: UIS, 2005.

UNDP, Human Development Report 2010, The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

UNESCO, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008: Education for All by 2015: Will we make it?, Paris: UNESCO, 2007.

UNESCO, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009: Overcoming inequality: why governance matters, Paris: UNESCO, 2009.

UNESCO, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the marginalized, Paris: UNESCO, 2010.

UNESCO, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011: The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education, Paris: UNESCO, 2011.

UNICEF, Children and Disability in Transition in CEE/CIS and Baltic States, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005a.

197 Education Equity Now!

UNICEF, All Rights For All Children: UNICEF in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, 2005b.

References UNICEF, Evaluation of the Innocenti Research Centre, NY:UNICEF, 2005c.

UNICEF, The State of the World’s Children 2007: Women and Children, the Double Dividend of Gender Equity, New York: UNICEF, 2006.

UNICEF, Education for some more than others? A regional study on education in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2007.

UNICEF (2008). Assessment of the Situation of Children with Disabilities. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://biasfree.org/assessment_disabled_children_kyrg.pdf

UNICEF, Innocenti Social Monitor 2009, Child Well-Being at a Crossroads: Evolving challenges in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2009a.

UNICEF, Learning Achievement in the CEE/CIS Region: A Comparative Analysis of the Results from the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2009b.

UNICEF, Roma Children: a Study of Barriers to Educational Attainment in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Paper 1, Out of School Children Paper Series, UNICEF Country Office The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2009c.

UNICEF, Child-Friendly Schools Manual, New York: UNICEF, 2009d.

UNICEF, At home or in a home? Formal care and adoption of children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2010a.

UNICEF, Strategic Repositioning of the UNICEF-supported WASH in Schools Programme in Tajikistan, Bishkek: UNICEF Country Office, 2010b.

UNICEF, Out of School Children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2011a.

UNICEF, Situation Assessment of Children in the Kyrgyz Republic, 2011b. http://www. unicef.org/kyrgyzstan/Situation_analysis_ENG.pdf

UNICEF, The Right of Children with Disabilities to Education: A Rights-Based Approach to Inclusive Education in the CEE/CIS Region − Background Note, Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/ CIS), 2011c.

198 A regional analysis of the situation of out of school children in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

UNICEF, The Right of Roma Children to Education: Position Paper, Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2011d. References UNICEF, Demand for Education Innovation: Adolescent and youth perspectives on education quality in the CEE/CIS Region, Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2011e.

UNICEF, Report on the Assessment of the Lyoli community, Bishkek: UNICEF Country Office, 2011f.

UNICEF, Out of School Children, Country Report: Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek: UNICEF Country Office, 2012a.

UNICEF, Out of School Children, Country Report: Romania, Bucharest: UNICEF Country Office, 2012b, In press (2012-2013).

UNICEF, Out of School Children, Country Report: Tajikistan, Dushanbe: UNICEF Country Office, 2012c, In press (2012-2013).

UNICEF, Out of School Children, Country Report: Turkey, Istanbul: UNICEF Country Office, 2012d, In press (2012-2013).

UNICEF, The Right of Children with Disabilities to Education: A Rights-Based Approach to Inclusive Education. Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), 2012e.

UNICEF and the University of York, Child Poverty and Wellbeing in CEE and the CIS during the Financial Crisis: Report on a UNICEF Survey: One Year Later, 2011.

UNICEF and UNISDR, Children and disasters: Building resilience through education, 2011.

UNICEF and UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), Global Initiative on Out of school Children: Conceptual and Methodological Framework (CMF), New York and Montreal, 2011.

UNICEF and UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), Global Initiative on Out of school Children, New York, 2011b.

UNICEF Childinfo, http://www.childinfo.org/labour_countrydata.php, 2011.

UN DESA, Population,Education and Development: The Concise Report, UN: New York, 2003.

UN DESA, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section, retrieved September 2011, http://esa.un.org/wpp/population-pyramids/population-pyramids.htm.

UNDP, Monthly Report on Social Economy − a solution for the development of Roma communities in Romania, UNDP Socio-Economic Section, February 2012.

USAID, Monitoring Country Progress in Central and Eastern Europe & Eurasia, Office of Program Coordination and Strategy, Bureau for Europe & Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development, No.7, July 2001

199 Education Equity Now!

USAID, Best practices in inclusive education for children with disabilities: applications for program design in the Europe & Eurasia region, March 2010a.

References USAID, Monitoring Country Progress in Central and Eastern Europe & Eurasia, Office of Program Coordination and Strategy, Bureau for Europe & Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development, No.12, May 2010b.

Walker, S.P., Wachs, T.D, Meeks Gardner, J., Lozoff, B., Wasserman, G.A., Pollitt, E., Carter, J.A., and the International Child Development Steering Group, Child development: risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries, The Lancet, 369, pp 145-157, 2007.

WFP, Poverty and Food insecurity in Uzbekistan, 2008, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/ groups/public/documents/ena/wfp179011.pdf.

WFP, School Feeding in Tajikistan, 2010, http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/Tajikistan%20 fact%20sheet%20School%20Feeding.pdf.

World Bank, Needs Assessment Study for the Roma Education Fund Background Paper − Croatia, 2004a, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/Resources/NAReportFinalCroatia.pdf.

World Bank, Needs Assessment Study for the Roma Education Fund Background Paper − Czech Republic, 2004b, http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/EdStats/CZEwp04.pdf

World Bank, Needs Assessment Study for the Roma Education Fund Background Paper − Macedonia, 2004c, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/Resources/ NAReportFinalMacedonia.pdf

World Bank, Needs Assessment Study for the Roma Education Fund Background Paper − Romania, 2004d, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/Resources/ NAReportFinalRomania.pdf

World Bank, World Bank Datasets retrieved via StatPlanet World Bank, http://www. statplanet.org, 2011.

World Bank, Country and Lending Groups, http://data.worldbank.org/about/country- classifications/country-and-lending-groups, 2011b.

World Bank, Migration and Remittances Factbook, www.worldbank.org, 2011b.

Zec, A. UNICEF Montenegro Behaviour Change Campaign − Promoting Inclusion of Children with Disabilities, Results for Equity in Education Access and Outcomes in CEE/ CIS Regional Education & ECD Network Meeting, UNICEF, 2012.

200