The Report on Out-of-School Children 2016 by UNICEF Viet Nam

EQUITY IN EDUCATION TO ENSURE ALL CHILDREN IN SCHOOL

Q INE

REMO

IT Y UA L

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

TE A

REA

POVER

L-BASED VIOLENCE

Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children

T Y GAPS

REPORT ON

OO SCH

OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN 2016 VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY

RRI

ERS

NATU

RAL D

AS T

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

REPORT ON

OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN 2016

Â© UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

PREFACE The 2016 Report on Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam country study, hereafter referred to as “the report,” is the updated version of the 2013 Report on Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam country study published by the Ministry of Education and Training. Out-of-school children are 5-14-year-old children who have never attended school or who once attended but later dropped out. The study was conducted by the Ministry of Education and Training under the framework of the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children initiated by the United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).1 The study report analyses and provide evidence about out-of-school children, children at risk of dropping out. It also identifies the barriers and obstacles that prevented and restricted children from attending school, and it proposes recommendations to reduce the number of OOSC and ensure educational equity and the right to education for all the children in Viet Nam, especially the disadvantaged children. and it aims to inform educational management, planning and policy advocacy in order to provide equity in education for all children, especially for disadvantaged children, and policy research and advocacy by the relevant ministries, the provinces and the research agencies of the Government of Viet Nam, and it also aims to satisfy the requirements for information by international organisations and other users in their efforts to reduce the number of out-of-school children in Viet Nam. This is also the goal of the Declaration on Education for Out-ofschool Children and Young People, signed by the Prime Minister of the Government of Viet Nam at the ASEAN Summit in Laos in 2016. The study combines both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The numbers and characteristics of out-of-school children in the whole country and from eight selected provinces are quantitatively analysed based on data from the 15 per cent sample of the 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The barriers and obstacles are analysed based on a qualitative survey conducted in six provinces in the early half of 2016 (Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang). The study report was prepared by the Ministry of Education and Training with technical support from technical consultants. Valuable comments were received from departments within the Ministry of Education and Training and from other ministries, including the Department of Children Protection and Care of the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, the Ethnic Council of the National Assembly, the Culture, Education and Youth and Children Committee of the National Assembly, the General Statistics Office, experts from United Nations agencies in Viet Nam and regional experts from UNICEF and UNESCO. The qualitative survey received strong support and cooperation from the provincial Departments of Education and Training, the district and commune People’s Committees and relevant agencies, the pre-primary, primary and lower secondary schools, the parents, and the children at risk of dropping out of school in 6 provinces: Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang. UNICEF Viet Nam has provided technical and financial support for the development and dissemination of the report. The Ministry of Education and Training and UNICEF in Viet Nam would like to extend our sincere thanks to the organisations and individuals engaged in the compilation and finalisation of the report.

Ms. Yoshimi Nishino

Ms. Nguyễn Thị Nghĩa

Acting Deputy Representative UNICEF Viet Nam

Vice Minister, Ministry of Education and Training

1 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE...................................................................................................................................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................................................................10 ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................................................................12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................21 1.1. The Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children and the 5 dimensions of exclusion...................................................................................... 22 1.1.1. The Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children................................................................................................................................. 22 1.1.2. The five dimensions of exclusion....................................................................................................................................................... 22 1.2. The national educational system.................................................................................................................................................................. 24 1.3. The country context...................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 1.4. Research methodology, overview of the data, and limitations of the research ............................................................................................ 27 1.4.1. Research methodology...................................................................................................................................................................... 27 1.4.2. Overview of the data and considerations in the analysis .................................................................................................................. 28 1.4.3. Limitations of the research................................................................................................................................................................ 29 CHAPTER 2: PROFILES OF OUT-OF SCHOOL CHILDREN...................................................................................................................31 2.1. Characteristics of children of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary school age................................................................................... 32 2.2. Dimension 1: 5-year-old out-of-school children........................................................................................................................................... 34 2.3. Dimension 2: Out-of-school children of primary school age......................................................................................................................... 43 2.3.1. School attendance rate of children of primary school age................................................................................................................. 43 2.3.2. Out-of-school children of primary school age................................................................................................................................... 49 2.4. Dimension 3: Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age......................................................................................................................56 2.4.1. School attendance of children of lower secondary school age........................................................................................................... 56 2.4.2. Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age...................................................................................................................... 67 2.5. Dimensions 4 and 5: Children at risk of dropping out................................................................................................................................... 75 2.5.1. 5-17-year-old dropouts .................................................................................................................................................................... 75 2.5.2. Educational attainment of the 5-17-year-old dropouts .................................................................................................................... 83 2.5.3. Overage............................................................................................................................................................................................. 86 6

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

2.6. Analysis of the 8 selected provinces...................................................................................................................................................... 91 2.6.1. Some features of the population................................................................................................................................................ 91 2.6.2. School attendance...................................................................................................................................................................... 93 2.6.3. Out-of-school children............................................................................................................................................................... 112 2.6.4. Dropouts and overage students.................................................................................................................................................. 118 2.7. Summary of the findings....................................................................................................................................................................... 128 CHAPTER 3: BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS............................................................................................................................ 133 3.1 Economic barriers on the demand side of education.............................................................................................................................. 134 3.1.1. Status......................................................................................................................................................................................... 134 3.1.2. Current policies and measures ................................................................................................................................................... 136 3.1.3. Recommended policies and measures ....................................................................................................................................... 138 3.2. Socio-cultural barriers on the demand side........................................................................................................................................... 139 3.2.1. Status......................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 3.2.2. Current policies and measures ................................................................................................................................................... 140 3.2.3. Recommended policies and measures ....................................................................................................................................... 141 3.3. Barriers and bottlenecks on the supply side.......................................................................................................................................... 142 3.3.1. Status ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 3.3.2. Current policies and measures.................................................................................................................................................... 149 3.3.3. Recommended policies and measures ....................................................................................................................................... 152 3.4. Summary analysis of the barriers and policies ...................................................................................................................................... 156 3.4.1. Summary analysis of the barriers............................................................................................................................................... 156 3.4.2. Analysing the impacts of policies related to out-of-school children........................................................................................... 156 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 159 4.1. Summary of the findings, main barriers and proposed policies and measures...................................................................................... 160 4.1.1. Summary of the findings............................................................................................................................................................ 160 4.1.2. Summary of the main barriers and the recommended policies and measures ........................................................................... 161 4.2. Data sources used for the development of reports, and recommendations for the improvement of such data sources in the future .... 164 4.3. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................. 164 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................................... 166 ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................................................................... 167 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

LIST OF TABLES Summary table of the number of out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014 ...............................................................................................................16 Table 2.1: Population of children by school age group in 2009 and 2014....................................................................................................................32 Table 2.2: Population distribution of school age children in 2009 and 2014................................................................................................................33 Table 2.3: School attendance and out-of-school children status of 5-year-old children in 2009 and 2014..................................................................35 Table 2.4: 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014...................................................................................................................................37 Table 2.5: 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2014..................................................................................................................................................41 Table 2.6: Primary net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014...........................................................................................................................................44 Table 2.7: Primary adjusted net attendance rate and gender parity index in 2009 and 2014......................................................................................46 Table 2.8: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2009 and 2014...........................................................................................50 Table 2.9: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2014...........................................................................................................54 Table 2.10: Lower secondary net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014...........................................................................................................................57 Table 2.11: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and gender parity index in 2009 and 2014.....................................................................59 Table 2.12: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2009 and 2014...................................................................................63 Table 2.13: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age in 2009 and 2014............................................................................68 Table 2.14: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age in 2014...........................................................................................72 Table 2.15: Number of out-of-school children by age group and gender in 2009 and 2014........................................................................................74 Table 2.16: Typology of out-of-school children............................................................................................................................................................74 Table 2.17: Attendance status by age and other characteristics of 5-17-year-old children in 2009 and 2014..............................................................76 Table 2.18: School dropouts in 2009 and 2014............................................................................................................................................................78 Table 2.19: Primary school age dropouts in 2009 and 2014........................................................................................................................................80 Table 2.20: Lower secondary school age dropouts in 2009 and 2014..........................................................................................................................81 Table 2.21: Educational attainment of 5-17-year-old out-of-school children in 2009................................................................................................84 Table 2.22: Educational attainment of 5-17-year-old out-of-school children in 2014.................................................................................................85 Table 2.23: Attendance rates at primary and lower secondary schools by age in 2009................................................................................................87 Table 2.24: Attendance rates at primary and lower secondary schools by age in 2014................................................................................................88 Table 2.25: Overage and underage by grade in 2009...................................................................................................................................................89 Table 2.26: Overage and underage by grade in 2014...................................................................................................................................................89 Table 2.27: Distribution of population by province in 2009 and 2014..........................................................................................................................92 Table 2.28: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014.............................94

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Table 2.29: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014........................ 95 Table 2.30: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014........................ 96 Table 2.31: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014........................ 97 Table 2.32: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014........................ 98 Table 2.33: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014............................................... 99 Table 2.34: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................................... 102 Table 2.35: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014...................................... 106 Table 2.36: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014...................................... 107 Table 2.37: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014...................................... 108 Table 2.38: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................. 113 Table 2.39: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age by province in 2009 and 2014................................................... 116 Table 2.40: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................. 119 Table 2.41: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................. 120 Table 2.42: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................. 121 Table 2.43: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................... 123 Table 2.44: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................... 124 Table 2.45: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................... 125 Table 2. 46: Overage in primary schools by province in 2009 and 2014.................................................................................................................. 126 Table 2.47: Overage in lower secondary schools by province in 2009 and 2014...................................................................................................... 126 Table 2.48: The number of out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014...................................................................................................................... 128 Annex 1: Distribution of children by age in 2014.................................................................................................................................................... 167 Annex 2: Distribution of schooling age by age group ............................................................................................................................................ 168 Annex 2: Distribution of schooling age by age group (continued).......................................................................................................................... 170 Annex 3: Population distribution by province......................................................................................................................................................... 172 Annex 3: Population distribution by province (continued)..................................................................................................................................... 173 Annex 4: Population (age 5) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 174 Annex 5: Population (age 6-10) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 175 Annex 6: Population (age 11-14) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 176

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: The five dimensions of exclusion............................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 1.2: The national education system in Viet Nam.............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 2.1: Percentage of 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014.......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 2.2: Percentage of 5-year-old out-of-school children by region and income quintile in 2014.......................................................................... 39 Figure 2.3: Primary adjusted net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014.......................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2.4: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by region and income quintile in 2014.......................................................................................... 49 Figure 2.5: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2009 and 2014......................................................................................... 52 Figure 2.6: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by region and income quintile in 2014........................................................ 52 Figure 2.7: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014............................................................................................................ 62 Figure 2.8: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate by region and income quintile in 2014............................................................................ 62 Figure 2.9: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2009 and 2014................................................................................... 66 Figure 2.10: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2014 by region and income quintile................................................ 66 Figure 2.11: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age in 2009 and 2014......................................................................... 70 Figure 2.12: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age by region and income quintile in 2014........................................ 70 Figure 2.13: Percentage of dropouts by age and gender in 2009 and 2014................................................................................................................ 79 Figure 2.14: Percentage of dropouts by age, gender and income quintile in 2014...................................................................................................... 79 Figure 2.15: Lower secondary school age Khmer and Mong dropouts by gender and ethnicity ................................................................................. 82 Figure 2.16: Primary and lower secondary school dropout rates in 2014.................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 2.17: Dropout rate by grade and type of school in 2014.................................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 2.18: 5-17-year-old out-of-school children by grade completed in 2009 and 2014......................................................................................... 86 Figure 2.19: Overage at primary and lower-secondary schools by grade in 2009 and 2014....................................................................................... 90 Figure 2.20: Distribution of population (5-14 years old) by province in 2009 and 2014.............................................................................................. 93 Figure 2.21: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014............................................... 100 Figure 2.22: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by ethnicity in 2009 and 2014............................................... 101 Figure 2.23: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................................... 103 Figure 2.24: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014.............................................................................. 104 Figure 2.25: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province and gender in 2009 and 2014................................................................................ 105

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Figure 2.26: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary school attendance rates for children of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014............................................................................................................................................................... 109 Figure 2.27: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary school attendance rates for children of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014............................................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 2.28: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance by province and gender in 2009 and 2014........................................................................ 111 Figure 2.29: Percentage of children of lower secondary school age attending primary school by province in 2009 and 2014................................ 112 Figure 2.30: Percentage of children of lower secondary school age attending primary school by province and ethnicity in 2014.......................... 112 Figure 2.31: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................ 114 Figure 2.32: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014.......................................... 115 Figure 2.33: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province and migration status in 2014.............................................. 115 Figure 2.34: Percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age by province in 2009 and 2014............................................................................. 117 Figure 2.35: Percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014........................................................ 117 Figure 2.36: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age by province and migration status in 2014................................. 118 Figure 2.37: Overage at primary and lower secondary schools by province in 2009 and 2014................................................................................ 127 Figure 3.1: Education expenditure per capita per year by type of expenditure, 2002-2014 Viet Nam Household Living Standards Surveys.................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 3.2: Population and number of students by age, education level and year.................................................................................................. 157

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

ACRONYMS

ADB

Asian Development Bank

ANAR

Adjusted net attendance rate

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

DFID

Department for International Development

DOET

Department of Education and Training

GPI

Gender parity index

GSO

General Statistics Office

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh City

IPHS

Intercensal Population and Housing Survey

ISCED

International Standard Classification of Education

MOET

Ministry of Education and Training

MOLISA

Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs

NAR

Net attendance rate

OOSC

Out-of-school children

PHC

Population and Housing Census

Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Committee

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UIS

UNESCO Institute for Statistics

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNICEF

United Nations Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fund

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

GSO

General Statistics Office

LSS

Lower secondary schools

USS

Upper secondary schools

VHLSS

Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey

World Bank

WHO

World Health Organisation

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Â© UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 Report on Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam country study, hereafter referred to as “the report,” was developed under the framework of the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children initiated by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).2 Out-of-school children (OOSC) are 5-14-year-old children who have never attended school or attended but later dropped out. The goal of the initiative is to reduce the number of OOSC in the world by: Developing the best possible sufficient and comprehensive profiles regarding the quantity and characteristics of OOSC, also referred to as excluded children, using consistent and innovative statistical methods; Linking these profiles to the barriers that lead to exclusion; Identifying, promoting and implementing sound policies that address exclusion. The report combines both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The quantitative analysis of the situation and characteristics of OOSC applies the 5 dimensions of exclusion model from the Global Initiative on OOSC conducted by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (see Chapter 2). This report is a result of an analysis carried out using the 15 per cent sample of the 2009 Viet Nam Population and Housing Census and data from the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. These data sources were used because the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET)’s regular statistics do not include full data on OOSC, while these two surveys have data on the school attendance of individuals and their personal and household characteristics (gender, ethnicity, disability, place of residence - urban or rural, migration status and income quintile), which allows for cross analyses of OOSC and children at risk of dropping out in order to better understand OOSC and the reasons why some children are not in school. The qualitative analysis is used to better understand the main findings of the quantitative analysis and to identify the barriers 2 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html

and bottlenecks which prevent children from going to school. A working group from the Department of Planning and Finance of MOET and a consultant conducted a field survey in 6 provinces/ cities (Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang) in the early half of 2016. The working group worked with the leaders of People’s Committees and relevant agencies in 6 districts in the 6 provinces/cities to learn about the situation of OOSC, the measures that need to be taken to address the needs of OOSC and the existing barriers and bottlenecks, and to discuss recommendations for the future. In each district, the working group conducted a survey at one preschool, one primary school and one lower secondary school to learn about the situation of the OOSC in each area, and to study the barriers and bottlenecks it held discussions with some of the teachers and parents and some of the children who had dropped out or were at risk of dropping out. Finally, the working group worked with the leaders of Department of Education and Training and relevant agencies to learn about the general situation of OOSC in the provinces as well REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

as the measures that were being taken and those that needed to be taken to address the issues of OOSC. The existing barriers and bottlenecks that prevent and restrict the children from attending school were discussed and agreed upon, and recommendations for reducing the number of OOSC in the future were made.

The report provides national-level findings and findings in the 8 provinces.

The report analyses the situation of 5-14-year old OOSC (including those who had never attended school and those who had dropped out) and primary and lower secondary school children who were attending school but were at risk of dropping out (i.e. potential OOSC); it identifies the barriers and obstacles that prevent and restrict children from attending school; and it proposes recommendations to reduce the number of OOSC and ensure educational equity and the right to education for all the children in Viet Nam. For in-depth understanding, the report has analysed OOSC by 6 regions, 5 income quintiles and multiple indicators. For example OOSC in rural and urban areas are analysed according to the following characteristics: age, gender, ethnicity, migration status, disability and income quintile. The report analyses the country as a whole and the 8 provinces that were studied in detail: Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Gia Lai, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang. The manner in which age is calculated in the report is aligned with the method used by the education sector so that the data in the report is comparable to relevant data from MOET for the 2008-2009 and 2013-2014 school years.

1) The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 6.7 per cent (about 99,200 children), which is about half the percentage of children who were out of school in 2009 (12.2 per cent).

The national-level findings are as follows: General findings

2) The percentage of 6-10-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 2.5 per cent (about 180,500 children), which is about half the percentage of children who were out of school in 2009 (4 per cent). 3) The percentage of 11-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 8.1 per cent (about 435,700 children), which means about one-third less children were out of school in 2014 than in 2009 (11.2 per cent). 4) The total number of 5-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 715,400, 36.5 per cent less than in 2009 (1,127,300), and the greatest reduction was observed among 5-year-old pre-primary school children (43.6 per cent less).

Summary table of the number of out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014 OOSC (thousands)

Dimension 1: Pre-primary school children (age 5) Dimension 2: Primary school children Dimension 3: Lower secondary school children Total (all 3 Dimensions) Total (Dimensions 2+3)

Boys Girls Total Boys 2009 2014 2009 2014 2009 2014 Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % 92.4 12.3 52.1 6.8 83.5 12.1 47.1 6.6 175.8 12.2 99.2 6.7 43.6

Girls

Total

43.6

136.3 377.7

4.0 11.8

94.6 238.1

2.6 8.6

126.3 311.2

4.0 10.5

85.9 197.6

2.5 7.5

262.6 688.8

4.0 11.2

180.5 435.7

2.5 8.1

30.6 37.0

32.0 36.5

31.3 36.7

606.4 514.0

8.2 7.7

384.9 332.8

5.3 5.1

521.0 437.5

7.6 7.1

330.5 283.5

4.8 4.6

1,127.3 951.5

7.9 7.4

715.4 616.2

5.1 4.9

36.5 35.3

36.6 35.2

36.5 35.2

Findings related to place of residence (urban or rural): 1) The percentage of OOSC was higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and the gap between the two areas increased with age. 2) In 2014, the percentage of OOSC was higher in rural areas than in urban areas, 1.5 times among OOSC of primary school age and 1.7 times among OOSC of lower secondary school age respectively). 16

% of reduction in 2014 compared to 2009

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Findings related to regions: 1) The Mekong Delta had the highest percentage of 5-year-old OOSC (14.7 per cent), nearly 6 times higher than the rate in the Red River Delta, which had the lowest percentage of five-year-old OOSC (2.5 per cent). In terms of access to pre-primary education, 5-year-old children in the rural parts of the mountainous Northern Midlands were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC was 3.3 times

higher in rural areas than in urban areas (5.3 per cent and 1.6 per cent respectively); 2) The Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age (4.2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively) and lower secondary school age (14.0 per cent and 12.9 per cent respectively). The Red River Delta had the lowest percentage of OOSC of primary school age and lower secondary school age (0.8 per cent and 2 per cent respectively). The OOSC rates in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands were 5 times higher than those in the Red River Delta for the primary school age group and 6-7 times higher for lower secondary school age group. Children of primary and lower secondary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in all the regions, especially the children in the rural parts of the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands. This was reflected in the higher percentage of OOSC of primary school age in rural than in urban areas (2.9 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively) and the higher percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age in the rural areas than the urban parts of the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands (3.8 and 2.3 times higher respectively). These rates were higher than those in the other regions. Findings related to gender: 1) The gender gap in the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC and OOSC of primary school age was very small. This gap was greater in the lower secondary school age group, which had a higher percentage of OOSC for males than females (11.8 per cent and 10.5 per cent respectively in 2009, and 8.6 per cent and 7.5 per cent respectively in 2014); 2) The gender gap for OOSC in most of the ethnic minority groups was reflected in the fact that boys had less opportunities to attend school than girls, but the opposite was true for the Mong. Mong girls were less likely to go to school than Mong boys, especially those of lower secondary school age. In 2014, the percentage of Mong girls attending lower secondary school at the right age was 52.7 per cent, double the rate in 2009 (24.4 per cent) but still lower than that of Mong boys in 2014 (66.7 per cent); 3) The OOSC rates for migrant girls of lower secondary school age improved over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, more than the rates for boys in the same group,

but this improvement was marginal. The Gender Parity Index (GPI) of lower secondary school age children from migrant families reached the gender equilibrium level of 0.97, which means there is equal opportunities for migrant girls of lower secondary school age, similar to boys in 2014. However, since the new GPI was only at the minimum threshold of 0.97, a state of inequality could easily return. Findings related to ethnic minority groups: 1) The percentage of ethnic minority OOSC in all three age groups in 2014 was significantly less than in 2009. The Khmer and the Mong made significant progress over the five-year period from 2009 to 2014, but they still had the highest OOSC rates of all the ethnic minority groups for all three age groups; 2) It is noteworthy that the OOSC rate among 5-year-old Khmer children was significantly higher in urban areas than in rural areas (33.5 per cent and 19.8 per cent respectively). This shows that although 5-year-old Khmer children in urban areas had more favourable living conditions, they still did not have greater access to education than their peers in rural areas. The Khmer and the Mong had higher OOSC rates in both urban and rural areas than the other ethnic minority groups (Khmer: 27.2 per cent and 23.9 per cent respectively; Mong: 23.6 per cent and 28.8 per cent respectively); 3) The poorest quintile of the Khmer and Mong children had higher OOSC rates for all three age groups than the other ethnic minority groups, while in the richest quintile, all the children in all three age groups attended school. Findings related to migration: 1) There was a difference in the percentage of OOSC among migrant and non-migrant families, and the difference increased with age; 2) In 2014, the percentage of OOSC from migrant families was higher than the percentage of OOSC from nonmigrant families: 1.2 times higher for the 5-year-olds, 1.6 times higher for those of primary school age, and 1.7 times higher for those of lower secondary school age. Findings related to income quintiles: 1) There was a large disparity in the OOSC rates for the poorest and the richest households, and the difference increased with the level of education. For the 5-yearREPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

olds, the percentage of OOSC from the poorest households was 3 times higher than the percentage of OOSC from the richest households. This difference increased to 5.5 times higher for the children of primary school age and 10 times higher for the children of lower secondary school age; 2) Except for the 5-year-old children in the Red River Delta, the children in all three age groups who belonged to the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers in the richest quintile in all the regions, and the most disadvantaged children were in the mountainous Northern Midlands, the Central Highlands and the Mekong Delta. Findings in the 8 provinces include: 1) There were significant disparities across the 8 selected provinces. In 2014, the rate of attendance for 5-year-old children in Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Ho Chi Minh City was higher than in the other provinces. The rate of attendance for 5-year-old children was lowest in An Giang and Dong Thap; 2) In 2014, Gia Lai had the highest rate of OOSC of primary school age, followed by An Giang, while Ho Chi Minh City and Dong Thap had the lowest rates – even lower than the national average. All the other provinces had OOSC rates that were higher than the national average; 3) In 2014, Gia Lai had the highest percentage of OOSC among children of lower secondary school age, followed by Ninh Thuan and An Giang, while HCMC had the lowest percentage – even lower than the national average. All the other provinces had OOSC rates that were higher than the national average. A number of barriers and bottlenecks lie behind the profiles mentioned above, including economic and socio-cultural barriers on the demand side, i.e. related to the children and their families. Demand-side economic barriers are associated with poverty, which limit the ability of families to afford educational costs. Other demand-side economic barriers include child labour, migration and impact of disasters and climate change. Demandside socio-cultural barriers to education are those which lessen a family’s demand that their children attend school. They are found in families and communities and in the traditions kept by families and communities. In Viet Nam, the big issues related to demand-side socio-cultural barriers include a lack of awareness of the long-term value of education, which results in a lack of genuine community and family participation. Other cultural and social barriers related to demand include: poor academic 18

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

results; children not wanting to attend school; a lack of parental attention; cultural norms in some ethnic minority groups that disempower females, rendering them dependent on males; and child marriage. In addition, a small number of out-of-school children are affected/infected by HIV and AIDS or they are orphans, street children, trafficked children and children in other special circumstances. Supply-side barriers that influence school enrolment and attendance include infrastructure, resources, teachers and the learning environment. In addition, a heavy school workload and a lack of entertainment facilities are seen as sources of pressure on children, and as a result, a proportion of ethnic minority and underperforming children fail to keep up and are at risk of dropping out of school. Since 2010, Viet Nam has adopted many effective policies to minimise the number of OOSC, e.g. the universalisation of preschool education for 5-year-old children, a reduction of (or exemption from) tuition fees, and financial support that covers a portion of the tuition fees, especially for those who are disadvantaged, including ethnic minority children. However, challenges, limitations during implementation, low levels of assistance and the underlying economic constraints experienced by families leave gaps in the provision of education to disadvantaged children. Many useful initiatives have been developed via development cooperation and have been expanded to operate across the country to support those who lack access to quality education. Programmes such as the provision of boarding and semi-boarding schools, mother-tongue-based learning, the use of ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants and the introduction of full-day schooling are all appropriate and necessary to ensure that children 5-14 years of age in Viet Nam have equitable access to quality education. Such programmes have been undertaken by state funding or borrowings, and an effort towards nationwide application is being made. However, the state’s budget constraints are the main reason for limited scaling up. Viet Nam’s social welfare network consists of 5 elements (social insurance, heath insurance, unemployment insurance, social relief and social assistance) designed to prevent, mitigate and support recovery from the risks associated with livelihoods. Poor people are covered by many targeted policies. However, there is a lack of targeted and appropriate social welfare policies for the population living in the rural, mountainous and disadvantaged areas,3 and the quality of social services, especially healthcare services, remains low, especially in poor areas, and migrants in 3 http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/Thong-tin-ly-luan/2012/15184/ An-sinh-xa-hoi-o-nuoc-ta-Mot-so-van-de-ly.aspx

urban areas have only limited access to social protection programmes.4 As per the OOSC situation as analysed in this report, much effort is needed to address the many challenges and barriers and to ensure that all Vietnamese children receive an education. This report offers some recommendations to reduce the number of OOSC and reduce the risk of dropping out of school as follows: 1) Effectively implement the 2016-2020 National Target Programme for Sustainable Poverty Reduction as well as social insurance policies and social protection policies related to education and OOSC, and strengthen measures to prevent child labour; 2) Continue to effectively implement the universalisation of education and current support policies for the most disadvantaged students; facilitate the schooling of all migrant children in line with their right to education; and reduce indirect educational costs for extremely poor households;

disabilities to attend school in accordance with the 2010 Law on People with Disabilities and the 2012-2020 project to support people with disabilities; and build new inclusive education resource centres that have appropriate facilities for children with disabilities of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary school age; 9) Ensure better coordination between schools, families and society in monitoring OOSC and enabling/ motivating them to attend school; 10) Thoroughly eliminate male chauvinism (the idea that men are more valuable than women), and ensure that all are treated equally and fairly; 11) Promote the review, amendment, supplementation and implementation of incentive policies for teachers; 12) Focus resources on the effective implementation of the General Education Curriculum under the National Assembly Resolution;

3) Expand the network of satellite schools so that there are kindergartens and primary schools near the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes, especially in the mountainous and remote areas; strengthen resources to support full-day schooling at disadvantaged schools, especially for ethnic minority children, and ensure a friendly, inclusive, safe, exciting and attractive school environment;

13) Continue implementation of the Education Development Strategy for 2011-2020, focusing on restructuring education management, increasing investment resources and renovating the financing of education; have policies for free tuition for pre-school education for 5 year old children and lower secondary education.

4) Continue to improve the ability of ethnic minority students to speak Vietnamese by scaling up mother-tongue-based bilingual education appropriately and effectively in ethnic minority areas;

14) Improve the monitoring and evaluation of OOSC targets, and improve education statistics in order to collect adequate, accurate and timely data on OOSC including children who have dropped out of school;

15) Integrate climate change responses into the planning and budgeting process, and develop a report that evaluates the results of policy implementation in the education and training sector;

6) Strengthen the capacities of local ethnic minority teachers and teachers who know the languages of the ethnic minorities in the region where they serve, and train teachers how to offer inclusive education for children with disabilities; 7) Strengthen the management of semi-boarding ethnic minority schools in the most remote and mountainous areas; 8) Continue to implement policies that enable children with 4 http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/policy_brief_vietnamese_ version_final.pdf

16) Promote and monitor the inclusion of OOSC in education planning and budgeting, integrate this into the Socioeconomic Development Plan from the central to the local level, and implement Sustainable Development Goal No. 4 related to education; 17) Priority should be given to integrating resources for the successful implementation of the Plan to Implement the Sustainable Development Goals for Education and Training by 2025 as well as the vision for 2030 (issued in conjunction with MOETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Decision 2161/QD-BGDDT, 26 June 2017), which focuses on raising the enrollment rate of school age populations and reducing the number of OOSC. REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Â© UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The 2016 Report on Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam country study, hereafter referred to as “the report,” is the updated version of the 2013 Report on Out-of-school children: Viet Nam country study published by MOET. Out-of-school children are 5-14-yearold children who have never attended school or attended but later dropped out. The report was developed by MOET under the framework of the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children initiated by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).5

The report includes four chapters. Chapter 1 gives an overview of the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children, the national education system, the country context, the research methodology, and an overview of the data and the limitations of the study. Chapter 2 analyses OOSC. Chapter 3 studies the barriers and bottlenecks that cause a child to be excluded from education, including not having access to a school, dropping out and being at risk of dropping out, and it reviews and analyses the policies related to OOSC and the shortcomings of those policies. Chapter 4 provides recommendations to address issues related to OOSC.

The report analyses the situation of 5-14-year-old OOSC and primary and lower secondary school children who were attending school but were at risk of dropping out (i.e. potential

OOSC). It also identifies the barriers and obstacles that prevented and restricted children from attending school, and it proposes recommendations to reduce the number of OOSC and ensure educational equity and the right to education for all the children in Viet Nam, especially the disadvantaged children.

5 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

1.1. The Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children and the 5 dimensions of exclusion6 1.1.1. The Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children The Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children was initiated by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) in 2010, and it has been implemented in over 50 developing countries. The initiative aims to improve the statistics on and analyses of out-of-school children by thoroughly studying the factors that contribute to educational exclusion and the existing policies in order to improve access to education and to address gaps in data, analysis and policies. The objective is to develop a more systematic approach to out-of-school children and to provide guidance for specific reforms in education in terms of management, planning and policies. After each national study is conducted, the results are synthesised in the regional and global studies and then shared at global fora in order to seek additional resources needed to ensure equity in education.7 1.1.2. The five dimensions of exclusion The five dimensions of exclusion (5DE) refers to the five dimensions of exclusion model, which is the Conceptual Methodological Framework (CMF) of the Global Initiative on Outof-school Children. This is used as the analytical framework for the study on out of school children. The 5DE is comprised of three dimensions that focus on out-ofschool children and two dimensions that focus on children who are in school but are at risk of dropping out. According to UNICEF and UIS, the term exclusion is used for OOSC who are excluded from education while the term at risk of dropping out is used for children who are excluded in education, meaning they may face discriminatory practices at school. Pre-primary education is represented by Dimension 1, which focuses on children of pre-primary school age who do not attend a pre-primary or primary school. Primary education is represented by Dimension 2, which focuses on children of primary school age who do not attend a primary or secondary school.

6 http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/oosci-operationalmanual.pdf 7 http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Lower secondary education is represented by Dimension 3, which focuses on children of lower secondary school age who do not attend a primary or secondary school. Dimensions 4 and 5 focus on school children who are in school but at risk of dropping out. Understanding more about these groups of children is key to preventing them from becoming future outof-school children. Dimension 4 covers children in primary school who are considered to be at risk of dropping out, and Dimension 5 covers children in lower secondary school who are considered to be at risk of dropping out. The five dimensions are listed in the box below and they are displayed in the subsequent figure:

The five dimensions of exclusion (5DE)

Dimension 1: Children of pre-primary school age who are not in pre-primary or primary school. Dimension 2: Children of primary school age who are not in primary or secondary school. Dimension 3: Children of lower secondary school age who are not in primary or secondary school. Dimension 4: Children who are in primary school but are at risk of dropping out. Dimension 5: Children who are in lower secondary school but are at risk of dropping out.

Figure 1.1: The five dimensions of exclusion Dimension 1

Pre-primary age children

Attended but dropped out

Will enter later

Dimension 3 Will never enter

Attended but dropped out

Will enter later

Will never enter

Primary age children

Lower secondary age children

Dimension 4

Dimension 5

At risk of dropping out of primary school

At risk of dropping out of lower secondary school

Primary school students

Lower secondary school students

There are several important aspects to note regarding the 5DE. The distinct shape and colour of Dimension 1 in Figure 1 reflects the notion that while pre-primary school is important as a preparation for primary school, it is also distinct from the formal programmes at primary schools and other higher levels of education. Dimension 1 represents a group of children who do not benefit from pre-primary education and who may therefore not be adequately prepared for primary school. This places them at risk of not being able to attend primary school or, if they do attend, at risk of dropping out. Children who attend non-formal or non-recognised pre-primary schools should be identified as a distinct group if the data is available. Dimensions 2 and 3 are each divided into three mutually exclusive categories based on previous or future school exposure: children who attended in the past and dropped out; children who have

OUT OF SCHOOL

IN SCHOOL

never attended school or will never attend; and children who will attend school in the future. Some out-of-school children of primary and lower secondary school age may be in a pre-primary school or they may be receiving non-formal education, and these children should be identified separately. The children in Dimensions 4 and 5 (i.e. those in school who are at risk of dropping out) are grouped by the level of education they attend regardless of their age: primary school (Dimension 4) or lower secondary school (Dimension 5). This is different than Dimensions 2 and 3, which group out-of-school children by their age: primary school age (Dimension 2) or lower secondary age (Dimension 3). The framework thus covers two different types of populations: the population of out-of-school children of schoolgoing age, and the population of at-risk students of any age in primary and lower secondary schools.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

Not in pre-primary or primary school

Dimension 2

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

1.2. The national educational system The national educational system is comprised of formal and continuing education. The levels and qualifications in the national educational system include: (1) early childhood education, which includes nursery school (from 3 months to 3 years of age) and kindergarten (from 3 to 5 years of age); (2) general education, which includes primary education (grades 1-5), lower secondary education (grades 6-9), and upper secondary education (grades 10-12), and there are entrance and final exams at the end of

the level of education; (3) vocational training, which includes elementary vocational training (available as an alternative to lower secondary education) and professional technical secondary education (available as an alternative to upper secondary education); and (4) college, university and post-graduate education (collectively referred to as higher education), which offer undergraduate, masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and PhD programmes

Figure 1.2: The national education system in Viet Nam Doctor Degree (3-4 years)

School readiness age

Reseach - oriented Master Degree (1-2 years)

Application - oriented Master Degree (1-2 years)

Research - university oriented (3-5 years)

Application - oriented University (3-5 years)

College (2-3 years)

Upper secondary education (3 years)

Vocational/Technical education (3 years)

Lower secondary education (4 years)

Primary education (5 years)

Pre-school education (3 years)

Nursery

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Continuing education

Note: Transfer at the same level. Transition among levels

State support for education in Viet Nam increased over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014. The portion of the national budget earmarked for education grew from 12.1 per cent in 2010 to roughly 15.7 per cent in 2014.8 Pre-school, primary and lower secondary education management is decentralised to the district level, and upper secondary education is decentralised to the provincial level. The central Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) sets the curriculum, publishes the textbooks and establishes the principles for teaching and assessment. Public resources for early childhood education and general education (including primary, lower and upper secondary schools) come mainly from the state budget. Most of the schools in Viet Nam are state-run schools, although increasingly the private sector in education is developing.

to the financing of educational activities. An exemption or reduction of tuition fees as well as lunch subsidies are offered to children in most difficult circumstances, e.g. children with disabilities, children at ethnic minority boarding and semi-boarding schools, children belonging to very small ethnic minority groups,10 children of deceased or seriouslywounded soldiers, children in remote areas and children from poor households. Details about children who are entitled to receive support are presented in Chapter 3.

Until September 1989, general education in Viet Nam was free. Since then, however, only primary education has been free. Fees are collected at pre-schools and secondary schools9 to contribute 8 Statistic Books 2015. Data for recurrent expenditures only. If total expenditures for education and training are included, they accounted for 20 per cent of the state budget expenditures in 2010. 9 5-year-old preschool and lower-secondary education is universal, but students still have to pay tuition fees.

10 For example: Si La (709 people), Pu Péo (687 people), Rơ Măm (436 people), Brâu (397 people), Ơ Đu (376 people). Source: Institute of Ethnic Minorities, Committee for Ethnic Minorities Affairs, 2009 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

1.3. The country context Viet Nam borders the Gulf of Thailand, the Gulf of Tonkin and the East Sea as well as China, Laos and Cambodia. Its coastline is 3,444 kilometers long and it has a total area of 331,210 square kilometers. Viet Nam is in a tropical climate zone with a combination of plains and upland terrain, and it is prone to natural disasters and climate change. Every year, Viet Nam is subject to hazardous typhoons along its long coastline and major flooding, particularly in the Central Coastal Areas and in the Mekong Delta. According to an assessment by the UNDP, Viet Nam is one of the top 5 countries in the world most vulnerable to and at risk of major impact from climate change. Vietnamese society is comprised of 54 ethnic groups. According to the 2009 Population and Housing Census, the Kinh (Viet) make up the majority (85.7 per cent), and the main ethnic minorities are the Tay (1.9 per cent), the Thai (1.8 per cent), the Muong (1.5 per cent), the Khmer (1.5 per cent), the Mong (1.2 per cent) and the Nung (1.1 per cent), and the remaining 5.3 per cent is comprised of other groups. 25 per cent of the population is 0-14 years old, 69.5 per cent is 15-64 years old, and 5.5 per cent of the population is 65 years old or older. Ethnic minority communities make Viet Nam unique and rich in customs and traditions. Each ethnic group has many customs and practices that need to be promoted, but there are also backwards customs and norms that need to be overcome.

In 2010, Viet Nam achieved the status of lower middle-income country as a result of rapid economic growth over the previous twenty years and a reduction in the overall poverty rate, from 58.1 per cent in 1993 to 13.5 per cent in 2014.12 Viet Nam joined the World Trade Organisation in 2007, was a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council from 2008-2009, and chaired the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2010.

11 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey 2014 12 GSO

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

The literacy rate in Viet Nam is high (94 per cent of the people over the age of 15 can read and write), 86.7 per cent of the population has access to clean drinking water, and 54 per cent of the population has access to a hygienic latrine.11

1.4. Research methodology, overview of the data, and limitations of the research 1.4.1. Research methodology The report combined both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The quantitative analysis of the OOSC situation and characteristics applied the 5 dimensions of exclusion model from the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children conducted by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. This report is a result of an analysis conducted using data from the 15 per cent sample of the 2009 Viet Nam Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The reason for using two sources of survey data is that MOET’s regular statistics do not contain adequate data on OOSC, while these two sources have data on the school attendance of individuals and their personal characteristics and those of their households (gender, ethnicity, disability, place of residence - urban or rural, migration status and income quintile). This helped with the cross analyses of OOSC and children at risk of dropping out, and it helped to understand OOSC better and the reasons they became OOSC. Another reason is that the sample size, the 15 per cent sample of the 2009 Viet Nam Population and Housing Census (3,366,600 households) and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey (358,600 households), was large enough for a reliable estimate up to the provincial level. The qualitative analysis was used to better understand the main findings of the quantitative analysis and to identify the barriers and bottlenecks which prevented children from going to school. A working group from the Department of Planning and Finance at MOET and a consultant conducted a field survey in 6 districts that had key issues related to OOSC, one district in each of the in 6 provinces/cities (Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang) in the early half of 2016. These are 6 of the 8 provinces in the Child-Friendly Programme in partnership with UNICEF, each with different geographic, economic and social features: a mountainous province in the North with many ethnic minorities (Lao Cai), a coastal province (Ninh Thuan), the Central Highlands with its many ethnic minorities (Kon Tum), the largest city in the country (Ho Chi Minh City), and provinces in the Mekong Delta (Dong Thap and An Giang). These different characteristics helped to deepen our understanding of OOSC. The working group worked with the leaders of People’s Committees and relevant agencies in the 6 districts to learn about the situation of OOSC and the measures that had been taken to address OOSC issues (the

existing barriers and bottlenecks) and to make recommendations for the future. In each district, the working group conducted field work at one preschool, one primary school and one lower secondary school to learn about the situation of OOSC in the local area, and to study the barriers and bottlenecks it held discussions with some of the teachers and parents, and children who had dropped out or were at risk of dropping out. Finally, the working group worked with the leaders of the provincial Department of Education and Training and relevant agencies to learn about the general situation of OOSC in the provinces as well as the measures that need to be taken to address the needs of OOSC. The existing barriers and bottlenecks that prevent and restrict the children from attending school were discussed and agreed upon, and recommendations for reducing the number of OOSC in the future were made. The report analyses the situation of 5-14-year-old OOSC (including those who had never attended school and those who had dropped out) and primary and lower secondary school children who were attending school but were at risk of dropping out, i.e. children who might become OOSC in the future; identifies the barriers and obstacles that prevented and restricted children from attending school; and it proposes recommendations to reduce the number of OOSC and ensure educational equity and the right to education for all children in Viet Nam. With the 2009 Census data, OOSC were analysed according to the following characteristics: age, gender, ethnicity, residential location (urban or rural), migration status and disability. With the 2014 Intercensal Survey data, OOSC were analysed by 6 regions, 5 income quintiles and multiple indicators. For in-depth understanding, the 2016 Study Report does not analyse by single indicators but multivariate analysis was attempted. For example going beyond OOSC by region, the report examines OOSC by rural and urban areas within each of the regions, or by gender within each ethnic group. The six regions are: the mountainous Northern Midlands, the Red River Delta, the North Central and Central Coastal Areas, the Central Highlands, the Southeast and the Mekong Delta. The income quintiles, referred to as the Wealth Index, a composite index of wealth developed by UNICEF experts that was applied in the MICS13. The report applies this wealth index methodology 13 http://www.unicef.org/vietnam/vi/MICS_VIET_NAM_2014_(310815).pdf MICS = Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014: Survey on and assessment of children’s and women’s goals, 2014 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

to the data from the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The Wealth Index is assumed to capture underlying long-term wealth through information about household assets, and it is intended to produce a ranking of households by wealth, from poorest to richest. The Wealth Index did not provide information on absolute poverty, current income or expenditure levels. The Wealth Index evaluation scores were only applied to the data set used for calculating them. In the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, the following assets were used in these calculations: number of bedrooms, type of pillar used to support the roof, type of roof, type of outer wall, type of fuel used for cooking, source of drinking water, type of toilet used, some essential household appliances (television, computer, telephone, refrigerator, washing machine, boiler and air conditioner), internet access, ownership of a car, motorbike or dwelling, total area of the home, type of housing (apartment, residential house, villa), and whether or not the home was shared with other households. The report analyses the country as a whole and the 8 selected and studied provinces in detail. They include Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Gia Lai, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang. The structure of the report follows the guidelines of the Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children for national studies on outof-school children. The following standard UNESCO definitions are used in the report: •

NAR: Net attendance rate

• The primary NAR is the net attendance rate at primary schools, which is the percentage of children in the official primary school age who are attending a primary school. • The lower secondary NAR is the net attendance rate at lower secondary schools, which is the percentage of children in the official lower secondary school age group who are attending a lower secondary school.

•

ANAR: Adjusted net attendance rate

•

The primary ANAR is the adjusted net attendance rate at primary schools, which is the percentage of children in the official primary school age group who are attending either a primary or a secondary school.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

• The lower secondary ANAR is the adjusted net attendance rate at lower secondary schools, which is the percentage of children in the official lower secondary school age group who are attending either a lower or upper secondary school. •

GPI: Gender parity index

• The ANAR GPI is the gender parity index of the adjusted net attendance rate. As described in the CMF, when the GPI values are between 0.97 and 1.03, it is usually assumed that there is gender parity. If the GPI for the ANAR is less than 0.97, girls are at a disadvantage. If the GPI for the ANAR is less than 1.03, boys are at a disadvantage. • The primary ANAR GPI is the gender parity index of the adjusted net attendance rate at primary schools, which is the ratio of the number of girls to the number of boys at primary and lower secondary schools. •

The lower secondary ANAR GPI is the gender parity index of the adjusted net attendance rate at lower secondary schools, which is the ratio of the number of girls to the number of boys at lower and upper secondary schools.

1.4.2. Overview of the data and considerations in the analysis 1) The 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey enumerated all the Vietnamese regularly residing in the territory of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam at zero hour on 1 April 2009 and 1 April 2014, and school attendance was determined on those days. OOSC are children who were not attending school then. 2) The education sector subtracts the birth year from the school year to determine age, so to ensure alignment with the schooling age, the age of children in the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey was calculated based on the year of birth against 2013. 2013 was selected because on 1 April 2014, which is when the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey was conducted, children who were attending school during the second semester of the 2013-2014 school year were those who enroled in September 2013. The 5-year-old age group includes the children who were born in 2008 (2013 minus 2008 = 5), the 6-10-year-old age group includes the children who were born between 2003

and 2007, and the 11-14-year-old age group includes the children who were born between 1999 and 2002. In this way, the 2014 data in this report is compatible with the data from the education sector for the 2013-2014 school year. Similarly, the age of children in the 2009 Population and Housing Census was calculated based on the year of birth against 2008, allowing the data in the report to be comparable to relevant data from MOET for the 2008-2009 school year. 3) The profiles of OOSC were placed into three age groups: 5 years old for pre-primary school, 6-10 years old for primary school and 11-14 years old for lower secondary school, and then they were analysed. 4) The responses to a question asked in the 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey formed the basis for analysing school attendance in this report. The question was Are you attending school, did you drop out or have you never gone to school? and there were three response options: Attending school, Attended but dropped out and Have never gone to school. 5) There were four questions in the 2009 Population and Housing Census about disability of the four major functions: vision, hearing, movement (walking) and memorizing and concentrating. These questions were asked of members of the household who were 5 years old and older. Answers were self-reporting and were classified into four categories: No difficulty, With difficulty, Very difficult and Unable. A person was defined as disabled if he/she chose Unable to describe his/her ability to perform at least one of the four mentioned functions. Unable is equivalent to exceptionally serious disabilities as defined in the Law on Persons with Disabilities. A person was considered to be partially disabled if he/she chose either With difficulty or Very difficult to describe his/her ability to perform any of the four functions. Very difficult or With difficulty are equivalent to serious disabilities and mild disabilities as defined in the Law on Persons with Disabilities. Finally, a person was considered to have no disability if he/she chose No difficulty to describe his/ her ability to perform all of the four functions.

time between the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey and 5 years prior. However, there was no question regarding the reason for migrating, which made it impossible to identify whether the person migrated to look for a job in a city, for casual seasonal work or due to a natural disaster. 7) The comparison of data from 2009 and 2014 in the report is based on the confidence intervals of the respective estimates and they are statistically significant. 1.4.3. Limitations of the research 1) As there is no data on child labour in the 2009 Population and Housing Census or the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, the situation of working children is not analysed in this report. 2) When conducting an analysis based on specific disaggregations, less than 50 (population) weighted cell values were omitted in the tables because the sample size was too small. All the cells related to this group were left blank. However, one must be cautious when making conclusions based on cells with weighted values of only slightly higher than 50 observations. 3) The 2009 Population and Housing Census contained questions about disability, but the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey did not, so this report does not provide an updated analysis of OOSC by disability in 2014. 4) In the report, detailed analysis by ethnic group at the provincial level was limited in 2014, because the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey only had data for the 6 largest ethnic groups: the Kinh, the Tay, the Thai, the Muong, the Khmer and the Mong, and all the other groups were aggregated into the category Other. The 2009 Population and Housing Census had specific disaggregation by individual ethnic group.

6) A person was considered a migrant if he/she had changed his/her residential location from one district/ town to another district/town at least once during the REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Â© UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

CHAPTER 2

PROFILES

OF OUT-OF SCHOOL CHILDREN This chapter focuses on 5-year-old OOSC and OOSC of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary school age, and the data used is from the 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The analysis follows the Out-of-school Children Conceptual and Methodological Framework developed by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

2.1. Characteristics of children of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary school age Table 2.1 presents the population of children by school age group. According to the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, there were 1,480,606 5-year-old children (born in 2008), an increase of 2.6 per cent compared to 2009; 7,188,905 children of primary school age (6-10 years old and born between

2003-2007), an increase of 8.7 per cent compared to 2009; and 5,410,739 children of lower secondary school age (11-14 years old and born between 1999-2002), a 12.3 per cent decline compared to 2009. This information is used in all later calculations.

Table 2.1: Population of children by school age group in 2009 and 2014 Unit: Person Age

6-10 years old

2009

2014

1,442,706

1,480,606

2009

11-14 years old 2014

2009

5-14 years old 2014

2009

2014

1,442,706

1,480,606

1,286,620

1,486,304

1,286,620

1,486,304

1,325,677

1,411,361

1,325,677

1,411,361

1,442,146

1,407,601

1,442,146

1,407,601

1,285,156

1,434,487

1,285,156

1,434,487

1,273,434

1,449,236

1,273,434

1,449,236

1,428,699

1,297,323

1,428,699

1,297,323

1,484,086

1,345,469

1,484,086

1,345,469

1,613,055

1,473,682

1,613,055

1,473,682

1,640,958

1,294,264

1,640,958

1,294,264

6,166,798

5,410,739

14,222,538

14,080,333

Viet Nam

5 years old

1,442,706

1,480,606

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

6,613,034

7,188,988

Table 2.2 presents the statistics for age, gender and other groups. In 2014, the male to female ratio was 49.27 to 50.73, the same as in the whole of Viet Nam, i.e. there were 97 males to 100 females, a decrease in males compared to the ratio in 2009, which was 98 males to 100 females (49.52 to 50.48). However, there was a clear gender imbalance in the younger age groups, with the greatest disparity in the group of 5-year-old children, where the male to female ratio was 108:100 in 2014, which was lower than the ratio in 2009 (109:100). In the primary and lower secondary school age groups, as will be shown later, there was a clear gender

imbalance: For every 100 girls, there were 107 6-10-year-old boys and 105 11-14-year-old boys. About two thirds of all Vietnamese children live in rural areas, with a slight decline (67.2 per cent in 2014 and 70.4 per cent in 2009) due to urbanization. About 85 per cent of children are ethnic Kinh. In 2014, the percentage of children from migrant families was slightly higher for all three age groups compared to 2009, accounting for 5.5 per cent of the 5-year-olds, 3.8 per cent of the children of primary school age, and 2.9 per cent of the children of lower secondary school age.

Table 2.2: Population distribution of school age children in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % Whole population

Gender Urban/ rural

Ethnicity

Disability

Income quintile

6-10 years old

11-14 years old

2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

Male

49.52

49.27

52.09

51.91

52.07

51.69

52.06

51.33

Female

50.48

50.73

47.91

48.09

47.93

48.31

47.94

48.67

Urban

29.58

32.84

28.83

32.88

25.28

30.84

24.39

28.40

Rural

70.42

67.16

71.17

67.12

74.72

69.16

75.61

71.60

Kinh

85.79

85.72

83.25

83.48

81.87

82.52

82.59

82.70

Tay

1.88

2.00

1.65

1.80

1.86

1.94

1.99

1.82

Thai

1.78

1.81

1.88

2.14

2.03

2.16

2.12

2.01

Muong

1.45

1.50

1.33

1.51

1.41

1.50

1.51

1.45

Khmer

1.39

1.34

1.41

1.31

1.53

1.47

1.51

1.47

Mong

1.27

1.37

2.35

2.56

2.40

2.52

1.94

2.33

Other

6.44

6.26

8.13

7.21

8.90

7.89

8.34

8.22

Disabled

0.49

0.16

0.19

0.24

Partially disabled

7.37

1.25

1.23

1.61

92.14

98.58

98.15

Not disabled Migrant

Age 5

Yes

6.63

7.21

3.54

5.51

2.58

3.84

2.22

2.90

93.37

92.79

96.46

94.49

97.42

96.16

97.78

97.10

Poorest

20.0

23.8

24.3

24.5

2nd quintile

20.0

17.6

18.6

20.1

3rd quintile

20.0

18.4

18.7

4th quintile

20.0

19.4

19.1

18.8

Richest

20.0

20.8

19.5

17.9

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

2.2. Dimension 1: 5-year-old out-of-school children Dimension 1 of the 5DE focuses on the 5-year-old OOSC and covers children of pre-primary school age who were not attending a pre-primary or primary school. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show school attendance statistics for both pre-primary and primary school children who were 5 years old in 2013 (born in 2008). The tables also show the out-of-school rates for this age. Figure 2.1 gives graphical illustrations of the relevant data. According to the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, in total there were 1,480,606 children who were 5 years old in 2013 (born in 2008), 93.3 per cent of whom attended school, an increase of 6 per cent compared to 2009 (88.2 per cent of the pre-primary school age children and 5.1 per cent of the primary school age children), and 6.7 per cent did not attend school, a decline of almost 50 per cent compared to 2009. The number of 5-year-old OOSC was 99,174. There was no significant difference in terms of gender among the 5-year-old OOSC in the national average (6.8 per cent of the boys and 6.6 per cent of the girls) or in the specific groups, except the Mong. 5-year-old Mong girls did not attend school as often as 5-year-old Mong boys (17.0 per cent of the girls compared to 13.9 per cent of the boys). This was true for both the primary 34

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

school age OOSC and the lower secondary school age OOSC, as described in the following sections of this report. The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in urban and rural areas was nearly the same (6.61 per cent and 6.74 per cent respectively), and these rates are almost 50 per cent lower than those in 2009. The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC who belong to an ethnic minority group was significantly lower in 2014 than in 2009 (one-third lower among the Khmer and more than 50 per cent lower among the Mong). However, there was a great disparity in the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC among the different ethnic groups. The lowest rate of 5-year-old OOSC was 1.0 per cent (the Muong) and the highest OOSC rate was 22.8 per cent (the Khmer). The rate for the Mong was also relatively high: 15.4 per cent. The percentage of 5-year-old Khmer and Mong OOSC was 3 to 4 times higher than percentage of 5-year-old Kinh OOSC. The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC from migrant families was significantly less in 2014 than in 2009 (7.9 per cent and 16.5 per cent respectively), but it was still higher than the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC from non-migrant families (7.9 per cent and 6.6 per cent respectively). Nonetheless, this disparity decreased slightly compared to 2009 (16.5 per cent and 12.0 per cent respectively).

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Viet Nam

34.19

17.68

82.71

29.91

11.64

Mong

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

5.92

Thai

36.13

3.50

Tay

Khmer

10.84

Kinh

3.00

11.65

Rural

Muong

5.92

12.82

Urban

9.48

15.09

20.58

0.00

1.17

2.77

5.59

6.15

5.95

11.88

Female

6.19

6.08

2014

12.08

11.99

2009

Never attended

Male

5-year-old children

0.20

0.71

0.40

0.26

0.29

0.87

0.26

0.23

0.11

0.18

0.22

0.17

0.20

0.21

0.20

2009

0.45

0.33

2.30

0.96

0.29

0.36

0.63

0.59

0.69

0.66

0.59

0.62

2014

Attended

OOSC (%)

11.84

30.62

83.11

17.95

34.49

37.00

3.26

6.15

3.61

11.03

11.86

12.99

12.08

12.29

12.19

2009

Total

9.92

15.42

22.88

0.96

1.45

3.14

6.21

6.74

6.61

6.78

6.70

2014

80.65

64.03

15.56

74.08

52.08

53.50

84.59

77.83

88.32

82.02

79.63

82.05

80.48

80.19

80.33

2009

84.24

76.93

66.69

92.95

85.47

88.96

89.19

87.47

89.69

87.98

88.41

88.20

2014

Attending pre-primary school

7.52

5.34

1.33

7.97

13.43

9.50

12.15

16.01

8.07

6.95

8.50

4.96

7.44

7.52

7.48

2009

5.83

7.65

10.43

6.09

13.07

7.66

4.57

5.77

3.66

5.39

4.79

5.08

2014

Attending primary school

Currently attending (%)

Table 2.3: School attendance and out-of-school children status of 5-year-old children in 2009 and 2014

88.16

69.38

16.89

82.05

65.51

63.00

96.74

93.85

96.39

88.97

88.14

87.01

87.92

87.71

87.81

2009

90.08

84.58

77.12

99.04

98.55

96.62

93.76

93.24

93.35

93.36

93.20

93.28

2014

Attending either pre-primary or primary school

1,422,264

18,093

2,350

117,271

33,908

20,344

19,201

27,053

23,809

1,201,109

1,026,791

415,905

691,161

751,534

1,442,706

2009

106,774

37,847

19,346

22,298

31,758

26,633

1,235,949

993,853

486,753

712,091

768,515

1,480,606

2014

Total population (N)

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

13.57

3.69

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Mekong Delta

2.22

Red River Delta

6.70

4.30

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Southeast

3.6

Richest

6.64

3.6

4th quintile

Central Highlands

5.2

3rd quintile

5.8

2nd quintile

6.01 11.1

11.84

7.20

2014

Poorest

16.06

2009

Never attended

Yes

5-year-old children

0.20

0.39

2009

1.09

0.93

0.27

0.61

0.26

0.37

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.62

0.70

2014

Attended

OOSC (%)

12.03

16.45

2009

Total

14.66

7.62

6.91

4.30

2.48

4.67

4.1

5.8

6.5

11.9

6.63

7.90

2014

80.38

78.89

2009

77.72

88.50

88.99

90.59

94.47

88.35

92.3

92.0

89.9

87.8

80.5

88.22

87.82

2014

Attending pre-primary school

7.58

4.66

2009

7.62

3.89

4.10

5.08

2.96

6.95

3.6

3.8

4.3

5.7

7.6

5.12

4.28

2014

Attending primary school

Currently attending (%)

87.97

83.55

2009

85.34

92.38

93.09

95.67

97.43

95.31

95.9

94.2

93.5

88.1

93.34

92.10

2014

Attending either pre-primary or primary school

283,234

257,223

107,287

296,968

329,421

1,391,616

51,090

2009

206,473

308,324

286,998

272,052

260,874

352,357

1,398,993

81,613

2014

Total population (N)

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Income quintile

Migrant

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

6.2

5.5

3.9

3.5

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

5.8

11.9

6.4

2nd quintile

16.3

Yes

9.3

11.2

18.1

Other

13.9

19.8

0.0

1.2

4.2

5.8

6.2

2014

Poorest

31.7

Mong

5.6

Thai

38.2

3.8

Tay

Khmer

11.0

Kinh

3.5

11.7

Rural

Muong

13.0

12.1

2009

Male

Urban

Viet Nam

5-year-old children

11.7

15.9

17.2

36.8

34.0

2.5

6.3

3.2

10.7

11.6

12.6

11.9

2009

3.7

3.3

4.9

5.8

10.9

5.8

8.1

9.7

16.3

21.5

0.0

1.1

1.4

5.4

6.1

5.7

6.0

2014

Female

Never attended

11.8

16.1

17.7

34.2

36.1

3.0

5.9

3.5

10.8

11.6

12.8

12.0

2009

Total

3.6

5.2

5.8

11.1

6.01

7.2

9.48

15.09

20.58

1.17

2.77

5.59

6.15

5.92

6.08

2014

Table 2.4: 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.2

1.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2

2009

Male

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.9

0.6

1.1

0.3

0.0

3.7

0.4

0.6

0.0

0.6

2014

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

2009

0.6

0.7

0.3

0.6

0.7

1.5

0.0

0.7

0.6

0.8

0.7

2014

Female

Attended

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.9

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.2

2009

Total

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.62

0.7

0.45

0.33

2.3

0.96

0.29

0.36

0.63

0.59

0.69

0.62

2014

12.1

16.6

18.3

31.9

39.3

3.8

5.7

3.9

11.2

11.9

13.2

12.3

2009

Male

3.9

4.3

6.0

6.6

12.1

6.7

7.5

9.6

13.9

23.5

0.4

1.8

4.2

6.4

6.8

6.7

6.8

2014

11.9

16.2

17.5

37.2

34.7

2.7

6.6

3.3

10.9

11.8

12.7

12.1

2009

4.3

4.0

5.6

6.5

11.6

6.5

8.4

10.3

17.0

22.2

1.5

1.1

2.1

6.1

6.7

6.5

6.6

2014

Female

Total

12.0

16.5

17.9

34.5

37.0

3.3

6.2

3.6

11.0

11.9

13.0

12.2

2009

Total

4.1

5.8

6.5

11.9

6.6

7.9

9.9

15.4

22.9

1.0

1.5

3.1

6.2

6.7

6.6

6.7

2014

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

2.5

4.3

6.1

6.7

13.4

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Central Highlands

Southeast

Mekong Delta

2014

4.3

2009

Male

Mountainous Northern Midlands

5-year-old children 2009

13.7

6.7

7.2

3.1

2.0

4.3

2014

Female

Never attended

2009

Total

13.57

6.7

6.64

3.69

2.22

4.3

2014

2009

Male

1.1

1.0

0.0

0.6

0.1

0.4

2014

2009

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

2014

Female

Attended

2009

Total

1.09

0.93

0.27

0.61

0.26

0.37

2014

2009

Male

14.5

7.8

6.1

4.9

2.6

4.7

2014

2009

14.9

7.5

7.8

3.6

2.4

4.6

2014

Female

Total

2009

Total

14.7

7.6

6.9

4.3

2.5

4.7

2014

Figure 2.1: Percentage of 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014

Urban

Gender

Kinh

11.8

6.6

7.9

3.3 1.0

6.2

9.9

Urban/rural

1.5

3.6 3.1 Tay

12.0

16.5

18.0

30.6

34.5 15.4

11.0

Rural

6.7

6.6

11.9

13.0

22.9 Viet Nam

Female

6.6

12.1

12.3 6.8

12.2 6.7

Male

Unit: %

83.1

2014

37.0

2009

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

Other

Ethnicity

Disabled Partially Not disabled disabled Disability

Yes

No Migrated

As shown in Figure 2.2, the Mekong Delta had the highest percentage of 5-year-old OOSC (14.7 per cent), about 6 times higher than the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in the Red River Delta, which had the lowest percentage of OOSC (2.5 per cent). The percentage of 5-yearold OOSC from the poorest households was significantly higher than the percentage of OOSC from the richest ones (about 3 times higher, 11.9 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively). The OOSC rate of the poorest group was higher than the rates for all the remaining income quintiles, and this was not only true for the 5-year-old OOSC, but the OOSC of primary and lower secondary school age as well, as will be seen in the subsequent analyses in the report.

Figure 2.2: Percentage of 5-year-old out-of-school children by region and income quintile in 2014 Unit: % 14.7

11.9

6.9

6.7 4.7

7.6 6.5

5.8 4.1

4.1

Fourth

Richest

4.3

Viet Nam

Region

Third

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Southeast

Central Highlands

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

2.5

Income Quintile REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

than their peers in rural areas, but Mong children who lived in urban areas were clearly more likely to attend school than their peers in rural areas. 5-year-old migrants in rural areas were 1.6 times more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. Table 2.5 also provides cross tabulations of 5-year old OOSC of income quitiles by place of residence, regions, gender, ethnicity and migration status. All of the 5-year-olds from the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers in the richest quintile in every region except the Red River Delta. The most disadvantaged children were in the Mekong Region followed by the Central Highlands. There was not much disparity in terms of gender or migration status for the 5-year-old OOSC from the poorest and richest quintiles. The Khmer and the Mong from the poorest quintile had the highest rates of 5-year-old OOSC (27.1 per cent and 15.7 per cent respectively), while there were no 5-year-olds from the richest quintile who did not attend school. The 5-year-old Kinh children from the poorest quintile were 3.5 times more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

Table 2.5 provides the cross tabulations of the status of 5-year-old OOSC in urban and rural areas according to region, gender, ethnicity, migration status and income quintile. In the mountainous Northern Midlands, the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in rural areas was 3.3 times higher than percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in urban areas (5.3 per cent and 1.6 per cent respectively), which means that the 5-year-old children in the rural parts of this region were more disadvantaged than those in the urban areas in terms of pre-primary education. While the percentage of OOSC in urban areas was higher than in rural areas in the Central Coastal Areas (6.1 per cent and 3.6 per cent respectively) and in the Mekong Delta (17.0 per cent and 13.9 per cent respectively), there was no difference in the percentage for males and females for the 5-year-old OOSC in urban and rural areas. It is noteworthy that the percentage of 5-year-old Khmer OOSC was significantly higher in urban areas than in rural areas (33.5 per cent and 19.8 per cent respectively), and the percentage of 5-year-old Mong OOSC was 5.7 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas. This shows that the 5-year-old Khmer children who lived in urban areas were no more likely to attend school

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

6.2

3.7

0.0

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

6.5

Female

17.0

Mekong Delta

6.7

6.8

Southeast

Male

5.7

142

28,907

15,433

16,756

11,731

10,241

1,585

1.0

1.5

3.0

6.2

6.7

6.8

13.9

8.8

7.3

3.6

214

462

694

47,897

31,632

35,353

29,792

9,364

5,834

7,747

0.5

1.6

3.6

13.8

11.6

12.1

22.2

13.0

14.0

4.3

2.3

Central Highlands

5,037

5,127

6.1

2.5

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

3,073

2.5

9,123

Red River Delta

5.3

11.2

521

1.6

11.9

Mountainous Northern Midlands

66,985

Number of people

12.3

6.7

Rural

32,189

Number of people

Rural

13.6

6.6

Urban

Viet Nam

5-year-old OOSC

Urban/rural

Table 2.5: 5-year-old out-of-school children in 2014

462

549

23,307

19,772

22,014

15,412

6,519

3,467

2,901

1,297

6,410

30,326

12,140

41786

Number of people

Poorest

2.7

0.0

4.3

6.7

6.5

6.6

15.6

7.4

7.2

4.1

2.5

4.1

6.9

6.4

6.5

148

240

15,144

8,033

8,997

9,717

3,833

1,762

2,209

1,568

1,650

13,310

6,046

17,030

Number of people

2nd quintile

0.0

5.8

5.6

6.0

13.4

4.4

4.9

5.5

2.0

2.2

5.2

6.3

5.8

15,085

7,320

8,525

6,626

2,378

1,025

2,890

1,272

822

8,963

6,427

15,845

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintile

0.0

4.0

4.3

10.8

8.6

3.7

5.1

2.6

1.1

4.8

5.0

4.1

11,044

5,490

6,374

5,483

4,411

697

2,959

1,836

374

9,107

4,975

11,864

Number of people

4th quintile

0.0

2.5

4.1

4.3

3.9

8.3

5.0

2.6

2.8

2.9

1.0

2.7

2.6

4.1

12,225

6,451

6,197

4,285

2,465

468

1,828

2,232

388

5,279

2,601

12,649

Number of people

Richest

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.3

0.6

1.0

3.3

1.0

1.4

3.4

2.7

3.1

2.7

2.6

5.5

1.5

0.8

10.9

4.5

5.3

2.9

Poorest compared to richest Number of times

Rural compared to urban

Unit: %, people

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

13.6

6.4

6.3

5.0

2.6

Poorest

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

6.6

Non-migrant

14.4

Other

6.5

2.8

Mong

Migrant

33.5

Khmer

5-year-old OOSC

2,601

4,975

6,427

6,046

12,140

28,903

3,285

1,670

1,446

Number of people

Urban

2.7

4.8

5.2

6.9

12.3

6.6

10.3

9.4

15.7

19.8

Urban/rural

5,279

9,107

8,963

13,310

30,326

63,827

3,159

8,925

5,812

2,980

Number of people

Rural

11.9

12.2

10.7

15.7

27.1

40,910

876

8,064

5,836

3,503

Number of people

Poorest

6.3

10.7

4.3

0.0

18.9

15,826

1,204

704

794

Number of people

2nd quintile

12.3

0.0

10.3

631

129

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintile

4.0

5.9

16.7

0.0

10,890

974

820

Number of people

4th quintile

4.1

4.5

7.8

0.0

11,276

1,373

376

Number of people

Richest

1.1

1.0

0.8

1.1

0.9

1.0

1.6

0.7

5.7

0.6

2.9

2.7

1.4

Poorest compared to richest

Number of times

Rural compared to urban

2.3. Dimension 2: Out-of-school children of primary school age The Conceptual and Methodological Framework states that children of primary school age are considered to be in school if they attend a primary or secondary school that corresponds to level 1 or 2 of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). Children of primary school age who do not participate in education programmes equivalent to ISCED level 1 or 2 are considered to be out-of-school. This includes children who participate in preprimary and non-formal education programmes, but it does not include children who attend non-formal education institutions that grant certificates equivalent to those issued by formal education institutions. According to this definition, children of primary school age who are enroled at a continuing education centre are not considered to be OOSC, because continuing education centres grant certificates equivalent to those issued by formal education institutions. The OOSC rate for children of primary school age is calculated below: The percentage of OOSC = 100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the percentage of children of primary school age in primary and secondary schools. This section presents the analyses of school attendance and of the out-of-school children of primary school age. 2.3.1. School attendance rate of children of primary school age School attendance of primary school age children is measured in two ways:

The primary adjusted net attendance rate (the primary ANAR) The difference between the NAR and the ANAR is that the ANAR also includes attendance at secondary schools (underage attendance). The primary ANAR is therefore essentially the percentage of primary school age children attending a primary or secondary school. Table 2.6 presents the primary net attendance rate. Table 2.7 presents the primary adjusted net attendance rate (ANAR) with the GPI. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide a graphical illustration of the primary ANAR.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

The percentage of primary school age children who attend a primary school, which is the primary net attendance rate (the primary NAR), and

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

88.91

Other

93.01

Thai

78.33

97.32

Tay

Mong

96.88

Kinh

85.55

94.92

Rural

Khmer

97.11

Urban

95.60

93.13

Muong

96.56

97.19

97.41

92.79

95.48

Viet Nam

2009

NAR (%)

93.23

90.88

90.47

96.48

95.71

96.44

97.19

96.23

97.31

93.00

97.78

97.81

98.12

96.16

96.56

2014

2009

270,916

64,006

45,487

46,232

64,179

61,186

2,735,682

2,436,500

851,187

619,951

643,690

734,580

668,328

621,138

270,554

84,508

49,094

53,099

78,140

67,562

2,985,558

2,475,025

1,113,489

687,947

729,737

714,012

716,634

740,185

3,588,515

2014

Number of people

3,287,688

Male

Table 2.6: Primary net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014

89.96

66.59

87.38

95.74

92.45

97.62

97.06

94.79

97.35

92.99

96.64

97.38

97.18

92.65

95.43

2009

NAR (%)

94.28

86.81

89.50

96.95

95.36

97.07

97.30

96.26

97.43

92.82

97.95

98.36

98.29

95.89

96.62

2014

2009

255,506

51,253

41,821

42,881

60,193

58,868

2,514,252

2,250,723

774,049

565,160

597,733

670,000

620,034

571,847

261,228

76,430

46,291

50,991

70,453

67,089

2,783,004

2,309,857

1,045,628

658,547

674,066

666,476

669,333

687,062

3,355,485

2014

Number of people

3,024,773

Female

89.42

72.64

86.42

95.67

92.74

97.47

96.97

94.86

97.23

93.06

96.60

97.40

97.19

92.72

95.45

2009

NAR (%)

93.75

88.90

90.00

96.71

95.54

96.75

97.24

96.25

97.37

92.91

97.86

98.07

98.20

96.03

96.59

2014

2009

526,422

115,259

87,307

89,112

124,372

120,054

5,249,933

4,687,223

1,625,237

1,185,110

1,241,423

1,404,580

1,288,362

1,192,985

531,782

160,938

95,385

104,089

148,592

134,651

5,768,562

4,784,882

2,159,117

1,346,494

1,403,803

1,380,488

1,385,967

1,427,248

6,943,999

2014

Number of people

6,312,460

Total

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

Disability

95.54

96.60

95.75

98.6 96.9 95.4

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Central Highlands

94.5

96.0

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Mekong Delta

98.3

Richest

96.8

97.7

4th quintile

Southeast

97.5

3rd quintile

96.6

92.94

Yes

2nd quintile

95.93

No disability

93.5

75.01

Partially disabled

2014

Poorest

12.62

Disabled

2009

NAR (%)

Male

3,204,006

83,681

3,252,526

34,231

931

2009

679,160

572,796

266,853

771,283

793,258

505,164

722,986

700,380

668,540

663,280

833,329

3,453,521

134,993

2014

Number of people

95.52

92.01

95.79

76.75

13.28

2009

NAR (%)

94.6

97.1

95.9

97.2

98.6

95.4

98.3

98.0

97.6

96.7

93.4

96.67

95.47

2014

27,223

716

2009

2,950,403

74,370

652,317

534,283

249,850

726,499

726,103

466,433

657,676

644,182

622,016

631,152

800,459

3,226,583

128,902

2014

Number of people

2,996,834

Female

95.53

92.50

95.86

75.77

12.90

2009

NAR (%)

94.6

96.9

97.0

98.6

95.7

98.3

97.9

97.6

96.6

93.5

96.63

95.61

2014

Total

6,154,409

158,051

6,249,360

61,454

1,646

2009

1,331,477

1,107,079

516,703

1,497,783

1,519,361

971,597

1,380,662

1,344,562

1,290,556

1,294,432

1,633,787

6,680,104

263,895

2014

Number of people

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

89.48

12.62

75.41

96.50

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

94.77

Thai

Other

98.08

Tay

79.42

97.39

Kinh

Mong

95.55

Rural

85.78

97.48

Urban

Khmer

95.87

97.22

96.74

Muong

97.41

97.19

92.79

96.04

Viet Nam

2009

93.90

91.70

92.11

98.49

97.31

97.74

98.04

97.18

98.06

97.46

97.78

97.81

98.12

96.16

97.45

2014

ANAR (%) 2009

3,271,823

34,416

931

272,647

64,898

45,608

47,014

65,397

61,664

2,749,943

2,452,746

854,423

638,205

644,918

734,580

668,328

621,138

272,491

85,263

49,987

54,203

79,449

68,472

3,011,682

2,499,518

1,122,030

720,980

729,737

714,012

716,634

740,185

3,621,548

2014

Number of people

3,307,169

Male

96.37

77.18

13.28

90.51

67.22

87.64

97.64

94.30

98.38

97.59

95.44

97.73

95.86

96.80

97.38

97.18

92.65

96.01

2009

95.27

87.27

91.20

98.54

97.27

98.38

98.14

97.24

98.18

97.25

97.95

98.36

98.29

95.89

97.53

2014

ANAR (%) 2009

3,015,124

27,377

716

257,069

51,739

41,943

43,733

61,394

59,327

2,528,011

2,266,161

777,056

582,607

598,730

670,000

620,034

571,847

263,954

76,843

47,170

51,824

71,869

67,994

2,807,265

2,333,289

1,053,630

689,982

674,066

666,476

669,333

687,062

3,386,919

2014

Number of people

3,043,217

Female

Table 2.7: Primary adjusted net attendance rate and gender parity index in 2009 and 2014

96.44

76.19

12.90

89.98

73.50

86.66

97.42

94.54

98.23

97.48

95.50

97.60

95.87

96.77

97.40

97.19

92.72

96.03

2009

94.57

89.55

91.67

98.51

97.29

98.06

98.09

97.21

98.12

97.36

97.86

98.07

98.20

96.03

97.49

2014

ANAR (%) 2009

6,286,947

61,793

1,646

529,716

116,637

87,550

90,748

126,791

120,991

5,277,954

4,718,907

1,631,479

1,220,811

1,243,648

1,404,580

1,288,362

1,192,985

536,444

162,107

97,158

106,028

151,318

136,467

5,818,947

4,832,807

2,175,660

1,410,962

1,403,803

1,380,488

1,385,967

1,427,248

7,008,467

2014

Number of people

6,350,386

Total

1.00

1.02

1.05

1.01

0.85

1.02

1.00

2009

1.01

0.95

0.99

1.00

1.01

1.00

1.01

1.00

2014

ANAR GPI

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

99.0 97.1

99.2 97.9

Richest

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

97.8 95.7

Southeast

Mekong Delta

95.7

98.6

4th quintile

Central Highlands

98.3

3rd quintile

97.5

2nd quintile

97.50 94.6

96.12

96.39

2014

Poorest

93.22

Yes

2009

ANAR (%)

Male

3,223,238

83,931

2009

687,628

578,692

267,630

779,535

797,508

510,554

728,281

706,298

674,028

670,040

842,900

3,485,650

135,898

2014

Number of people

96.11

92.26

2009

95.8

98.0

96.3

98.2

99.3

96.3

99.0

98.9

98.5

97.7

94.5

97.59

95.91

2014

ANAR (%)

74,574

2009

660,533

539,558

250,957

734,136

730,796

470,940

662,486

649,942

627,337

637,705

809,449

3,257,424

129,496

2014

Number of people

2,968,643

Female

96.11

92.77

2009

95.8

97.9

96.0

98.1

99.2

96.7

99.0

98.7

98.4

97.6

94.5

97.54

96.16

2014

ANAR (%)

Total

6,191,881

158,505

2009

1,348,161

1,118,250

518,587

1,513,671

1,528,305

981,494

1,390,768

1,356,240

1,301,366

1,307,745

1,652,349

6,743,073

265,394

2014

Number of people

1.00

0.99

2009

1.00

1.01

1.00

0.99

1.00

2014

ANAR GPI

The gender parity index (GPI) is calculated by dividing the statistics for females by the statistics for males. In this case, therefore, the ANAR GPI is the result of the ANAR for females divided by the ANAR for males.

grade has decreased. All of the disaggregation values for both the primary net attendance rate (NAR) and the primary adjusted net attendance rate (ANAR) in 2014 increased compared to 2009, especially among the Mong and Khmer children.

According to Table 2.7, at the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, Viet Nam had 7,008,467 children of primary school age (6-10 years old and born between 20032007) who were attending a primary or secondary school. They accounted for 97.5 per cent of the total group population.

At the national level, the primary NAR and the primary ANAR show that there was no gender disparity. The NAR and the ANAR for girls were not much higher than the rates for boys (NAR: 96.62 per cent and 96.56 per cent respectively, and ANAR: 97.53 per cent and 97.45 per cent respectively). However, further analysis of the NAR and the ANAR shows a large discrepancy between Mong boys and Mong girls.

Similar to 2009, attendance rate versus age in this age group is shaped like a dome. Children aged 6 and 10 had the lowest rates, at 96.0 per cent and 97.4 per cent respectively, and children aged 7 had the highest at 98.20 per cent. It can be understood that the attendance rate of 6-year-olds was low because this is the net attendance rate by level not by grade. Therefore, many 6-year-old children who were still in pre-primary school were not included in the calculation, while overage attendance by 7-10-year-old children in primary school was calculated in the primary net attendance rate. The low attendance rate for the 10-year-old children was due to dropouts in the final grade, which will be discussed in Section 2.6 below. It is noteworthy that the attendance rates of 6-year-old children and 10-year-old children in 2014 increased significantly more than the attendance rates for other age groups compared to 2009, which might be evidence that overage attendance (at preprimary schools) of 6-year-old children and dropouts in the final

Of the 7 ethnic groups analysed, the Thai, the Khmer, the Mong and Other had a primary ANAR that was lower than the national average (97.3 per cent, 91.7 per cent, 89.6 per cent and 94.6 per cent respectively). The Thai and the Mong were the only groups for which the NAR and the ANAR for girls (Thai: 95.4 per cent and 97.3 per cent; Mong: 86.8 per cent and 87.3 per cent respectively) were lower than the rates for boys (Thai: 95.7 per cent and 97.3 per cent; Mong: 90.9 per cent and 91.7 per cent respectively). The above rates along with the ANAR GPI for the Mong (0.95, which is lower than the gender parity limit of 0.97) show that Mong girls had fewer opportunities to attend school than Mong boys. Children from migrant families had a slightly lower attendance rate (96.2 per cent) than children from non-migrant families (97.5 per cent).

Figure 2.3: Primary adjusted net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 92.8 96.2 96.1 97.5

96.4 76.2

89.6 90 94.6

Viet Nam

Age

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Gender

Urban/rural

Ethnicity

Disability

Yes

Not disabled

Disabled

Partially disabled

Other

Mong

Khmer

Muong

Thai

Tay

Kinh

Rural

Urban

Female

Male

12.9

73.5

86.7 91.7

97.5 98.1 98.2 98.1 94.5 97.3 97.4 98.5

2014

97.6 98.1 95.5 97.2

96 97.5 96 97.5

92.7 96 97.2 98.2 97.4 98.1 96.8 97.9 95.9 97.4

96 97.5

2009

Migrated

Figure 2.4: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by region and income quintile in 2014

Viet Nam

Poorest

As shown in Figure 2.4, the Mekong Delta had the lowest primary adjusted net attendance rate (95.8 per cent), followed by the Central Highlands (96 per cent), and the Red River Delta had the highest primary ANAR (99.2 per cent). The primary adjusted net attendance rate (ANAR) for the children from the richest families was 4.5 per cent higher than that of children from the poorest families. 2.3.2. Out-of-school children of primary school age The OOSC rate for primary school age children was calculated using the formula in Section 2.3 as below: The percentage of OOSC = 100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the primary ANAR Table 2.8 and Figures 2.5 and 2.6 provide information about the OOSC of primary school age.

99.0

Richest

Mekong River Delta

Region

98.7

Fourth

94.5

98.4

Third

95.8

97.6

Second

97.9

Southeast

98.1

Central Highlands

99.2

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Mountainous Northem Midlands

96.7

Red River Delta

Unit: % 97.5

Income Quintile

almost 1.5 times higher than the rate in urban areas (2.8 per cent and 1.9 per cent respectively). The Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age (4.2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively), about 5 times the rate for the Red River Delta, which had the lowest OOSC rate (0.8 per cent). The OOSC rate among ethnic minority children of primary school age in 2014 declined compared to 2009 (by almost one third for the Khmer and by more than 50 per cent for the Mong). In 2014, the Muong, the Kinh and the Tay had OOSC rates that were less than the national average (1.5 per cent, 1.9 per cent and 1.9 per cent respectively). The Mong had the highest OOSC rate (10.5 per cent), five times higher than that of the Kinh, meaning that 1 out of every 10 Mong children of primary school age did not go to school. The OOSC rate for the Khmer (8.3 per cent) was the second highest.

At the time the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey was conducted, there were 180,521 primary school age children in Viet Nam who were out-of-school, and this accounted for 2.5 per cent of the total group population. This percentage decreased by one third compared to 2009 (4.0 per cent), all of the disaggregation values were lower, and the groups that experienced the greatest decrease were among the 10-year-old children, the children in rural areas, the Khmer and especially the Mong.

The OOSC rate for migrant children was higher than the rate for nonmigrant children (3.8 per cent and 2.5 per cent respectively).

In 2014, except for the 6-year-old children (who had the highest outof-school rate, which is shown in the ANAR calculation in Figure 2.3 above), the rate of OOSC of primary school age tended to increase with age (4.1 per cent for the 10-year-olds compared to 2.8 per cent for the 7-year-olds).

In terms of gender, there was no significant difference in the percentage of primary school age OOSC at the national level (2.6 per cent of the males and 2.5 per cent of the females) except for the Mong. The out-of-school rate for Mong girls of primary school age in 2014 was 1.5 times higher than the rate for Mong boys (12.7 per cent and 8.3 per cent respectively).

In 2014, the rate of OOSC of primary school age in rural areas was

The OOSC rate among children of primary school age from the poorest households was 5.5 times higher than the rate for children of primary school age from the richest households (5.5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively). The poorest quintile had the largest number of OOSC of all quintiles.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

Viet Nam

6,444 11,222 118,643

2.26 2.69 1.51 7.89 8.30 6.10

5.23 2.78 14.22 20.58 10.52 87.38 24.59 3.50

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

32,047

16,817

7,563

1,343

3,607

1,206

73,725

1.92

114,244

22,065

Tay

1.94

2.52

Urban

27,455

1.96

2.54

4.12

21,735

2.61

2.22

3.26

19,559

Kinh

2.19

2.59

19,304

2.82

1.88

2.81

48,256

4.45

3.84

7.21

136,309

2009

17,697

7,722

4,279

834

2,192

1,585

60,338

72,450

22,198

18,783

16,589

15,975

13,715

29,587

94,648

2014

Number of people

Rural

2.55

2014

3.96

2009

(%)

Male

3.63

22.82

86.72

9.49

32.78

12.36

2.36

5.70

1.62

2.41

4.56

2.27

4.14

3.20

2.62

2.82

7.35

3.99

2009

(%)

4.73

12.73

8.80

1.46

2.73

1.62

1.86

2.76

1.82

2.75

2.05

1.64

1.71

4.11

2.47

2014

Female

Table 2.8: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2009 and 2014

113,569

8,094

4,676

26,945

25,228

5,916

1,055

3,712

979

62,505

108,277

18,061

25,167

19,773

18,007

18,012

45,379

126,339

2009

13,112

11,204

4,550

769

2,015

1,116

53,106

66,302

19,571

19,491

14,095

11,138

11,678

29,470

85,873

2014

Number of people

3.56

23.81

87.10

10.02

26.50

13.34

2.58

5.46

1.77

2.52

4.50

2.40

4.13

3.23

2.60

2.81

7.28

3.97

2009

(%)

5.43

10.45

8.33

1.49

2.71

1.94

1.91

2.79

1.88

2.64

2.14

1.93

1.80

3.97

2.51

2014

Total

232,212

19,316

11,120

58,992

42,045

13,479

2,399

7,319

2,184

136,229

222,521

40,126

52,622

41,508

37,566

37,316

93,635

262,648

2009

30,810

18,926

8,829

1,603

4,207

2,701

113,445

138,752

41,769

38,274

30,684

27,113

25,394

59,056

180,521

2014

Number of people

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

30,936

4.31

Mekong Delta

16,351

2.05

North Central and Central Coastal Areas 13,024

6,835

0.85

Red River Delta

2.20

15,443

2.94

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Southeast

7,149

1.0

Richest

12,059

10,234

1.4

4th quintile

4.31

11,856

1.7

3rd quintile

Central Highlands

16,865

2.5

2nd quintile

89,555 48,544

130,204

5,093

2014

5.4

2.50

3.88

6,105

2009

Number of people

Poorest

3.61

6.78

2014

Yes

2009

(%)

Male

3.89

7.74

2009

(%)

4.17

1.97

3.66

1.81

0.72

3.67

1.0

1.1

1.5

2.3

5.5

2.41

4.09

2014

Female

120,083

6,256

2009

28,741

10,844

9,528

13,540

5,303

17,917

6,716

7,139

9,696

15,113

47,208

80,354

5,519

2014

Number of people

3.89

7.23

2009

(%)

4.24

2.09

4.00

1.94

0.79

3.29

1.0

1.3

1.6

2.4

5.5

2.46

3.84

2014

Total

250,287

12,360

2009

59,677

23,868

21,587

29,890

12,138

33,360

13,865

17,373

21,552

31,978

95,753

169,909

10,612

2014

Number of people

Figure 2.5: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 87.1

2014

Viet Nam

Gender

Urban/rural

Disability

Yes

Not disabled

Disabled

3.6

7.2 3.8 3.9 2.5

23.8

Ethnicity

Partially disabled

Other

10.5 10 5.4 Mong

8.3 Khmer

Muong

Thai

Tay

2.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 5.5 2.7 2.6 1.5 Kinh

Rural

2.4 1.9 4.5 2.8

Female

Urban

4 2.6 4 2.5

Age

Male

7.3 4 2.8 1.8 2.6 1.9 3.2 2.1 4.1 2.6 6

4 2.5

13.3

26.5

2009

Migrated

Figure 2.6: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by region and income quintile in 2014

Unit: % 5.5

4.2

4 4.0 3.3 2.5

2.4 1.6

1.3

Viet Nam

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Fourth

Third

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Southeast

Central Highlands

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

0.8

Income Quintile

1 1.0

Richest

2.1

1.9

Table 2.9 provides the cross tabulations of OOSC of primary school age in urban and rural areas according to region, gender, ethnicity, migration status and income quintile. Children of primary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in all regions. In the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands, the percentage of OOSC of primary school age was higher in rural areas than in urban areas (2.9 and 1.5 times higher respectively), and the OOSC rates in the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands were higher than the rates in the other regions. In terms of gender, there was no difference in the percentage of OOSC of primary school age in rural areas and urban areas. It is noteworthy that non-migrant children of primary school age in rural areas were 1.6 times more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in terms of school attendance. For all the ethnic minority groups, children of primary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas, and ethnic minority children were more disadvantaged than Kinh children.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

Table 2.9 also provides the cross tabulations of OOSC of primary school age in urban and rural areas according to region, gender, ethnicity, migration status and income quintile. Children of primary school age from the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile in all regions, especially in the Central Highlands and the mountainous Northern Midlands. In terms of gender, there was no difference in the OOSC rates for children of primary school age from the poorest quintile and those from the richest quintile. The Mong from the poorest quintile had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age (10.6 per cent), while all the children of primary school age from the richest quintile were enroled in school. The Kinh children of primary school age from the poorest quintile were 4.8 times more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

1.7

1.4

1.3

6.8

6.0

6.4

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

Khรกc

1.8

Female

3.7

Mekong River Delta

1.9

Southeast

Male

3.0

4,072

321

1,470

128

264

35,446

19,571

22,198

12,639

12,396

3,952

5.3

10.6

8.7

1.5

2.8

2.0

2.8

4.4

2.4

4.3

2.0

26,738

18,606

7,360

1,534

4,079

2,438

77,999

66,302

72,450

47,038

11,473

17,636

22,901

6.6

10.6

1.9

2.8

2.3

4.5

5.5

5.4

7.4

5.3

8.7

3.1

1.4

Central Highlands

6,989

8,214

1.7

0.8

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

3,924

0.8

31,490

Red River Delta

3.6

7.6

1,870

1.2

5.5

Mountainous Northern Midlands

138752

Number of people

5.9

2.8

Rural

41,769

Number of people

Rural

4.6

1.9

Urban

Viet Nam

OOSC of primary school age

Urban/rural

26,188

18,926

6,909

1,143

3,899

2,001

36,687

47,208

48,544

24,639

11,829

11,584

10,655

3,872

21,618

72,110

19,745

95,753

Number of people

Poorest

3.2

0.0

6.0

1.3

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.5

5.0

1.4

4.6

2.0

0.9

2.8

2.9

1.4

2.4

2,979

1,431

400

189

547

26,431

15,113

16,865

14,923

2,953

5,673

6,042

2,649

5,572

28,164

6,334

31,978

Number of people

2nd quintile

Table 2.9: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age in 2014

1.1

0.0

3.2

0.7

0.0

1.7

1.5

1.7

3.1

1.0

1.8

1.5

0.6

1.5

1.8

1.4

1.6

290

371

20,830

9,696

11,856

7,975

2,409

1,807

4,379

1,988

2,806

16,083

6,294

21,552

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintile

1.5

0.0

3.3

1.0

1.3

1.1

1.4

3.0

1.8

1.5

0.7

1.5

1.3

356

16,854

7,139

10,234

7,365

4,172

1,706

4,612

2,234

1,164

13,256

5,938

17,373

Number of people

4th quintile

3.5

0.0

9.2

0.0

3.2

0.6

0.9

1.0

1.8

1.1

0.9

1.4

0.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

1.0

997

118

12,642

6,716

7,149

4,774

2,505

817

4,202

1,395

2,199

9,139

3,458

13,865

Number of people

Richest

0.8

1.8

1.3

1.2

2.2

1.4

1.2

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.5

1.2

1.1

2.9

1.5

1.9

1.2

0.9

3.8

4.8

5.5

5.6

4.1

4.8

9.5

2.3

3.2

6.3

6.2

6.0

5.5

Poorest compared to richest Number of times

Rural compared to urban

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

4.6

1.4

1.3

0.8

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

1.7

Non-migrant

Poorest

3.5

Migrant

OOSC of primary school age

3,458

5,938

6,294

63,34

19,745

35,841

5,929

Number of people

Urban

1.0

1.5

1.8

2.9

5.9

2.8

4.3

Urban/rural

9,139

13,256

16,083

28,164

72,110

134,069

4,684

Number of people

Rural

5.5

7.1

93,875

1,878

Number of people

Poorest

2.2

9.0

28,886

3,093

Number of people

2nd quintile

1.5

4.4

19,191

2,361

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintile

1.2

2.0

16,161

1,212

Number of people

4th quintile

0.9

2.1

11,797

2,069

Number of people

Richest

1.2

1.1

1.3

2.0

1.3

1.6

1.2

6.0

3.4

Poorest compared to richest

Number of times

Rural compared to urban

2.4. Dimension 3: Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age The Conceptual and Methodological Framework states that children of lower secondary school age are considered to be in school if they attend a primary or secondary school (ISCED levels 1 and 2). Children of lower secondary school age who do not participate in education programmes equivalent to ISCED levels 1 and 2 are considered to be out of school, except those who attend nonformal education programmes that award degrees equivalent to formal qualifications. According to this definition, children of lower secondary school age who are enroled at continuing education centres are not considered to be out of school because continuing education centres grant certificates equivalent to those issued by formal education institutions. According to the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, there were a number of lower secondary school age children who were receiving vocational training. This number was very small (accounting for 0.01 per cent of the lower secondary school age children) and did not affect the data in this analysis. The OOSC rate for lower secondary school age children is calculated below: The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age = 100 – the percentage of children of lower secondary school age at 56

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

primary and secondary schools. This section presents the analyses of school attendance and of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age. 2.4.1. School attendance of children of lower secondary school age The school attendance of children of lower secondary school age was calculated in three ways: • The percentage of lower secondary school age children who attended a lower secondary school, which is the lower secondary net attendance rate (NAR), • The lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate, i.e. the percentage of lower secondary school age children who attended a lower secondary or upper secondary school (lower secondary ANAR), and • The school attendance rate of lower secondary school age children who attended a primary school (overage). Tables 2.10 and 2.11 display the lower secondary NAR and ANAR respectively.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

57.26

81.97

Partially disabled

No disability

3.18

73.87

Thai

Disabled

85.48

Tay

58.47

85.32

Kinh

Other

79.30

Rural

43.24

87.73

Urban

Mong

78.80

44.44

84.57

Khmer

85.34

80.87

76.57

Muong

81.36

Viet Nam

2009

NAR (%)

71.31

66.67

62.16

86.19

85.54

89.09

89.97

85.83

91.26

78.49

90.27

92.43

87.57

87.36

2014

2009

2,581,358

30,327

265

155,979

26,872

21,229

39,294

50,159

53,881

2,264,534

1,924,614

687,335

673,076

709,647

658,033

571,193

161,557

42,778

24,084

34,805

46,610

44,360

2,072,182

1,708,992

717,384

516,534

685,715

639,203

584,923

2,426,375

2014

Number of people

2,611,949

Male

Table 2.10: Lower secondary net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014

84.35

64.10

5.52

63.18

24.24

48.22

85.98

72.61

89.76

88.14

81.93

89.88

81.57

86.71

87.05

79.98

83.87

2009

NAR (%)

75.81

52.65

68.80

92.19

86.76

91.78

91.61

87.46

92.68

81.33

91.45

93.31

89.27

88.95

2014

2009

2,449,529

29,674

345

156,454

13,968

21,752

38,455

45,466

53,531

2,149,922

1,832,005

647,543

641,768

671,052

620,679

546,050

165,583

32,654

27,901

35,179

46,962

44,536

1,989,529

1,646,609

695,735

517,371

653,019

610,171

561,784

2,342,344

2014

Number of people

2,479,548

Female

83.11

60.45

4.18

60.74

34.10

46.28

83.32

73.27

87.56

86.67

80.56

88.76

80.13

85.60

86.16

78.20

82.56

2009

NAR (%)

73.52

59.78

65.55

89.10

86.15

90.42

90.77

86.62

91.95

79.88

90.84

92.86

88.39

88.13

2014

2009

5,030,887

60,001

610

312,434

40,840

42,982

77,749

95,625

107,411

4,414,457

3,756,619

1,334,879

1,314,843

1,380,699

1,278,712

1,117,242

327,140

75,431

51,985

69,985

93,571

88,896

4,061,711

3,355,600

1,413,119

1,033,905

1,338,734

1,249,374

1,146,706

4,768,719

2014

Number of people

5,091,497

Total

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

79.3

89.8

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Mekong Delta

96.2

Red River Delta

88.9

86.9

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Southeast

96.0

Richest

77.6

94.4

4th quintile

Central Highlands

90.6

3rd quintile

86.6

2nd quintile

87.43 73.7

81.61

84.96

2014

Poorest

70.33

Yes

2009

NAR (%)

Male

2,561,222

50,727

2009

447,649

391,789

180,058

560,816

521,521

324,542

476,366

498,740

469,065

481,461

500,743

2,360,676

65,699

2014

Number of people

84.25

66.95

2009

NAR (%)

81.9

89.4

83.4

92.6

97.0

84.4

96.7

94.8

92.8

89.2

75.6

89.18

81.29

2014 43,565

2009

432,640

361,111

187,390

549,869

510,975

300,359

457,926

464,916

460,018

471,522

487,961

2,277,737

64,607

2014

Number of people

2,435,983

Female

82.88

68.73

2009

NAR (%)

80.6

89.1

80.5

91.2

96.6

85.7

96.3

94.6

91.7

87.8

74.7

88.28

83.10

2014

Total

4,997,205

94,292

2009

880,289

752,900

367,448

1,110,685

1,032,496

624,900

934,292

963,656

929,083

952,983

988,705

4,638,412

130,307

2014

Number of people

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

265 30,468 2,591,929

92.43 90.27 82.75 92.31 86.82 90.96 90.26 87.85 89.21 62.81 67.28 72.00

85.34

84.62

80.00

88.04

79.65

85.66

86.00

74.38

81.65

44.47

43.41

58.64

3.18

57.53

82.31

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

156,425

26,975

21,243

39,674

50,508

54,210

2,273,626

1,932,915

689,747

683,350

710,086

658,033

571,193

87.57

76.57

2,622,662

88.37

2009

81.69

2014

163,123

43,175

24,336

36,025

47,866

44,945

2,094,967

1,728,824

725,612

544,595

685,715

639,203

584,923

2,454,436

2014

Number of people

Viet Nam

2009

ANAR (%)

Male

84.76

64.47

5.52

63.46

24.36

48.35

86.90

73.25

90.66

88.55

82.36

90.23

83.04

86.78

87.05

79.98

84.28

2009

76.67

52.97

70.17

93.33

88.64

93.61

92.72

88.52

93.86

85.88

91.45

93.31

89.27

90.05

2014

ANAR (%)

2,461,462

29,847

345

157,150

14,039

21,807

38,865

45,869

54,069

2,159,856

1,841,592

650,062

653,358

671,567

620,679

546,050

2,491,654

167,449

32,851

28,457

35,614

47,980

45,423

2,013,524

1,666,717

704,581

546,325

653,019

610,171

561,784

2,371,298

2014

Number of people 2009

Female

83.49

60.77

4.18

60.96

34.24

46.35

84.17

73.84

88.27

87.05

80.95

89.09

81.46

85.65

86.16

78.20

82.93

2009

74.29

60.25

66.57

91.21

88.24

91.91

91.81

87.65

93.07

84.29

90.84

92.86

88.39

89.19

2014

ANAR (%)

Table 2.11: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and gender parity index in 2009 and 2014

5,053,391

60,315

610

313,576

41,014

43,050

78,539

96,377

108,279

4,433,483

3,774,507

1,339,809

1,336,708

1,381,654

1,278,712

1,117,242

5,114,316

330,573

76,025

52,792

71,639

95,846

90,368

4,108,491

3,395,541

1,430,192

1,090,919

1,338,734

1,249,374

1,146,706

4,825,734

2014

Number of people 2009

Total

1.03

1.12

1.73

1.08

0.56

1.09

1.06

0.98

1.05

1.03

1.02

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.04

1.03

2009

1.06

0.79

1.12

1.05

1.01

1.04

1.02

1.04

1.01

1.02

2014

ANAR GPI

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

474,172 503,804 483,138 328,368

526,470 567,901

181,469 397,358 452,870

91.6 95.4 97.3 87.9

97.1 91.0

78.2 90.1 80.2

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Central Highlands

Southeast

Mekong Delta

486,579

87.5

2nd quintile

2,388,563 506,742

2,571,785

65,873

2014

74.6

88.47

81.95

50,877

2009

Number of people

Poorest

85.19

70.54

2014

Yes

2009

ANAR (%)

Male

84.66

67.10

2009

83.1

91.1

84.1

93.7

97.7

85.7

97.9

96.2

93.7

90.2

76.7

90.27

82.87

2014

ANAR (%)

2,447,995

43,659

438,884

367,997

188,881

556,027

514,571

304,938

463,477

471,589

464,362

477,031

494,838

2,305,437

65,861

2014

Number of people 2009

Female

83.25

68.91

2009

81.6

90.6

81.1

92.3

97.4

86.8

97.6

95.8

92.6

88.8

75.6

89.34

84.01

2014

ANAR (%)

5,019,780

94,536

891,753

765,356

370,350

1,123,928

1,041,041

633,307

946,616

975,394

938,534

963,610

1,001,580

4,694,000

131,733

2014

Number of people 2009

Total

1.03

0.95

2009

1.04

1.01

1.07

1.03

1.01

0.97

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.02

0.97

2014

ANAR GPI

Figure 2.7 graphically illustrates the lower secondary ANAR. At the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, Viet Nam had 4,825,734 children of lower secondary school age (11-14 years old and born in 1999-2002) who were attending a secondary school, and they accounted for 89.19 per cent of the total group population. The ANAR increased for all the groups compared to 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially the Mong and other ethnic groups. However, the ANAR shows that the attendance rate at lower secondary schools was generally not as high as at primary schools. The ANAR of 11-year-old children was the lowest because this is the net attendance rate by level not by grade. Therefore, many 11-year-olds who were still in primary school were not included in the calculation, while overage attendance of 12-14-year-old children at lower secondary schools was calculated in the lower secondary net attendance rate. The ANAR of 14-year-old children was lower because there were more dropouts.

Urban areas had a higher ANAR than rural areas (93.1 per cent and 87.6 per cent respectively). The biggest difference, however, was found in the rates for the ethnic minorities. The ANAR for the Tay was 91.3 per cent, which is 32 per cent higher than the rate for the Mong (60.3 per cent). This indicates that only 6 out of every 10 Mong children of lower secondary school age attended a lower or upper secondary school. The Khmer and the ethnic minorities in the Other group also had a low ANAR (66.6 per cent and 74.3 per cent respectively). The difference in the attendance rates for migrants and nonmigrants at lower secondary schools was larger than at primary schools. The lower-secondary ANAR for migrant children was 84.01 per cent, and the lower secondary ANAR for non-migrant children was 89.3 per cent. The attendance rate for migrant girls was lower than the rate for boys (82.9 per cent and 85.2 per cent respectively). At 0.97, the GPI for migrant children was within parity range.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

Overall in Viet Nam, the percentage of boys and girls attending lower secondary schools at the officially-correct age is considered to be within the parity range, although the GPI is at its very limit (1.03), which means when the GPI is higher than that, boys are at a disadvantage. The ANAR for individual ages in the 11-14 age group shows a gender disparity, with a clearly higher percentage of girls in secondary school. The lower attendance rate for boys might indicate a quality issue, such as the relevance of education in terms of skills development or gender responsiveness from an employment perspective. The NAR for lower secondary schools shows that the gender disparity was more obvious among minority groups. In most cases a higher percentage of girls

were in grades appropriate for their age, except for the Mong. In 2014, the ANAR of Mong girls was double what it was in 2009. It went from 24.4 per cent to 53 per cent, which indicates that the number of girls of lower secondary school age attending a school appropriate for their age increased twofold. However, the ANAR of Mong girls was still only 53 per cent, which means that only half of the Mong girls attended school. This rate was 14 per cent lower than the secondary ANAR for Mong boys. The GPI for the Mong improved significantly, increasing from 0.56 to 0.79. However, the index was still far from being within the parity range, reflecting a great disadvantage for Mong girls. In other words, Mong girls did not enjoy the same level of equity as boys in lower secondary education.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Figure 2.7: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate in 2009 and 2014 Unit: %

Viáť&#x2021;t Nam

Age

Gender

89.3 68.9

60.8

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Disability

Yes

Not disabled

Partially disabled

Disabled

Other

Mong

Khmer

Muong

Thai

Tay

Kinh

Rural

Urban

Female

Male

4.2

34.2

46.4

60.3 61

66.6

74.3

84 83.3

83.5

88.2 84.2 91.29 73.8

87.1 91.8 88.3 91.9

2014 87.7

89.1 93.1

81.7

88.4 84.3 90.1

88.4 86.2 92.9 85.7 90.8 81.5 84.3

78.2

82.9 89.2

2009

Migrated

Figure 2.8: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate by region and income quintile in 2014

92.3

86.8

90.6

88.8

92.6

95.8

97.6

Richest

97.4 89.2

Fourth

Unit: %

81.6

81.1

Viet Nam

Region

Figure 2.8 shows that the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the lowest lower secondary ANAR (81.6 per cent and 81.1 per cent respectively), much lower than the primary ANAR in the two regions, and the Red River Delta had the highest lower secondary ANAR (97.4 per cent). The lower secondary NAR for the richest households was 22 per cent higher than the lower secondary NAR

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Third

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Southeast

Central Highlands

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

75.6

Income Quintile

for the poorest households, whereas the difference in the primary NAR was much less (4.5 per cent). The lower secondary ANAR is an important indicator of progress in education. It does not, however, include children who are attending a school that is not appropriate for their age (overage). Table 2.12 shows statistics for this group of children.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Age

8.85 2.54 0.91 0.18 1.95 3.49 2.21 2.26 3.90 3.92 10.07 12.48

17.90 6.19 2.39 1.01 3.61 7.49 4.68 5.92

11.86 7.43

15.78

28.20

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

5,105 204,460 4,071

2.70 3.06

4.84 9.64 6.49 5.64 6.56

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

205,897

403

16.99

45,317

17,522

7,539

3,611

8,054

3,732

124,195

181,673

28,295

8,647

20,077

47,732

133,512

209,968

2009

82,667

2,086

17,126

8,010

3,903

1,584

2,126

1,124

50,880

69,451

15,301

1,197

6,903

17,554

59,099

84,753

2014

Number of people

Other

7.56

3.05

6.54

2014

Viet Nam

2009

(%)

Male

5.20

5.07

5.18

6.61

3.85

14.03

20.30

14.20

4.46

9.20

4.26

3.71

5.94

2.89

0.76

1.70

4.68

14.82

5.20

2009

(%)

2.47

1.94

6.44

9.68

7.79

1.82

3.72

1.67

1.74

2.90

1.32

0.25

0.94

1.67

7.21

2.45

2014

150,363

3,301

150,362

3,060

241

34,742

11,697

6,404

1,996

5,760

2,539

90,526

132,827

20,837

5,956

13,150

33,376

101,181

153,664

2009

62,996

1,540

14,056

6,001

3,161

693

2,012

812

37,800

54,633

9,903

1,595

6,692

10,890

45,358

64,535

2014

Number of people

Female

Table 2.12: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2009 and 2014

5.91

5.37

5.86

8.23

4.42

15.56

24.40

15.01

6.01

10.58

5.11

4.22

6.74

3.27

0.89

2.06

5.47

16.43

5.90

2009

(%)

2.77

2.31

7.01

11.10

8.91

2.90

3.81

1.97

1.98

3.20

1.64

0.22

0.92

2.11

8.05

2.76

2014

2009

356,260

7,372

354,823

8,165

644

80,058

29,219

13,943

5,606

13,814

6,270

214,721

314,500

49,132

14,604

33,227

81,108

234,693

145,662

3,626

31,182

14,012

7,064

2,278

4,138

1,936

88,679

124,084

25,204

2,792

13,595

28,444

104,457

149,288

2014

Number of people 363,632

Total

0.79

0.90

0.80

0.69

0.80

0.83

0.72

0.90

0.60

0.78

0.72

0.79

0.80

0.75

0.71

0.76

0.83

0.79

2009

GPI

0.81

0.72

0.85

0.78

0.77

0.46

0.95

0.74

0.79

0.83

0.68

1.38

1.03

0.66

0.81

0.80

2014

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

16,074 10,645 7,028 3,964 14,780 3,699 14,385 16,031 8,079 27,778

2.9 2.1 1.3 0.8 3.96 0.68 2.30 6.91 1.83 4.92

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Central Highlands

Southeast

Mekong Delta

2014 47,042

2009

6.9

2014

Number of people

Poorest

2009

(%)

Male

2009

(%)

3.85

1.70

5.02

1.61

0.67

3.63

0.7

1.0

1.4

2.1

5.9

2014

2009

20,368

6,872

11,280

9,571

3,538

12,907

3,215

5,123

6,781

11,359

38,058

2014

Number of people

Female

2009

(%)

4.41

1.77

5.98

1.97

0.68

3.80

0.7

1.2

1.7

2.5

6.4

2014

Total

2009

48,146

14,951

27,311

23,956

7,237

27,687

7,179

12,151

17,426

27,433

85,100

2014

Number of people 2009

GPI

0.78

0.93

0.73

0.70

0.98

0.92

0.85

0.79

0.66

0.74

0.85

2014

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Truong Viet Hung

At the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, there were in total 149,288 children of lower secondary school age attending primary school, which was about 2.8 per cent of the total group population. This figure is 60 per cent lower than the corresponding figure for 2009. The attendance rate at primary schools decreased for all of the groups, and the rate for the Khmer and the Mong fell by 50 per cent. The attendance rate at primary schools decreased with age, i.e. the 11-year-olds had the highest attendance rate and the 14-year-olds had the lowest. Although the percentage of children of lower secondary school age attending primary school decreased, some of the ethnic minority groups continued to do poorly at school and performance was varied. The overage schooling rate for the Mong was the highest at 11.1 per cent and it was the same for both genders. In other words, almost one tenth of the lower secondary school age Mong children still attended primary school. The rate

for the Khmer was 8.9 per cent. The overage schooling rates for the Kinh and the Tay were the lowest (1.98 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively), lower than the national average. Most strikingly, Table 2.12 shows a very clear difference in the overage attendance rate for boys and the overage rate for girls. The percentage of lower secondary school age boys in primary school was higher than the percentage of lower secondary school age girls for all ethnic groups, all income quintiles, for both migrants and non-migrants and for all regions, higher than every other group represented in the table except 13- and 14-yearold children. This indicates that boys may face more difficulties learning and progressing through the grade levels than girls. This is worthy of consideration and appropriate support to help narrow the gap. Figures 2.9 and 2.10 illustrate the percentage of lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2009 and 2014.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Figure 2.9: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2009 and 2014

2014

Viet Nam

Age

8.2

5.9 2.8

2.3 Disability

Yes

Not disabled

Partially disabled

Disabled

Other

Mong

Khmer

Ethnicity

5.4

5.9 4.4

6 Muong

Thai

3.8

2.9

5.1

Urban/rural

Gender

Tay

2 Kinh

Rural

Urban

Female

4.2

3.2

1.6

2.5

3.3

5.2

6.7

6.5 3.1 Male

0.9 0.9 0.2

2.1 2.1

2.8

5.5

5.9

8.1

8.9

10.6

11.1

15.6

16.4

2009

24.4

Unit: %

Migrated

Figure 2.10: Lower secondary school age children attending primary school in 2014 by region and income quintile

Unit: %

6.4

6.0

4.4 3.8 2.8

2.5 2.0

1.8

1.7 1.2

Viet Nam

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income Quintile

Richest

Fourth

Third

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Southeast

Central Highlands

0.7

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

0.7

The Central Highlands, the Mekong Delta and the mountainous Northern Midlands had higher overage schooling rates for children of lower secondary school age than the other regions (6.0 per cent, 4.4 per cent and 3.8 per cent respectively), and all were higher than the national average. The overage schooling rate for children of lower secondary school age from the poorest households was 9 times higher than the rate for children from the richest households, which indicates a correlation between poverty, school attendance and overage schooling. 2.4.2. Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age According to the CMF definition, out-of-school children of lower secondary school age are children who do not attend a formal school, either a primary or secondary school that grants certificates equivalent to those by issued by formal education institutions. According to this definition, children enroled at continuing education centres are not considered to be out-of-school. With the results presented in Section 2.4.1, the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age was calculated as below: The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age = 100 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the lower secondary ANAR â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the percentage of children of lower secondary school age in primary school. The following table (Table 2.13) and figures (Figures 2.11 and 2.12) display statistics on out-of-school children of lower secondary school age. There were 435,717 children of lower secondary school age in Viet Nam who were not enroled at a formal school, and this was the case more often for boys (8.6 per cent) than for girls (7.5 per cent). The percentage of OOSC increased dramatically with age. 15.5 per cent of the 14-yearolds were out of school. The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age decreased by one third, from 11.2 per cent in 2009 to 8.1 per cent in 2014. The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age decreased in all of the groups, especially among the Khmer and the Mong. In 2014, the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age increased with age (15.5 per cent of the 14-year olds compared to 3.6 per cent of the 11-year-olds). The percentage of OOSC in rural areas was double the percentage of OOSC in urban areas (9.2 per cent and 5.3 per cent respectively). As shown in Figure 2.12, the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age (14.0 per cent and 12.9 per cent respectively), 6-7 times higher than the Red River Delta, and 5 times higher than the rates for the OOSC of primary school age (see Figure 2.5). The Red River Delta had the lowest out-ofschool rate for children of lower secondary school age (2 per cent), but this rate was higher than the rate for children of primary school age.

With the results with the 5-year-old OOSC and the OOSC of primary school age, the percentage of ethnic minority OOSC of lower secondary school age in 2014 declined compared to 2009 (by one third for both the Khmer and the Mong). Among the ethnic minorities, the Tay had the lowest out-of-school rate (5.89 per cent). The OOSC rates for the Kinh, the Tay and the Thai were also lower than national average (6.2 per cent, 6.1 per cent and 7.9 per cent respectively). The Mong had the highest out-of-school rate (28.6 per cent). In other words, more than one fourth of the Mong children of lower secondary school age were out of school. The Khmer had the second highest out-of-school rate (24.5 per cent). The out-of-school rate for children of lower secondary school from migrant families was 13.7 per cent), while the rate for children from non-migrant families was 7.9 per cent. The OOSC rate for children of lower secondary school age from the poorest households was 10 times higher than the rate for children from the richest households, while the OOSC rate for children of primary school age from the richest households was only 5.5 times higher than the rate for children from the poorest households. The poorest quintile had the largest number of OOSC of lower secondary school age, which was higher than the number of OOSC of 5-year-old and of primary school age from the poorest quintile. Gender inequality was more clearly present among OOSC of lower secondary school age than among OOSC of primary school age. As seen in Table 2.13, in general the percentage of OOSC among boys was higher than the percentage among girls, which means boys were more disadvantaged than girls. However, in the mountainous Northern Midlands, the opposite tended to be true for the Mong and for migrant children, which means girls were more disadvantaged than boys. The out-of-school rate for Mong girls was higher than the rate for Mong boys, 1.5 times higher for children of primary school age (12.7 per cent and 8.3 per cent respectively), and 1.8 times higher for children of lower secondary school age (37.4 per cent and 20.2 per cent respectively). However, compared to the rates in 2009, the percentage of OOSC of primary school age (both for boys and for girls) decreased by 1.5 times. Similarly, the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age (both for boys and for girls) decreased by 1.6 times compared to 2009. The number of Mong girls of lower secondary school age who did not attend school was high (one third of the total group population), even though the percentage decreased considerably, from 55.3 per cent in 2009 to 37.4 per cent in 2014. In other words, Mong girls did not enjoy the same education equity as boys. This could explain why in the mountainous Northern Midlands, where there were many Mong, the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age was higher for girls than for boys (10.7 per cent and 8.1 per cent respectively). The percentage of migrant female OOSC of lower secondary school age was higher than the percentage of migrant male OOSC (15.2 per cent and 12.1 per cent respectively). REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/Rural

Age

7,652 17,391 352,655

5.03 8.82 17.07 5.75 9.69 6.83 7.48 8.25 6.87 27.12 20.23 20.44

8.47 12.99 18.99 8.35 12.87 9.66 8.08 13.76 10.92 39.74 28.40 24.38 91.97 32.84 11.20

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

Khmer

Mong

Other

Disability

Partial disability

No disability

65,035

17,648

18,984

5,307

9,340

5,092

256,291

312,304

65,394

162,193

108,989

65,278

41,237

3.59

5.53

377.698

8.57

2009

11.77

2014

46,310

12,983

10,507

2,775

4,497

3,723

157,326

192,936

45,185

112,319

67,026

34,812

23,964

238.121

2014

Number of people

Viet Nam

2009

Rate (%)

Male

10.06

28.91

90.63

22,51

55.34

37.46

8.64

17.55

5.08

7.74

11.70

6.88

16.20

11.52

8.27

5.20

10.52

2009

Rate (%)

16.90

37.36

22.04

4.86

7.64

4.72

5.54

8.57

4.82

13.87

7.61

5.02

3.53

7.50

2014

2009

292,093

13,385

5.673

55,730

31,886

16,896

3,862

10,987

3,031

188,759

261,611

49,540

127,453

89,185

58,987

35,526

36,907

23,168

8,937

1,854

4,135

2,290

120,304

161,425

36,171

88,234

54,326

32,839

22,197

197,596

2014

Number of people 311,152

Female

Table 2.13: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age in 2009 and 2014

10.65

31.01

91.40

23.48

41.36

38.63

9.83

15.57

6.62

8.74

12.31

7.64

17.65

12.29

8.37

5.37

11.17

2009

Rate (%)

18.70

28.65

24.52

5.89

7.95

6.12

6.20

9.15

5.29

15.50

8.23

5.03

3.56

8.05

2014

Total

644,748

30,776

13,325

120,765

49,534

35,880

9,169

20,327

8,123

445,050

573,915

114,934

289,646

198,175

124,265

76,763

688,849

2009

83,217

36,151

19,444

4,629

8,632

6,014

277,630

354,361

81,356

200,553

121,352

67,652

46,160

435,717

2014

Number of people

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income quintile

Migrant

53,563 32,637 17,466 9,254 30,454 12,133 41,995 34,451 35376 83,711

9.6 6.3 3.3 1.9 8.15 2.24 6.73 14.85 8.03 14.83

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

Mountainous Northern Midlands

Red River Delta

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Central Highlands

Southeast

Mekong River Delta

228754 125,200

360,521

9,368

2014

18.4

8.47

11.49

17,177

2009

Number of people

Poorest

12.11

23.82

2014

Yes

2009

Rate (%)

Male

10.13

27.83

2009

Rate (%)

13.08

7.21

10.90

4.71

1.65

10.70

1.4

2.8

5.0

7.6

17.4

7.26

15.20

2014

Female

293,043

18,109

2009

69,157

29150

24,484

27,985

8,718

38,103

6,794

13,596

24,573

40,311

112,321

185,519

12,077

2014

Number of people

10.84

25.72

2009

Rate (%)

13.98

7.64

12.91

5.75

1.95

9.40

1.7

3.0

5.6

8.7

17.9

7.88

13.68

2014

Total

653,564

35,286

2009

152,868

64,526

58,935

69,979

20,851

68,557

16,048

31,063

57,211

93,874

237,521

414,272

21,445

2014

Number of people

Figure 2.11: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age in 2009 and 2014 Unit: %

Age

Gender

25.7 Yes

10.7 Not disabled

Disabled

Partially disabled

Other

28.7 23.5 18.7 Mong

Muong

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

13.7 10.8 7.9

24.5 Khmer

15.6 8 9.8 5.9 Thai

8.7 6.2 6.6 6.1 Tay

Rural

Kinh

7.6 5.3 12.3 9.2 Urban

Female

11.8 8.6 10.5 7.5 Male

5.4 3.6 8.4 5 12.3 8.2 17.7 15.5 11

11.2 8.1 Viet Nam

41.4

91.4

2014

38.6

2009

Disability

Migrated

Figure 2.12: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age by region and income quintile in 2014

Unit: % 17.9

14 12.9

9.4 8.7

8.1

7.6 5.8

5.6

Viet Nam

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Region

Income Quintile

Richest

Fourth

Third

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Southeast

Central Highlands

1.7

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

2.0

Table 2.14 provides the cross tabulations of OOSC of lower secondary school age in urban and rural areas according to regional characteristics, gender, ethnicity, migration status and income quintile. Children of lower secondary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in all the regions. In the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands, the percentage of OOSC of lower school age in rural areas was higher than the percentage of OOSC in urban areas, 3.8 and 2.3 times higher respectively, and these rates were higher than those in the remaining regions. For all the ethnic minority groups, except the Khmer, the lower secondary school children in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. The Khmer and the Mong had the highest rates of OOSC in both urban and rural areas compared to the other ethnic minority groups. The rates for the Khmer were 27.2 per cent and 23.9 per cent respectively, and the rates for the Mong were 23.6 per cent and 28.8 per cent respectively. There was not much difference in terms of gender or migration status among the OOSC in rural and urban areas. Table 2.14 also provides the cross tabulations of OOSC of lower secondary school age from various quintile groups according to urban and rural areas, region, sex, ethnicity and migration

status. Lower secondary school age children from the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile in all regions, with a greater disparity than the children of primary school age and the 5-year-olds. The most disadvantaged children were in the mountainous Northern Midlands (17.6 times more disadvantaged), followed by the Central Highlands (16.4 times more disadvantaged). Girls of lower secondary school age from the poorest quintile were 12.1 times more likely to be disadvantaged than girls from the richest quintile, and this disparity was higher compared to that for boys (9.9 times). The poorest of the Mong had the highest percentage of lower secondary school age OOSC (29 per cent), whereas all the children of lower secondary school age from the richest Mong families were in school. The poorest of the Khmer had the same percentage of lower secondary school age OOSC (29 per cent), but the richest of the Khmer also had children of lower secondary school age who did not attend school (13.1 per cent). Girls and migrants of lower secondary school age from the poorest quintile were slightly more marginalised than their peers from the richest quintile (12.1 times among girls and 9.9 times among boys; 13 times among migrants and 11 times among non-migrants respectively).

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

4.8

2.5

3.8

6.1

27.2

Kinh

Tay

Thai

Muong

Khmer

4.8

Female

11.3

Mekong River Delta

5.7

5.5

Southeast

Male

6.5

4,034

271

273

284

69,330

36,171

45,185

27,227

26,508

7,379

23.9

5.9

8.2

6.6

6.9

8.6

9.7

14.7

10.4

15.0

6.2

15,411

4,358

8,359

5,730

208,300

161,425

192,936

125,641

38,019

51,556

56,551

29.0

8.1

8.4

6.7

15.8

17.4

18.4

22.3

20.0

27.9

11.4

3.9

Central Highlands

13,428

16,818

4.5

2.2

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

4,033

1.3

65,776

Red River Delta

10.5

23.0

2,780

2.8

17.9

Mountainous Northern Midlands

354,361

Number of people

19.3

9.1

Rural

81,356

Number of people

Rural

14.9

5.3

Urban

Viet Nam

OOSC of lower secondary school age

Urban/rural

14,313

3,516

8,274

4,212

102,074

112,321

125,200

57,753

33,542

30,691

30,050

8,180

44,438

177,540

47,443

237,521

Number of people

Poorest

19.9

3.0

4.7

7.7

8.2

7.6

9.6

18.9

8.3

17.7

6.6

2.3

8.5

10.3

5.0

8.7

3,593

653

287

1,439

77,337

40,311

53,563

45,476

12,954

17,277

16,507

5,052

12,779

80,406

15,314

93,874

Number of people

2nd quintile

15.3

3.0

3.9

4.4

5.5

5.0

6.3

12.1

4.6

7.6

4.7

1.5

4.5

6.7

3.0

5.6

1,192

191

259

53,522

24,573

32,637

25,377

8,196

6,536

11,695

3,439

6,248

48,383

9,150

57,211

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintiles

Table 2.14: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age in 2014

6.9

6.3

0.0

1.2

3.0

2.8

3.3

8.9

3.7

1.3

2.9

4.5

2.0

3.0

220

207

29,780

13,596

17,466

16,906

6,365

3,053

8,545

2,882

3,452

32,447

6,323

31,063

Number of people

4th quintile

13.1

1.9

0.0

0.6

1.6

1.4

1.9

3.8

2.0

1.7

1.4

0.7

1.3

2.1

1.0

1.7

126

14,916

6,794

9,254

7,357

3,470

1,379

3,183

1,298

1,640

15,585

3,126

16,048

Number of people

Richest

0.9

1.0

2.2

2.6

1.4

1.8

1.7

1.3

1.9

2.3

1.4

1.7

3.8

1.7

2.2

4.2

10.6

9.9

12.1

9.9

5.8

9.9

16.4

8.0

5.8

17.6

9.0

14.4

10.8

Poorest compared to richest Number of times

Rural compared to urban

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

14.9

5.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

2nd quintile

3rd quintile

4th quintile

Richest

5.0

Non-migrant

Poorest

9.8

11.8

Other

Migrant

23.6

Mong

OOSC of lower secondary school age

3,126

6,323

9,150

15,314

47,443

72,066

9,290

6,420

744

Number of people

Urban

2.1

4.5

6.7

10.3

19.3

9.0

19.7

28.8

Urban/rural

15,585

32,447

48,383

80,406

177,540

342,206

12,155

76,797

35,407

Number of people

Rural

17.8

29.2

23.1

29.0

232,822

4,699

69,040

36,091

Number of people

Poorest

8.2

30.7

13.2

5.8

87,374

6,500

10,506

Number of people

2nd quintile

5.1

21.5

8.2

0.0

50,560

6,651

1,976

Number of people

3rd quintile

Income quintiles

2.9

7.2

4.2

0.0

28,736

2,327

786

Number of people

4th quintile

1.6

2.2

3.9

0.0

14,781

1,267

909

Number of people

Richest

2.1

2.2

2.0

1.3

1.8

2.0

1.7

1.2

11.0

13.0

6.0

Poorest compared to richest

Number of times

Rural compared to urban

Table 2.15 shows a summary of the number of out-of-school children in Viet Nam. In 2014 there were 180,521 OOSC of primary school age, a decrease of 31.3 per cent compared to 2009, and 435,717 OOSC of lower secondary school age, a decrease of 36.7

per cent compared to 2009. In total there were 616,238 children between the ages of 6 and 14 who were out of school, a decrease of 35.2 per cent compared to 2009.

Table 2.15: Number of out-of-school children by age group and gender in 2009 and 2014 Out-of-school children (number of people) Male

Female

% of reduction in 2014 compared to 2009 Total

Male

Female

Total

2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

92,371

52,109

83,475

47,065

175,846

99,174

43.6

Dimension 2: Primary school age

136,309

94,648

126,339

85,873

262,648

18,0521

30.6

32.0

31.3

Dimension 3: Lower secondary school age

377,698

238,121

311,152

197,596

688,849

435,717

37.0

36.5

36.8

Total (all 3 dimensions)

606,378

384,878

520,966

330,534

1,127,343

715,412

36.5

36.6

36.5

Total (Dimensions 2+3)

514,007

332,769

437,491

283,469

951,497

616,238

35.3

35.2

Dimension 1: Pre-primary school (age 5)

According to the CMF definition of out-of-school children, they can be divided into three groups based on previous educational experience: attended but dropped out, never attended but will attend in the future (overage), and will never attend school. The key point is that not all OOSC are permanently excluded from the educational system. In some countries, it has been observed that

a high number OOSC never go to school, but in others the majority of OOSC enter school at some time in the future. It is necessary to adopt different policies for dropouts and for children who will never go to school. Some of the dropouts may return to school and some may not. Therefore, appropriate policy responses are needed.

Table 2.16: Typology of out-of-school children Out-of-school children (%) Dropped out14

May go to school in the future

Dimension 2: Primary school age

47.8

38.3

14.0

Dimension 3: Lower secondary school age

86.3

1.9

11.8

As can be seen in Table 2.16, one-third of the OOSC of primary school age may attend school in the future (perhaps as an overage student), while almost half of the children dropped out and one seventh of the children will never go to school. 86.3 per cent of the OOSC of lower secondary school age dropped out and 11.8 per cent had never been to school and will never attend school in the future. 14 See definition in section 2.6.1.

Will never attend school

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Therefore, it is important to adopt incentives to promote attendance and to ensure that children start their primary education at the right age. In addition, it is necessary to have appropriate measures in place to support children who have dropped out, especially those of lower secondary school age, e.g. children who dropped out to get married or to migrate seasonally for casual work, and encourage them to go back to school so that they are not permanently excluded from education.

2.5. Dimensions 4 and 5: Children at risk of dropping out Dimensions 4 and 5 cover the children in school who were at risk of dropping out, in other words, the potential OOSC of tomorrow. This report focuses on the children who were at the greatest risk of dropping out: 5-17-year-old children who were attending a primary or lower secondary school. One of the methods to learn about the children at risk of dropping out is to look at the at-risk children of yesterday, that is, children who recently dropped out of school. Understanding the profiles of children who dropped out provides insight into the profiles of the children currently at risk. A dropout can be defined as a child who attended school one year but not did attend school the following year even though the child was supposed to. This can be referred to as a single-year dropout. However, school attendance data for two consecutive years is needed to determine if a child is a single-year dropout. The 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey contain no such data, only the data for children who left school, the educational attainement of the OOSC, and the overage rate. Accordingly, this data will be used to analyse children at risk of dropping out and potential OOSC. 2.5.1. 5-17-year-old dropouts

Table 2.17 provides a summary of the attendance rates for 5-17-year-old children. They were either attending school, had attended school in the past and dropped out, or had never gone to school.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

In this report dropouts can be interpreted as children who had attended school but were not attending school at the time of the 2009 Population and Housing Census or the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The accumulative dropout rate was calculated by dividing the number of children who were out of school but had attended school in the past by the total population of children.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Table 2.17: Attendance status by age and other characteristics of 5-17-year-old children in 2009 and 2014

Unit: % Never attended 2009 Viet Nam

Urban/rural

Ethnicity

Disability

Migrant

2014

2009

2014

Attending 2009

2014

2.57

1.47

12.59

9.70

84.83

88.83

11.99

6.08

0.20

0.62

87.81

93.30

3.12

1.13

0.38

0.71

96.50

98.16

2.10

0.81

0.52

0.94

97.37

98.25

1.76

0.78

0.74

1.14

97.49

98.09

1.57

0.71

1.64

1.37

96.80

97.93

1.52

0.76

2.58

1.85

95.90

97.39

1.48

0.84

3.87

2.70

94.65

96.46

1.61

0.94

6.74

4.06

91.66

95.00

1.69

1.10

10.55

7.10

87.75

91.80

1.81

1.34

15.76

14.06

82.43

84.60

1.72

1.35

26.89

24.69

71.39

73.96

1.85

1.42

35.44

30.44

62.71

68.14

1.80

1.60

39.17

37.39

59.02

61.00

Male

2.48

1.45

13.48

10.63

84.04

87.91

Female

2.68

1.49

11.63

8.70

85.69

89.82

Urban

1.98

1.05

9.00

6.70

89.02

92.25

Rural

2.78

1.65

13.80

10.96

83.42

87.40

Kinh

1.67

0.96

11.28

8.34

87.06

90.70

Tay

0.75

0.66

12.34

9.01

86.91

90.33

Thai

3.09

1.34

18.69

12.12

78.22

86.54

Muong

0.91

0.27

17.98

11.44

81.11

88.30

Khmer

9.24

4.01

30.39

23.48

60.38

72.51

Mong

23.02

11.96

16.13

15.98

60.86

72.06

Other

6.24

3.60

19.30

18.46

74.46

77.94

Age

Gender

Attended but dropped out

Disabled

82.00

8.37

9.63

Partially disabled

16.43

15.71

67.85

No disability

2.19

12.55

85.25

Yes

3.51

2.08

32.20

18.07

64.29

79.86

2.55

1.45

11.98

9.37

85.47

89.18

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Never attended 2009

Income quintile

2014

2009

2014

Attending 2009

2014

Poorest

3.68

17.27

79.05

2nd quintile

1.11

12.11

86.78

3rd quintile

0.83

8.95

90.22

4th quintile

0.61

5.36

94.03

Richest

0.53

2.56

96.91

2.79

9.82

87.39

Red River Delta

0.48

3.95

95.57

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

0.94

8.86

90.20

Central Highlands

2.28

13.84

83.88

Southeast

1.18

9.93

88.89

Mekong Delta

2.11

14.83

83.06

Mountainous Midlands

Region

Attended but dropped out

Northern

Although the percentage of 5-17-year-old children attending school in 2014 was higher than the percentage in 2009 (88.8 per cent and 84.8 per cent respectively), and the attendance rate for individual age groups also increased, the attendance rates for the 14-17-year-olds (84.6 per cent, 74.0 per cent, 68.14 per cent and 61.00 per cent respectively) were lower than the average rate for the 5-17-year-old children (88.83 per cent). The attendance rate in 2009 showed the same pattern, which means that although the percentage of 5-17-year-old children attending school has improved since 2009, it is more difficult to encourage 14-17-year-old children to attend school than children of younger ages. According to the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, out of the total number of 5-17-year-old children, 88.8 per cent were attending school. The groups with an especially low attendance rate include the Khmer (72.5 per cent), the Mong (72.1 per cent), several other ethnic minority groups (77.9 per cent) and migrants (79.9 per cent). All were below the national average.

Although both the Khmer and the Mong had a similarly low attendance rate, the profiles of the OOSC in those two ethnic groups differ. Most of the Khmer OOSC had once attended school but then dropped out, whereas almost half of the Mong OOSC had never attended school. Of all the ethnic minority groups, the Mong had the highest rate of 5-17-year-old children who had never attended school (12.0 per cent). These results call for focused and suitable intervention measures to reduce the rate of OOSC among ethnic minorities. Table 2.18 and Figures 2.13 and 2.14 show that: (1) the dropout rate decreased from 12.6 per cent to 9.7 per cent over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, and there was a gradual decline in the percentage of dropouts who were 9 years old and older; (2) there was an upward trend in the dropout rate as age increased, especially among children 13 years old or older; and (3) the dropout rates for boys were clearly higher than those for girls from 13 years or older; and (4) the dropout rates for boys and girls from the poorest quintile were higher than those for boys and girls from the richest quintile (across all age group and especially higher among those 13 years old or older).

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.8

1.7

2.7

4.1

7.0

11.4

17.3

28.9

38.2

42.0

2009

Age

2014

41.1

34.3

27.1

15.6

7.8

4.1

2.7

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.0

0.8

0.6

95,358

53,679

30,633

17,686

11,282

5,791

3,681

2,442

1,550

383,708

347,116

268,366

59,252

28,043

18,289

12,813

10,253

9,274

7,448

6,249

4,513

310,427

252,928

179,279

102,456

2014

Number of people

147,432

2009

Male

Table 2.18: School dropouts in 2009 and 2014

2009

36.2

32.5

24.8

14.1

9.7

6.5

3.6

2.5

1.6

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.2

% 2014

33.5

26.3

22.1

12.5

6.4

4.1

2.7

2.0

1.4

1.0

0.9

0.6

0.7

74,870

46,305

24,662

15,188

9,731

4,917

3,258

2,438

1,372

308,957

273,257

215,492

79,458

45,444

26,627

16,706

13,978

9,324

6,732

5,814

4,376

4,687

237,210

181,023

136,979

2014

Number of people

111,224

2009

Female

2009

39.2

35.4

26.9

15.8

10.6

6.7

3.9

2.6

1.6

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.2

% 2014

37.39

30.44

24.69

14.06

7.10

4.06

2.70

1.85

1.36

1.14

0.94

0.71

0.62

99,984

55,295

32,874

21,012

10,708

6,939

4,880

2,922

692,665

620,373

483,859

258,656

54,670

34,994

26,791

19,577

16,006

13,262

10,625

9,200

547,637

433,951

316,258

181,914

104,696

2014

Number of people

170,229

2009

Total

Figure 2.13: Percentage of dropouts by age and gender in 2009 and 2014

Female 2014

1.7 1.4 1.6 1.4

2.7 1.7 2.5 2

6.4

7.8

4.1

0.8 1.3 0.7 1

7 0.5 1 0.5 0.9 7

4.1

0.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 6

4.1 2.7 3.6 2.7

0.2 0.6 0.2 0.7 5

6.5

9.7

11.4

17.3 15.6 14.1 12.5

22.1

24.8

26.3

33.5

Female 2009

34.3 32.5

Male 2014

28.9 27.1

Male 2009

36.2

38.2

42 41.1

Unit: %

Figure 2.14: Percentage of dropouts by age, gender and income quintile in 2014 Unit: % 80 70 60 Poorest male

Poorest Female Richest male

Richest female

30 20 10 0 5 Pre-School

8 Primary

Lower Secondary

Upper Secondary

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Tables 2.19 and 2.20 present the percentage of dropouts in 2009 and 2014 by age group (primary school and lower secondary school) and other characteristics.

Table 2.19: Primary school age dropouts in 2009 and 2014 Dropped out (%) 2009 Viet Nam

1.16

1.20

0.38

0.71

0.52

0.94

0.74

1.14

1.64

1.36

2.58

1.85

Male

1.19

1.24

Female

1.12

1.16

Urban

0.84

0.97

Rural

1.26

1.30

Kinh

0.87

1.00

Tay

0.65

1.00

Thai

1.53

1.07

Muong

1.03

0.81

Khmer

4.60

5.30

Mong

3.57

1.90

Other

2.59

2.42

Disabled

2.57

Partially disabled

3.45

Not disabled

1.12

Yes

2.98

2.10

1.11

1.16

Age

Gender Urban/rural

Ethnicity

Disability

Migrant

Poorest

2.5

2 quintile

1.2

3rd quintile

0.8

4 quintile

0.6

Richest

0.5

Income quintile

Region

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

2014

Mountainous Northern Midlands

0.95

Red River Delta

0.25

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

0.84

Central Highlands

1.83

Southeast

1.20

Mekong Delta

2.58

At the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, the dropout rate among children of primary school age was 1.2 per cent, a small increase compared to the rate in 2009 (1.16 per cent). The rate for boys was slightly higher than the rate for girls (1.24 per cent and 1.16 per cent respectively), and the rate in rural areas was higher than the rate in urban areas (1.3 per cent and 1.0 per cent respectively). The dropout rates for the Khmer, the Mong and the ethnic groups in the Other category were higher than those for the Muong, the Thai, the Tay and the Kinh, and they were higher than the national average. The dropout rate for migrants was higher than

that for non-migrants (2.1 per cent and 1.6 per cent respectively), and the dropout rate for the poorest households was 5 times higher than that for the richest (2.5 per cent and 0.5 per cent respectively). The Mekong Delta had the highest dropout rate for children of primary school age, double the national average. The results indicate that despite considerable efforts to popularise primary education, it is necessary to adopt further intervention measures in low-performance areas to bridge the gaps and ensure quality and equal access to education in all regions, for every ethnic group, and for people in every income quintile.

Table 2.20: Lower secondary school age dropouts in 2009 and 2014 Dropped out (%) 2009

Age

Gender Urban/rural

Ethnicity

Viet Nam

9.47

6.95

3.87

2.70

6.74

4.06

10.55

7.10

15.76

14.06

Male

10.19

7.49

Female

8.69

6.39

Urban

6.71

4.79

Rural

10.36

7.81

Kinh

7.85

5.64

Tay

6.00

5.41

Thai

13.02

6.71

Muong

8.91

5.45

Khmer

32.37

22.38

Mong

20.76

17.02

Other

18.77

15.28

Disabled Disability

Partially disabled Not disabled

Migrant

2014

8.72 14.30 9.40

Yes

23.05

12.66

9.16

6.78

Poorest

14.9

2 quintile

7.9

3 quintile

5.2

4 quintile

2.7

Income quintile

Richest

Region

1.4

Mountainous Northern Midlands

6.74

Red River Delta

1.55

North Central and Central Coastal Areas

4.92

Central Highlands

10.81

Southeast Mekong Delta

7.0 13.01 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Among the children of lower secondary school age, the dropout rate improved over the five-year period from 2009 to 2014, from 9.5 per cent in 2009 to 7.0 per cent in 2014. However, the dropout rate was still high, 6 times higher than the rate for children of primary school age. There were also substantial differences among the different groups. The dropout rates for girls and boys were not similar (as they were among children of primary school age). The rates were higher for boys than girls (7.5 per cent and 6.4 per cent respectively). The dropout rate was higher in rural areas (7.8 per cent) than in urban areas (4.8 per cent), the dropout rates for the Khmer (22.4 per cent) and the Mong (17.0 per cent) were higher than those for ethnic groups in the Other category (15.3 per cent), and the dropout rate for migrants (12.7 per cent)

was nearly twice higher than that for non-migrants (6.8 per cent). The differences between the groups were more noticeable than the differences between the groups of children of primary school age, and this raises concern about the quality of education at the lower secondary level. It is noteworthy that the dropout rate of Khmer children was 22.4 per cent. In other words, about one-fifth of the Khmer children of lower secondary school age had dropped out. The dropout rate of Mong children was rather high (17.0 per cent). Figure 2.15 shows that the dropout rate for 14-year-old Khmer boys was remarkably higher than the dropout rate for Khmer girls, but the dropout rate for Mong girls in this age group was higher than the dropout rate for Mong boys.

Figure 2.15: Lower secondary school age Khmer and Mong dropouts by gender and ethnicity Unit: % 50 Khmer Males Khmer Females

Mong Males Mong Females

Whole Country (Male) Whole Country (Female)

Age

The dropout rate for lower secondary school age children from the poorest households was 10 times higher than the dropout rate for children from the richest households (14.9 per cent and 1.4 per cent respectively). The Mekong Delta had the highest dropout rate for children of lower secondary school age (13 per cent), nearly double the national average (7.0 per cent). The Central Highlands had very high dropout rate for children of lower secondary school age (10.8 per cent). These results indicate that it is necessary to adopt policy incentives and management and technical adjustments in low-performance areas to bridge the gaps and ensure quality and equal access to education in all

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

regions, for every ethnic group, and for people in every income quintile. This is vital to sustaining the achievements made since popularising lower secondary education. Figures 2.16 and 2.17 illustrate the dropout statistics for 2014. The lower secondary school dropout rate was much higher than the primary school dropout rate. The Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest dropout rates. The dropout rate for the poorest households was 10 times higher than the dropout rate for the richest households. Children tended to drop out of school most often in grade 5 (the final grade in primary school) and in grade 9 (the final grade in lower secondary school).

Figure 2.16: Primary and lower secondary school dropout rates in 2014

Unit: % Primary

Lower secondary 14.9

13.01 10.81

7.9

7.0

6.74

5.2

4.92

2.7

2.5 0.6

0.5

Fourth

Second

Poorest

Mekong River Delta

Region

1.4

0.8

Richest

1.2

Third

1.2

0.84 North Central and Central Coastal Areas

Red River Delta

Mountainous Northem Midlands

0.25

Southeast

0.95

2.58

1.83

Central Highlands

1.55

Income Quintile

Figure 2.17: Dropout rate by grade and type of school in 2014 Unit: %

0.2

0.1

Grade 12

0.2 0.4 Grade 11

Grade 10

Grade 9

0.7 0.6

1.3 1.0 Grade 8

1.0

1.4

Grade 7

1.6

1.1

Grade 6

1.0

1.5 2009

Grade 5

0.6

0.8

Grade 4

0.4

0.6

Grade 3

0.4

0.3

Grade 2

5-17 Primary Lower years old secondary

Grade 1

0.2 0.2

1.2

2.7

3.6

7.0

9.5

9.7

12.6

2014

2.5.2. Educational attainment of the 5-17-year-old dropouts The educational attainment of the dropouts is the highest grade these children completed before dropping out.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

1.69

1.81

1.72

1.85

1.80

2.48

2.68

1.98

2.78

Male

Female

Urban

Rural

1.52

1.57

1.61

1.76

1.48

2.10

3.12

11.99

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

2.57

Viet Nam

Never attended

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.01

001

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.15

0.02

No educational attainment

0.25

0.16

0.20

0.25

0.26

0.24

0.26

0.24

0.27

0.23

0.16

0.14

0.31

0.04

0.23

0.47

0.29

0.38

0.46

0.64

0.67

0.57

0.53

0.50

0.45

0.39

0.34

0.20

0.33

0.04

0.42

0.63

0.38

0.53

0.60

0.93

0.97

0.87

0.85

0.79

0.73

0.59

0.45

0.36

0.35

0.02

0.57

0.92

0.52

0.78

0.85

1.49

1.53

1.32

1.42

1.22

1.04

0.67

0.54

0.60

0.02

0.82

Primary

1.66

1.03

1.47

1.54

3.14

3.11

2.88

2.72

2.30

1.68

1.01

0.78

0.08

1.50

3.93

2.38

3.35

3.71

6.45

6.54

5.88

5.82

5.11

4.21

2.96

2.44

1.61

0.73

0.51

0.35

0.04

3.54

Total

1.70

1.17

1.36

1.76

3.21

3.46

3.28

3.15

2.62

1.59

0.82

0.10

0.01

1.57

1.53

1.10

1.20

1.63

3.51

3.74

3.46

2.91

1.71

0.82

0.06

0.01

1.42

1.40

1.07

1.13

1.48

3.95

3.96

3.53

2.27

0.96

0.07

0.01

1.31

LSS

4.04

2.14

3.50

3.61

14.67

13.66

9.41

1.54

0.13

0.03

3.56

8.67

5.48

7.20

8.49

25.34

24.81

19.68

9.86

5.43

2.51

0.89

0.12

0.01

7.87

Total

0.70

0.64

0.59

0.77

3.68

2.76

1.06

0.05

0.68

% of children who attended but then dropped out by highest grade completed

Table 2.21: Educational attainment of 5-17-year-old out-of-school children in 2009

0.24

0.22

0.25

1.74

0.83

0.05

0.24

USS

0.15

0.13

0.16

0.13

1.39

0.17

0.04

0.14

1.08

1.01

0.96

1.16

6.81

3.76

1.15

0.05

1.06

Total

0.10

0.11

0.10

0.56

0.31

0.17

0.02

0.01

0.10

Other types of school/college/ university

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

6.08

1.13

0.81

0.78

0.71

0.76

0.84

0.94

1.10

1.34

1.35

1.42

1.60

1.45

1.49

1.05

1.65

Male

Female

Urban

Rural

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

1.47

Viet Nam

Never attended

0.12

0.11

0.12

0.06

0.02

0.05

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.03

0.04

0.39

0.62

0.12

No educational attainment

0.20

0.11

0.15

0.20

0.17

0.20

0.18

0.14

0.16

0.11

0.09

0.10

0.15

0.53

0.33

0.00

0.17

0.33

0.18

0.24

0.32

0.51

0.41

0.39

0.34

0.26

0.18

0.29

0.19

0.21

0.56

0.37

0.00

0.28

0.46

0.27

0.36

0.46

0.82

0.74

0.66

0.59

0.53

0.31

0.32

0.30

0.66

0.40

0.00

0.41

Primary

0.61

0.43

0.48

0.63

1.27

1.08

1.04

0.95

0.80

0.54

0.42

0.93

0.34

0.00

0.56

1.21

0.64

0.94

1.15

2.84

2.60

2.43

2.20

1.49

0.94

1.07

0.29

0.00

1.05

2.82

1.63

2.17

2.75

5.61

5.02

4.70

4.21

3.24

2.08

2.21

1.80

1.31

1.11

0.90

0.33

0.00

2.47

Total

1.22

0.80

0.89

1.28

3.26

2.88

2.63

2.28

1.51

1.44

0.46

0.00

1.09

1.17

0.70

0.84

1.20

3.02

3.19

2.81

2.27

1.73

0.52

0.00

1.03

1.17

0.77

0.94

1.16

3.58

3.31

3.17

3.27

0.61

0.00

1.05

LSS

3.20

1.59

2.55

2.88

12.67

11.28

9.73

1.97

0.00

2.72

6.75

3.85

5.22

6.52

22.53

20.65

18.34

9.79

3.84

1.96

0.46

0.00

5.89

Total

0.68

0.55

0.61

0.67

3.47

3.25

1.59

0.00

0.64

% of children who attended but then dropped out by highest grade completed

Table 2.22: Educational attainment of 5-17-year-old out-of-school children in 2014

0.37

0.32

0.35

0.36

3.06

1.39

0.00

0.35

USS

0.20

0.19

0.22

0.19

2.51

0.00

0.20

1.26

1.06

1.18

1.22

9.04

4.63

1.59

0.00

1.20

Total

0.01

0.04

0.02

0.15

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.00

0.02

Other types of school/ college/ university

Unit: %

The above table shows that in 2014 about 1.5 per cent of the 5-17-year-old children never attended school. Notably, among those who did attend school and also achieved some educational attainment, two peaks exist for dropouts: one in the final grade of primary school (1.0 per cent) and one in the final grade of lower secondary school (2.7 per cent). However, there is no peak

in the final grade of upper secondary school, which is most likely due to the fact that children who were 17 years old or older are not included in this study. Figure 2.18 (below) indicates that the percentage of children who completed a level of education and then dropped out was higher than the percentage of children who dropped out in the middle of a school level.

Figure 2.18: 5-17-year-old out-of-school children by grade completed in 2009 and 2014 Unit: %

2009

2.5.3. Overage Repetition and overage are important indicators of children at risk of dropping out of school. The 2009 Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey have no information about grade repetition, but they do have information about the number of overage children. The tables below present the percentage of overage children by grade.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

0.2

0.1

Grade 12

0.2 0.4 Grade 11

Grade 10

Grade 9

0.7 0.6

1.3 1.0 Grade 8

1.4

1.0

Grade 7

1.6

1.1

Grade 6

1.5

Grade 5

0.8

0.6

Grade 4

0.4

0.6 Grade 3

0.4

0.3

Grade 2

0.2

Grade 1

Never Dropout attended total school

1.0

1.5

2.7

2.6

3.6

9.7

12.6

2014

According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, a child is considered to be overage if he/she is two years older than the officially-correct age for the grade. The cells highlighted in yellow in Tables 2.23 and 2.24 represent children who were the officiallycorrect age for the grade. All the cells above those highlighted in yellow represent underage students, and all the cells below those highlighted in yellow represent overage students.

Table 2.23: Attendance rates at primary and lower secondary schools by age in 2009

Unit: % Primary grades

Lower secondary grades

Age 1

6.27

0.25

0.00

79.20

4.39

0.33

0.00

10.23

77.04

2.91

0.23

0.00

2.99

13.53

80.55

2.06

0.19

0.00

0.69

2.74

10.79

78.73

2.73

0.16

0.00

0.29

1.06

3.07

12.44

77.41

2.30

0.19

0.00

0.14

0.49

1.25

3.74

12.87

76.66

2.19

0.21

0.00

0.07

0.22

0.58

1.50

3.98

14.13

76.26

2.04

0.28

0.04

0.10

0.25

0.66

1.55

4.25

15.25

77.99

2.32

0.02

0.05

0.11

0.32

0.64

1.47

4.07

14.50

76.91

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.09

0.21

0.49

1.18

3.51

14.76

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.11

0.22

0.40

1.02

3.44

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.17

0.32

1.05

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.06

0.10

0.17

0.52

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.18

0.00

0.01

0.04

0.02

0.03

0.09

20+

0.02

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.16

0.13

0.14

0.15

0.44

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Table 2.24: Attendance rates at primary and lower secondary schools by age in 2014 Unit: % Primary grades

Lower secondary grades

Age 1

5.77

0.00

90.76

16.32

0.00

2.07

79.58

11.64

0.00

0.49

2.96

81.98

10.94

0.00

0.27

0.57

4.59

82.06

9.60

0.00

0.23

0.24

1.20

5.37

82.91

5.28

0.00

0.09

0.08

0.33

1.02

5.51

83.09

10.15

0.00

0.07

0.05

0.10

0.44

1.26

7.86

79.60

8.66

0.00

0.08

0.03

0.09

0.13

0.61

2.58

8.48

84.38

9.77

0.06

0.00

0.04

0.03

0.06

0.84

1.20

5.23

81.53

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.24

0.29

1.26

6.78

0.09

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.14

0.32

1.36

0.01

0.13

0.01

0.00

0.03

0.10

0.11

0.36

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.11

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.02

20+

0.00

0.01

0.03

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

To present the total number of under- and overage students, Tables 2.25 and 2.26 sum up the corresponding percentage statistics from Tables 2.23 and 2.24. Figure 2.19 gives a graphical illustration of Tables 2.24 and 2.25.

Table 2.25: Overage and underage by grade in 2009

Unit: % Primary schools

Underage, Official age for grade, Official age for grade +1 Overage

Lower secondary schools

95.69

95.21

94.58

93.46

93.21

93.25

93.89

94.74

94.27

4.31

4.79

5.42

6.54

6.80

6.75

6.11

5.26

5.73

Table 2.26: Overage and underage by grade in 2014

Unit: % Primary schools

Underage, Official age for grade, Official age for grade +1 Overage

Lower secondary schools

98.60

98.86

98.21

98.37

98.02

96.23

98.23

98.27

98.08

1.40

1.14

1.78

1.64

1.99

3.77

1.76

1.73

1.92

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Figure 2.19: Overage at primary and lower-secondary schools by grade in 2009 and 2014

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 Grade 1

2014 2009

Primary

Grade 2

2014 2009

Grade 3

2014 2009

Grade 4

2014 2009

Grade 5

Grade 6

2014

2009

Lower secondary

2014

Grade 7

2009 2014

Grade 8

2009 2014

Grade 9

2009 2014 Underage

Official age for grade

Overage attendance improved significantly between 2009 and 2014. In 2014, the overage attendance rate at primary schools was between 1.1 and 2.0 per cent, much lower than in 2009, when it was between 4.3 and 6.8 per cent. Similarly, the overage rate at lower secondary schools was between 1.7 and 3.8 per cent

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Official age for grade + 1

Overage

in 2014 and between 5.3 and 6.7 per cent in 2009. These overage students, especially those in the final grades, were the ones at risk of dropping out and becoming OOSC. Appropriate and timely interventions should be taken to reduce this risk.

2.6. Analysis of the 8 selected provinces To provide an in-depth understanding of OOSC, this section presents an analysis of the selected indicators for the 8 provinces involved in the Provincial Child Friendly Program that was implemented in collaboration with UNICEF. Disaggregated analysis into small population groups generated small cell values, and this had the potential to cause distortion in the analytical results. This report took the following actions for each of the disaggregated groups:

2.6.1. Some features of the population Annex 3 in the Annex Section provides a population distribution of the 8 selected provinces. To simplify the presentation of information, Table 2.27 is used to present the percentages. In Annex 3, a cell with a population below 50 can be identified.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

1) If the number of observations (its population) was equal to or less than 50, the group was considered too small to be included in the statistical analysis. All the cells related to this group were left blank. If its population was greater than 50, the group was statistically analysed as usual. However, one must be cautious when making generalised conclusions based on groups with values only slightly higher than 50 observations.

2) In the analysis of 5-year-old children and also the attendance status of school-age children (5-17-yearolds), the population number is the total number of people who gave valid responses to the related questions. Since a small number of people did not give answers or gave invalid answers, this number is equal to or slightly smaller than the actual population number. In these cases, it is the total number of people who gave valid answers that was assessed.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

2.20

8.58

0.21

1.40

98.40

2.53

97.47

Mong

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

2.05

Thai

1.51

1.90

Tay

Khmer

82.32

Kinh

1.45

74.75

Rural

Muong

25.25

100.00

Urban

Total

2009

96.35

3.65

7.95

2.45

1.45

1.48

2.10

1.88

82.69

69.88

30.12

100.00

2014

Viet Nam

98.63

1.37

97.99

1.85

0.16

28.84

30.93

0.00

0.14

0.35

13.78

25.96

84.22

15.78

0.91

2009

97.40

2.60

26.71

34.54

0.00

0.31

0.07

16.03

22.33

84.55

15.45

0.92

2014

Lao Cai

98.15

1.85

98.26

1.62

0.13

10.69

44.68

0.00

0.07

32.47

0.23

11.86

89.74

10.26

0.80

2009

97.62

2.38

7.49

51.97

0.00

0.21

27.60

0.15

12.59

90.24

9.76

0.85

2014

Dien Bien

98.80

1.20

98.34

1.43

0.22

25.10

0.00

0.01

0.02

74.83

67.64

32.36

0.84

2009

97.21

2.79

28.46

0.29

0.00

71.25

66.42

33.58

0.75

2014

Ninh Thuan

Table 2.27: Distribution of population by province in 2009 and 2014

96.94

3.06

98.04

1.71

0.25

58.27

0.00

0.01

1.06

0.59

0.68

39.40

70.21

29.79

0.70

2009

98.39

1.61

60.48

0.55

0.00

1.14

0.57

0.74

36.51

71.12

28.88

0.75

2014

Kon Tum

97.55

2.45

98.61

1.13

0.26

50.06

0.22

0.03

0.33

0.11

0.75

48.51

74.92

25.08

2.10

2009

96.65

3.35

47.14

1.07

0.00

0.24

0.06

0.55

50.94

74.95

25.05

2.10

2014

Gia Lai

88.40

11.60

97.98

1.87

0.15

6.66

0.00

0.18

0.03

0.01

0.04

93.08

18.96

81.04

6.25

2009

86.99

13.01

4.82

0.00

0.14

0.04

0.00

94.99

20.36

79.64

7.59

2014

HCMC

98.83

1.17

98.93

0.93

0.14

0.12

0.00

0.03

0.00

99.85

84.25

15.75

1.94

2009

97.76

2.24

0.00

0.03

99.97

82.48

17.52

1.89

2014

Dong Thap

98.71

1.29

99.23

0.59

0.18

1.00

0.00

4.67

0.01

0.00

94.30

73.43

26.57

2.47

2009

96.74

3.26

1.98

0.00

3.84

0.00

94.18

71.24

28.76

2.49

2014

An Giang

Unit: %

Figure 2.20: Distribution of population (5-14 years old) by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 100

0 2009

2014

Viet Nam

2009

2014

Lao Cai

2009

2014

Ä?ien Bien

% Population

2009

2014

2009

Ninh Thuan

% Rural

2014

2009

Kon Tum

% Ethnic minority population

Of the 8 selected provinces, HCMC was the most populated. It was also the most urbanised, with only 20 per cent of its 5-14 year olds living in rural areas. Dien Bien had the highest percentage of ethnic minorities. The three provinces in which ethnic minorities comprised over 50 per cent of the population were Dien Bien, Lao Cai and Kon Tum. The percentage of migrant children was relatively small, except in HCMC, where 13.0 per cent of the children were from migrant families.

2014 Gia Lai

2009

2014

2009

HCMC

% Disabled

2014 Ä?ong Thap

2009

2014 An Giang

% Migrated

2.6.2. School attendance Pre-primary school children (age 5) Tables 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31 and 2.32 present the attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014, including children who had never attended school, those who attended a pre-primary school (which was for 5-year-olds), those who attended a primary school, and the combined preprimary and primary attendance rates. To simplify these tables, Table 2.33 presents only the combined attendance rate, i.e. the percentage of children who attended either a pre-primary school and a primary school.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

17.95

83.11

30.62

11.84

16.45

12.03

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

6.15

Thai

34.49

3.61

Tay

Mong

11.03

Kinh

37.00

11.86

Rural

Khmer

12.99

Urban

3.26

12.08

Female

Muong

12.29

12.19

Male

Total

2009

6.63

7.90

9.92

15.42

22.88

0.96

1.45

3.14

6.21

6.74

6.61

6.78

6.70

2014

Not attending

80.38

78.89

80.65

64.03

15.56

74.08

52.08

53.50

84.59

77.83

88.32

82.02

79.63

82.05

80.48

80.19

80.33

2009

88.22

87.82

84.24

76.93

66.69

92.95

85.47

88.96

89.19

87.47

89.69

87.98

88.41

88.20

2014

Pre-primary

7.58

4.66

7.52

5.34

1.33

7.97

13.43

9.50

12.15

16.01

8.07

6.95

8.50

4.96

7.44

7.52

7.48

5.12

4.28

5.83

7.65

10.43

6.09

13.07

7.66

4.57

5.77

3.66

5.39

4.79

5.08

2014

Primary 2009

Viet Nam

87.97

83.55

88.16

69.38

16.89

82.05

65.51

63.00

96.74

93.85

96.39

88.97

88.14

87.01

87.92

87.71

87.81

2009

93.34

92.10

90.08

84.58

77.12

99.04

98.55

96.62

93.76

93.24

93.35

93.36

93.20

93.28

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

11.57

9.83

10.99

35.20

11.99

17.35

0.00

6.57

5.83

12.67

6.02

13.05

10.14

11.54

2009

2.38

0.00

3.31

3.71

0.00

0.62

2.65

0.90

2.30

2.37

2.34

2014

Not attending

79.63

87.90

80.27

59.12

78.88

72.21

100.00

83.96

88.31

77.88

89.05

78.52

80.95

79.78

2009

95.28

73.54

95.69

89.85

100.00

98.18

94.31

97.38

94.17

95.46

94.86

2014

Pre-primary

8.80

2.27

8.74

5.69

9.13

10.45

0.00

9.47

5.86

9.45

4.93

8.43

8.91

8.68

2.03

26.46

1.00

6.44

0.00

3.04

0.00

2.87

2.17

2.50

2014

Primary 2009

Lao Cai

Table 2.28: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014

88.43

90.17

89.01

64.80

88.01

82.65

100.00

93.43

94.17

87.33

93.98

86.95

89.86

88.46

2009

97.30

100.00

96.69

96.29

100.00

98.18

97.35

97.38

97.04

97.63

97.36

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

22.07

4.12

24.56

3.20

0.00

7.05

Female

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

5.04

63.65

89.13

100.00 14.23

12.39

5.83

0.00

77.88

69.86

78.08

94.96

100.00

16.21

11.50

15.65

22.12

57.47

14.35

0.00

26.64

30.14

96.86

12.61

18.61

11.28

14.62

17.56

16.13

2009

Yes

63.73

54.30

73.15

91.34

100.00

94.52

100.00

93.36

96.86

95.12

2014

21.92

17.41

64.22

92.95

100.00

96.80

75.44

95.88

77.93

77.49

77.70

2009

No disability

2.43

14.60

5.86

4.06

1.22

5.58

6.15

8.23

3.09

5.64

2014

30.42

51.86

79.45

17.25

12.89

0.00

6.05

15.00

7.63

13.78

14.56

14.19

2009

12.55

35.17

10.62

100.00

13.90

12.85

14.48

9.63

16.42

13.45

2014

Not attending

45.70

58.55

85.48

95.94

98.78

88.95

93.85

85.13

93.77

89.48

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Partially disabled

3.14

46.98

80.06

100.00

90.75

60.44

88.25

64.15

62.93

63.51

2009

Primary

81.17

26.85

Other

8.66

0.00

5.48

0.00

6.64

3.14

4.88

2014

Pre-primary

Disabled

35.78

Mong

Khmer

Muong

22.51

22.30

Male

Total

2009

Not attending

Dien Bien

74.80

86.53

75.47

58.17

18.83

59.51

80.19

71.17

82.51

76.46

73.63

75.00

2009

81.63

64.83

77.57

0.00

82.92

79.03

84.33

84.80

77.97

80.96

2014

Pre-primary

8.99

1.97

8.88

11.41

0.00

13.85

7.20

10.22

6.21

8.92

8.82

8.87

2009

5.82

0.00

11.81

0.00

3.18

8.11

1.19

5.56

5.61

5.59

2014

Primary

Ninh Thuan

Table 2.29: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014

83.79

88.50

84.35

69.58

18.83

73.36

87.39

81.39

88.72

85.38

82.44

83.87

2009

87.45

64.83

89.38

0.00

86.10

87.15

85.52

90.37

83.58

86.55

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

8.01

7.01

4.76

0.00

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

6.93

90.36

89.66

87.34 2.52

1.46 3.41

12.66

92.88

87.68

93.07

100.00

7.12

86.22

18.36

10.19

17.91

0.00

92.95

12.32

2.46

Yes

90.48

7.05

81.20

No disability

4.09

31.10 25.61

77.11

93.70

18.80

90.60

Partially disabled

1.89

67.13

91.80

2.42

3.92

4.11

21.62

7.83

16.31

19.72

18.11

2009

Disabled

88.19

100.00

92.09

94.85

89.02

91.95

94.41

93.22

2014

6.30

9.40

100.00

95.24

92.99

91.99

93.07

92.32

92.68

2009

Other

0.00

6.46

2.79

5.73

2.43

4.72

3.61

2014

42.46

100.00

0.00

8.77

13.42

2.40

2.17

3.17

2.18

2.76

2.48

2009

10.58

0.00

17.56

0.00

4.09

10.96

7.50

9.17

10.88

10.06

2014

Not attending

0.00

100.00

85.63

92.06

83.29

89.52

89.69

89.61

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Mong

100.00

91.23

86.58

92.85

90.82

88.82

90.89

89.56

90.20

2009

Primary

0.00

7.91

5.15

10.98

8.05

5.59

6.78

2014

Pre-primary

Khmer

0.00

6.93

Female

Muong

7.68

7.32

Male

Total

2009

Not attending

Kon Tum

79.09

87.14

79.51

73.71

32.87

65.88

57.54

100.00

96.08

93.79

75.91

89.40

80.78

78.06

79.35

2009

85.96

90.59

79.12

51.45

100.00

92.06

85.36

88.53

87.38

85.08

86.19

2014

Pre-primary

2.54

2.67

2.58

0.68

0.00

3.02

0.00

2.10

2.47

2.77

2.91

2.22

2.55

3.46

9.41

3.32

48.55

0.00

3.86

3.68

3.97

3.45

4.04

3.76

2014

Primary 2009

Gia Lai

Table 2.30: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014

81.64

89.81

82.09

74.39

32.87

68.90

57.54

100.00

96.08

95.89

78.38

92.17

83.69

80.28

81.89

2009

89.42

100.00

82.44

100.00

95.91

89.04

92.50

90.83

89.12

89.94

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

13.24

13.76

13.24

13.43

Female

Urban

Rural

Kinh

45.91

Khmer

13.42

15.51

13.39

24.62

Partially disabled

Yes

76.96

Disabled

No disability

17.12

Other

Mong

15.00

Muong

Thai

Tay

14.05

13.66

Male

Total

2009

7.63

5.92

23.78

0.00

6.74

9.88

6.59

7.61

7.02

7.32

2014

Not attending

83.93

80.94

83.76

74.37

23.04

79.89

54.09

85.00

83.79

83.78

83.50

84.08

83.06

83.55

2009

89.21

90.45

76.22

100.00

89.89

89.55

89.41

88.80

90.09

89.44

2014

Pre-primary

2.68

3.55

2.82

1.01

0.00

2.99

0.00

2.79

2.98

2.74

2.68

2.89

2.79

3.16

3.63

0.00

3.38

0.57

4.00

3.59

2.89

3.24

2014

Primary 2009

HCMC

86.61

84.49

86.58

75.38

23.04

82.88

54.09

85.00

86.57

86.76

86.24

86.76

85.95

86.34

2009

92.37

94.08

76.22

100.00

93.26

90.12

93.41

92.39

92.98

92.68

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

15.89

15.61

15.63

35.44

0.00

15.91

15.02

20.24

15.02

16.68

15.89

2009

16.22

10.24

16.06

16.07

18.20

13.98

16.06

2014

Not attending

78.36

84.39

78.69

62.55

100.00

78.44

79.25

74.59

79.04

77.96

78.48

2009

70.60

89.76

71.10

72.95

64.29

71.05

71.14

71.10

2014

Pre-primary

5.75

0.00

5.68

2.01

0.00

5.65

5.73

5.17

5.95

5.36

5.64

13.18

0.00

12.84

10.98

19.64

10.75

14.88

12.84

2014

Primary 2009

Ä?ong Thap

Table 2.31: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014

84.11

84.39

84.37

64.56

100.00

84.09

84.98

79.76

84.98

83.32

84.11

2009

83.78

89.76

83.94

83.93

81.80

86.02

83.94

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/ rural

Gender

22.19

Kinh

9.84

6.94

7.61

16.88

7.86

9.31

5.39

9.77

66.07

77.81

78.47

74.30

79.52

79.07

86.02

84.94

84.77

82.27

87.17

10.42

11.06

12.53

11.46

11.39

11.42

2009

43.69

22.56

34.82

22.53

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

Disabled

14.71

22.64 70.42

58.71

70.40

50.29

76.95

73.33

27.02

7.04

6.47

7.05

6.02

6.01

8.34

4.03

9.62

77.47

65.18

77.44

56.31

67.82

85.29

77.36

36.63

11.27

16.77

11.05

31.01

83.69

15.90

61.81

37.45

63.37

Other

32.18

Mong

37.18

62.19

78.16

75.63

5.58

7.27

75.20

84.89

2014

Khmer

56.23

70.87

70.85

79.38

72.50

6.69

77.29

2009

3.25

20.93

13.98

15.06

68.72

72.25

6.81

8.13

2014

Muong

33.93

21.53

Rural

15.23

17.73

80.48

7.04

2009

6.02

8.35

7.96

19.59

23.41

0.98

1.62

3.66

5.64

6.11

6.15

5.87

6.36

6.12

2014

Not attending

6.03

25.70

Urban

68.38

76.76

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Thai

20.48

Female

12.83

70.25

2009

Primary

3.44

24.80

Male

15.11

2014

Pre-primary

Tay

22.71

Total

2009

Not attending

An Giang

80.61

78.02

80.87

63.05

14.74

74.79

49.41

53.26

84.42

77.42

88.51

82.07

80.10

81.83

80.54

80.52

80.53

2009

88.89

87.25

85.22

72.17

66.32

92.82

84.26

88.05

89.95

88.09

90.59

88.74

88.89

88.82

2014

Pre-primary

8.13

5.22

8.08

5.94

1.57

9.31

13.14

9.56

12.33

16.55

8.05

7.51

8.83

5.64

8.00

8.09

8.04

2009

5.09

4.40

6.82

8.24

10.27

6.20

14.12

8.28

4.40

5.80

3.26

5.39

4.75

5.06

2014

Primary

Other provinces

Table 2.32: Combined attendance rates of 5-year-old children in pre-primary and primary school by province in 2009 and 2014

88.73

83.23

88.95

68.99

16.31

84.10

62.55

62.82

96.75

93.97

96.56

89.58

88.94

87.47

88.54

88.61

88.58

2009

93.98

91.65

92.04

80.41

76.59

99.02

98.38

96.34

94.36

93.89

93.85

94.13

93.64

93.88

2014

Combined pre-primary and primary

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

83.55

87.97

88.16

No disability

Yes

69.38

Partially disabled

82.05

Other

16.89

65.51

Mong

Disabled

63.00

Khmer

93.85

Thai

96.74

96.39

Tay

Muong

88.97

Kinh

87.01

Urban

88.14

87.92

Rural

87.71

Female

87.81

Male

Total

2009

93.34

92.10

90.08

84.58

77.12

99.04

98.55

96.62

93.76

93.24

93.35

93.36

93.20

93.28

2014

Viet Nam

88.43

90.17

89.01

64.80

88.01

82.65

100.00

93.43

94.17

87.33

93.98

86.95

89.86

88.46

2009

97.30

100.00

96.69

96.29

100.00

98.18

97.35

97.38

97.04

97.63

97.36

2014

Lao Cai

77.88

69.86

78.08

54.30

73.15

64.22

92.95

96.80

75.44

95.88

77.93

77.49

77.70

2009

94.96

100.00

96.86

91.34

100.00

94.52

100.00

93.36

96.86

95.12

2014

Dien Bien

83.79

88.50

84.35

69.58

18.83

73.36

87.39

81.39

88.72

85.38

82.44

83.87

2009

87.45

64.83

89.38

0.00

86.10

87.15

85.52

90.37

83.58

86.55

2014

Ninh Thuan

92.88

87.68

92.95

81.20

90.60

100.00

95.24

92.99

91.99

93.07

92.32

92.68

2009

93.07

100.00

93.70

100.00

92.09

94.85

89.02

91.95

94.41

93.22

2014

Kon Tum

81.64

89.81

82.09

74.39

32.87

68.90

57.54

97.90

96.08

95.89

78.38

92.17

83.69

80.28

81.89

2009

89.42

100.00

82.44

100.00

95.91

89.04

92.50

90.83

89.12

89.94

2014

Gia Lai

86.58

75.38

82.88

54.09

85.00

86.57

86.76

86.24

86.76

85.95

86.34

86.61

92.37

94.08

76.22

100.00

93.26

90.12

93.41

92.39

92.98

92.68

2014

HCMC 2009

84.49

Attending pre-primary or primary school

84.11

84.39

84.37

64.56

84.09

84.98

79.76

84.98

83.32

84.11

2009

83.78

89.76

83.94

83.93

81.80

86.02

83.94

2014

Dong Thap

Table 2.33: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014

77.47

65.18

77.44

56.31

67.82

66.07

77.81

78.47

74.30

79.52

75.20

77.29

2009

85.29

77.36

36.63

79.07

86.02

84.94

84.77

82.27

87.17

84.89

2014

An Giang

88.73

83.23

88.95

68.99

16.31

84.10

62.55

62.82

96.75

93.97

96.56

89.58

88.94

87.47

88.54

88.61

88.58

2009

93.98

91.65

92.04

80.41

76.59

99.02

98.38

96.34

94.36

93.89

93.85

94.13

93.64

93.88

2014

Other provinces

Unit: %

Figures 2.21 and 2.22 give a graphical illustration of the attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014. This information was presented in Tables 2.28 to 2.33.

and An Giang. The situation in Ninh Thuan did not improve much. After 5 years, the attendance rate of 5-year-old children in Kon Tum and Dong Thap remained unchanged. On a field visit in Dong Thap, the report writing team made an observation which could partially explain this situation. Some of the children from migrant families who came to Dong Thap to work in industrial parks had never attended school. Those children were included in the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, which produced a lower attendance rate for the 5-year-old children in Dong Thap. However they were not included in the survey about the popularisation of education that was conducted by the Dong Thap Department of Education and Training,

As shown in Figure 2.21, the best-performing province in 2014 was Lao Cao (97.4 per cent), followed by Dien Bien (95.1 per cent), Kon Tum (93.2 per cent) and HCMC (92.7 per cent). An Giang and Dong Thap in the Mekong Delta had the lowest attendance rates for 5-year-old children in the 8 provinces (84.9 per cent and 83.9 per cent respectively). Compared to 2009, the 5 provinces that made great progress in encouraging 5-year-old children to attend school were Dien Bien, Lao Cai, Gia Lai, HCMC

Figure 2.21: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 100

0 Viet Nam

Lao Cai

ANAR 5 year olds 2014

Ä?ien Bien

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum

ANAR 5 year olds 2009

Figure 2.22 shows the four provinces that had a high population of ethnic minorities (over 50 per cent) in 2014: Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Gia Lai. In all four provinces, the attendance rate for 5-year-old Kinh children was a little higher than that for ethnic minority children, except in Gia Lai. This is due to efforts over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 to encourage 5-year-old ethnic minority children to attend school, and this is reflected in the large deviation in the ANAR in the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey and the ANAR in the 2009 Census for each of the four provinces. Dien Bien was the best-performing province among them. Despite having the lowest percentage of 5-yearold ethnic minority children in the four provinces, Gia Lai had the lowest attendance rate and also the lowest rate of mobilisation, 100

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Gia Lai

% 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2014

HCMC

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

% 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2009

i.e. of all the provinces Gia Lai was least able to get 5-year-old ethnic minority children to go to school. Overall, the attendance rate of 5-year-old Kinh children was higher than the national average. However, in Dong Thap and An Giang, where the majority of 5-year-old children were Kinh, the attendance rate was below the national average. Ninh Thuan, Dong Thap and An Giang had smaller percentage of 5-year old ethnic minority children, especially in Dong Thap and An Giang, where the percentage of 5-year-old ethnic minority children was small. The attendance rate for 5-year-old Kinh children in these provinces was lower than in provinces with a high percentage of 5-year-old ethnic minority children.

Figure 2.22: Pre-primary or primary school attendance rates for 5-year-old children by ethnicity in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 100

0 Việt Nam ANAR 5-year-old Kinh 2014

Lào Cai

Điện Biên

ANAR 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2014

Ninh Thuận ANAR 5-year-old Kinh 2009

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

ANAR 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2009

TP HCM % 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2014

Đồng Tháp

An Giang

% 5-year-old ethnic minorities 2009

Note: Dong Thap does not have this indicator as there were only 42 5-year-old ethnic minority children. The next set of tables and graphs present the primary ANAR, the lower secondary ANAR and the primary attendance rates for lower secondary school age children in the 8 provinces.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

101

102

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

12.90

76.19

96.44

92.77

96.11

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

94.54

Thai

89.98

98.23

Tay

Other

97.48

Kinh

73.50

95.50

Rural

Mong

97.60

Urban

86.66

96.01

Female

Khmer

96.04

Male

97.42

95.87

Muong

96.77

97.19

97.40

92.72

96.03

Total

2009

97.54

96.16

94.57

89.55

91.67

98.51

97.29

98.06

98.09

97.21

98.12

97.53

97.45

97.36

97.86

98.07

98.20

96.03

97.49

2014

Viet Nam

90.43

92.02

90.75

77.19

4.45

91.39

80.20

94.46

95.95

97.46

98.96

89.18

97.40

88.74

92.07

91.21

92.23

93.20

91.86

83.42

90.45

2009

96.38

98.21

95.72

94.62

100.00

98.38

98.73

95.96

98.98

96.95

95.95

98.50

97.05

95.47

98.00

93.06

96.44

2014

Lao Cai

84.58

66.83

84.58

70.82

15.36

83.35

73.25

96.00

98.62

98.58

82.76

98.07

81.02

87.30

84.76

85.41

87.25

87.16

76.47

84.25

2009

94.87

95.13

96.56

91.01

100.00

99.46

100.00

94.42

99.01

93.63

96.01

93.86

95.48

95.92

96.34

92.81

94.88

2014

Dien Bien

91.85

97.74

92.29

74.31

2.60

80.64

95.97

89.75

96.55

93.22

90.73

89.25

92.59

94.06

93.72

89.85

91.92

2009

95.88

91.04

92.88

100.00

96.86

95.37

96.46

95.69

95.78

93.83

95.77

96.80

97.07

95.35

95.74

2014

Ninh Thuan

94.34

89.96

94.89

69.28

0.00

91.22

99.15

96.61

98.04

98.75

93.13

96.91

94.67

93.78

93.94

94.90

96.21

96.18

89.62

94.20

2009

96.15

100.00

94.95

89.00

89.56

81.13

100.00

98.97

95.35

98.39

96.69

95.75

95.60

97.50

98.20

97.18

92.40

96.22

2014

Kon Tum

87.41

94.75

88.03

64.28

13.86

77.79

86.67

94.90

100.00

97.68

98.41

85.12

95.49

88.88

86.40

87.93

89.70

90.65

90.33

78.68

87.58

2009

93.11

100.00

87.75

88.21

100.00

98.50

92.92

94.59

93.79

92.89

90.17

94.15

94.73

94.63

92.96

93.34

2014

Gia Lai

97.98

95.15

97.97

83.87

19.10

97.17

67.36

93.31

100.00

97.73

96.95

97.82

97.71

97.61

96.61

97.72

98.35

98.54

96.84

97.65

2009

98.74

96.72

96.77

100.00

98.56

97.98

98.61

98.58

98.39

97.64

98.41

99.12

98.81

98.52

98.48

2014

HCMC

95.63

87.93

95.82

67.29

10.92

100.00

95.53

95.44

96.10

95.88

95.22

94.18

96.01

97.62

97.05

92.23

95.54

2009

97.61

100.00

97.67

97.47

98.58

97.78

97.56

98.51

99.19

97.36

97.94

95.20

97.67

2014

Dong Thap

92.55

86.13

92.84

52.63

10.49

85.27

85.59

92.88

91.95

93.86

93.09

91.87

89.40

93.66

95.68

95.12

87.41

92.46

2008

94.37

92.19

67.09

83.33

95.27

93.75

95.60

94.85

93.73

93.50

93.96

93.62

96.68

93.85

94.29

2013

An Giang

Unit:%

Table 2.34: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province in 2009 and 2014

As shown in Figure 2.23, HCMC and Dong Thap had the highest primary school attendance rates in 2014, (98.5 per cent and 97.7 per cent respectively), higher than the national average. Other provinces were below the national average, among which Ninh Thuan had the lowest rate (93.3 per cent). Performance in attendance of primary school age children improved over the 5 years between 2009 and 2014, and was more consistent among the provinces. Dien Bien made the most progress, followed by Lao Cai and Gia Lai, where ethnic minorities made up more than 50% of the population.

Figure 2.23: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 100

0 Viet Nam

Lao Cai

Ä?ien Bien

Primary ANAR 2014

Ninh Thuan

Primary ANAR 2009

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

% primary school age ethnic minorities 2014

HCMC

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

% primary school age ethnic minorities 2009

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

103

Similarly, Figure 2.24 shows improvement in attendance of primary school age Kinh children and ethnic minority children in 2014. It is noteworthy that the attendance rates for ethnic minority children in provinces with a high percentage of ethnic minorities were similar, except in Gia Lai.

Figure 2.24: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 100

0 Viet Nam Kinh primary ANAR 2014

Lao Cai

Ä?ien Bien

Kinh primary ANAR 2009

Ninh Thuan

Ethnic minority primary ANAR 2014

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Ethnic minority primary ANAR 2009

HCMC % primary school age ethnic minorities 2009

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

% primary school age ethnic minorities 2014

Figure 2.24 on primary ANAR takes the same approach when displaying the attendance rates for 5-year-old children (see Figure 2.22). The black and the grey lines represent the percentage of ethnic minorities.

104

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

In all the provinces except An Giang and Dong Thap, the Kinh children had a higher primary ANAR than the provincial average. The difference was most obvious in Gia Lai. Of the 8 provinces selected for analysis in 2009, Lao Cai and Dien Bien were the only two with a primary ANAR for girls that was much lower than the primary ANAR for boys (see Figure 2.25). Gender disparity had reduced significantly by 2014. At the same time, the discrepancy between the primary ANAR for girls and the one for boys narrowed more than in the other provinces.

Figure 2.25: Primary adjusted net attendance rate by province and gender in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % Male

Female 96.04

97.45

96.01

97.53

Viet Nam

95.95

92.07

Lao Cai

88.74

96.95 96.01

87.3

Ä?ien Bien

93.63

81.02

90.73

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum

95.78

93.22

95.69

93.78

95.75 96.69

94.67

92.89

86.4

Gia Lai

93.79

88.88

97.61

98.39

97.71

98.58

HCMC

Ä?ong Thap

95.22

97.56

95.88

97.78

91.87

An Giang

93.73

93.09 2009

94.85 2014

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

105

106

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

5.86 5.37 5.91

No disability

Yes

4.42

Disabled 8.23

15.56

Other

Partially disabled

24.40

10.58

Thai

Mong

5.11

Tay 6.01

4.22

Kinh

15.01

6.74

Rural

Khmer

3.27

Muong

5.20

0.89

Urban

2.06

Female

5.47

6.54

16.43

5.90

Male

Total

2009

2.77

2.31

7.01

11.10

8.91

2.90

3.81

1.97

1.98

3.20

1.64

2.45

3.05

0.22

0.92

2.11

8.05

2.76

2014

Primary attendance rate

ANAR

83.25

68.91

83.49

60.77

4.18

60.96

34.24

46.35

84.17

73.84

88.27

87.05

80.95

89.09

84.28

81.69

81.46

85.65

86.16

78.20

82.93

2009

Viet Nam

89.34

84.01

74.29

60.25

66.57

91.21

88.24

91.91

91.81

87.65

93.07

90.05

88.37

84.29

90.84

92.86

88.39

89.19

2014

9.64

5.18

9.64

7.85

3.04

12.94

16.12

0.00

3.25

4.23

2.14

10.88

2.74

9.10

10.04

1.57

3.94

9.52

24.57

9.59

2009

3.18

0.00

2.71

5.63

0.00

1.43

1.27

3.32

1.90

3.29

2.96

0.00

1.72

0.94

9.76

3.12

2014

Primary attendance rate

Lao Cai

72.77

84.39

73.45

56.13

1.92

68.08

50.03

96.63

89.79

86.84

94.02

69.40

91.51

69.88

75.76

72.68

78.26

75.82

64.40

72.91

2009

ANAR

84.81

95.92

84.96

74.48

100.00

88.45

98.35

82.96

97.49

83.18

86.75

75.20

88.53

90.53

84.89

85.04

2014

14.60

11.68

14.55

14.21

26.31

19.17

23.07

0.00

7.87

0.00

1.73

15.91

3.31

13.09

15.86

4.23

8.58

14.99

30.92

14.55

2009

5.26

0.00

3.71

7.56

0.00

3.45

0.00

0.52

5.57

1.42

5.14

5.24

0.57

1.95

3.73

14.04

5.20

2014

Primary attendance rate

ANAR

60.89

47.66

61.03

43.06

46.83

38.48

77.84

91.09

96.43

56.90

91.93

53.45

67.13

63.61

65.51

62.36

50.90

60.67

2009

Dien Bien

Table 2.35: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014

78.65

77.61

81.73

67.05

100.00

90.20

100.00

97.19

76.99

95.20

71.18

85.54

68.03

84.03

82.43

79.55

78.64

2014

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

107

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

8.45

6.30

8.45

No disability

Yes

3.28

0.00

Disabled

7.99

4.97

16.29

Other

Partially disabled

0.00

50.26

Khmer

2.51

3.28

3.04

2.61

3.72

0.36

0.88

2.82

10.10

3,20

2014

Mong

0.00

Muong

0.00

5.97

Kinh

0.00

10.08

Rural

Tay

4.97

Urban

Thai

7.57

3.52

1.33

Female

9.29

9.19

21.53

8,42

Male

Total

2009

Primary attendance rate

ANAR

67.90

79.57

68.44

53.98

0.00

48.37

74.15

62.78

78.96

72.63

63.85

65.07

69.60

72.09

65.36

68,04

2009

Ninh Thuan

77.95

77.41

69.34

100.00

81.30

76.61

80.72

84.62

72.14

69.76

78.10

82.50

82.97

77,94

2014

10.30

8.03

10.15

15.83

0.00

16.29

3.31

4.35

6.76

2.36

12.76

4.70

9.44

10.96

1.68

4.91

10.58

25.24

10,23

2009

4.98

8.20

6.27

0.00

6.79

0.00

3.28

6.10

2.49

4.69

5.35

0.33

2.26

3.56

14.56

5,03

2014

Primary attendance rate

Kon Tum

73.89

72.44

74.60

41.67

9.51

59.46

79.15

90.51

77.80

92.90

68.79

84.93

77.55

70.46

73.26

77.93

76.76

67.07

73,85

2009

ANAR

81.19

68.55

72.85

100.00

85.34

89.47

90.35

93.05

76.13

92.60

83.43

78.74

73.88

85.42

84.54

79.89

81,02

2014

14.68

7.94

14.61

9.16

1.18

25.32

24.39

9.16

5.31

9.90

6.19

4.80

17.89

5.18

13.48

15.48

2.62

6.09

16.45

33.33

14,51

2009

7.53

11.38

12.69

20.92

0.00

2.62

9.19

2.89

6.66

8.63

0.00

3.55

6.25

21.16

7,65

2014

Primary attendance rate

Gia Lai

Table 2.36: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014

62.62

74.33

63.32

41.98

0.77

34.72

42.74

90.84

81.45

76.52

83.64

88.22

54.81

85.31

65.82

60.18

64.83

69.34

64.75

52.28

62,91

2009

ANAR

71.50

69.55

49.61

46.71

100.00

92.42

65.93

88.52

74.92

68.01

61.63

75.38

79.51

68.62

71,45

2014

Unit: %

108

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

0.00

Tay

Thai

4.19

2.63

3.34

2.59

No disability

Yes

4.15

Disabled

Partially disabled

3.40

Other

Mong

9.66

2.60

Kinh

0.00

2.21

Rural

Khmer

2.78

Muong

2.56

0.53

Urban

0.94

Female

1.95

2.78

7.48

2.67

Male

Total

2009

1.09

1.49

1.23

0.00

1.14

1.29

1.11

0.88

1.38

0.11

0.57

0.70

3.20

1.14

2014

Primary attendance rate

HCMC

89.60

70.40

87.77

78.99

3.71

87.36

15.89

100.00

68.16

87.61

82.62

88.52

88.32

86.56

82.27

88.19

90.69

88.68

87.40

2009

ANAR

94.30

88.54

92.89

100.00

93.68

87.62

95.05

94.51

92.87

87.67

96.21

95.95

94.62

93.64

2014

6.91

9.21

6.92

8.60

6.78

0.00

6.94

7.36

4.57

6.35

7.46

0.90

1.53

6.11

19.84

6.93

2009

3.14

3.88

3.15

3.61

0.81

3.62

2.74

0.00

0.91

2.62

9.38

3.15

2014

Primary attendance rate

ANAR

73.77

57.98

74.06

47.97

2.04

96.61

73.59

71.88

83.13

76.25

71.26

67.03

76.68

78.09

72.59

73.61

2009

Dong Thap

85.69

84.56

85.67

85.25

87.87

86.68

84.78

75.60

87.70

89.61

89.23

85.67

2014

8.47

8.96

8.48

9.28

2.66

10.65

12.62

0.00

8.25

9.24

6.30

7.80

9.11

1.03

2.42

7.78

23.25

8.47

2009

3.58

0.00

12.86

6.37

3.15

4.12

1.87

2.48

4.57

0.00

0.37

3.97

10.35

3.50

2014

Primary attendance rate

ANAR

64.76

45.65

64.87

33.90

0.00

55.44

49.85

65.38

61.33

73.67

66.46

62.75

58.50

66.20

70.48

62.87

64.55

2009

An Giang

Table 2.37: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary attendance rates by province in 2009 and 2014

78.04

78.26

21.58

58.28

80.25

74.97

86.01

81.01

74.89

70.61

79.25

82.03

79.75

78.04

2014

Unit: %

As shown in Figure 2.26, there was improvement in lower secondary school attendance rates for 2014 in all 8 provinces, though lower than the primary school attendance rates. HCMC had the highest lower secondary school attendance rate (94.8 per cent), higher than the national average but lower than its primary school attendance rate (98.5 per cent). The rates for other provinces were also lower than the national average,

among which Gia Lai had the lowest attendance rate (79.1 per cent) among the 8 provinces. Ninh Thuan had the second lowest rate (81.1 per cent). Mobilisation efforts have led to improved attendance rates of lower secondary school age children between 2009 and 2014 in most of the provinces. Dien Bien, Dong Thap and An Giang made great progress, and Kon Tum and Gia Lai made little progress.

Figure 2.26: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary school attendance rates for children of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014 Unit: %

91.9 88.8

Viet Nam

17.3 17.4 88.2 82.5

Lao Cai 79.1 73.1

83.8 Ä?ien Bien

75.2 88.5 87.8 81.1 76.5

Ninh Thuan

28.7 23.8 86 84.1

Kon Tum

62 58.6 79.1 77.4

Gia Lai

49.6 48.5 94.8 90.1

HCMC

5.6 7.6 88.8

Ä?ong Thap

80.5 0 0.1 81.5

An Giang

73 6.1 5.8

Lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2014

% of ethnic minorities of lower secondary school age 2014

Lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2009

% of ethnic minorities of lower secondary school age 2009

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

109

Similarly, as shown in Figure 2.27, there was great improvement in the lower secondary school attendance rates for ethnic minority children in 2014 in the 3 provinces with a high percentage of ethnic minorities (Lao Cai, Dien Bien and Ninh Thuan), whereas in Gia Lai and Kon Tum little improvement was made during the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014.

Figure 2.27: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance rate and primary school attendance rates for children of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014

83.4

88.8 80.5

79.7

73.6 0.0

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

Kinh lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2014

Ä?ien Bien

Kinh lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2009

% of ethnic minorities of lower secondary school age 2014

110

Ninh Thuan

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

HCMC

Ethnic minority lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2014

% of ethnic minorities of lower secondary school age 2009

0.0 0.1

6.1 5.8

5.6 7.6

17.3 17.4

23.8

28.7

49.6 48.5

52.9

63.2

62.9 60.8

58.6

62.0

64.8

74.5

76.2

80.1

88.8

94.2 88.4

90.2

94.8

95.0 93.0

96.3 95.3 83.8

88.5 87.8 82.0 72.0

73.1

77.5 79.1

77.3

83.1

85.1

93.8 91.3

96.2

97.7 98.2

99.6

Unit: %

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

Ethnic minority lower secondary ANAR + primary school attendance rate 2009

As with the primary ANAR, of the 8 provinces selected for analysis, Lao Cai and Dien Bien were the only two provinces in 2009 that had a lower secondary school ANAR for girls that was much lower than the rate for boys (see Figure 2.28). The gender disparity in these two provinces remained the same in 2014. At the same time, the discrepancy between the primary ANAR for girls and the primary ANAR for boys did not narrow much.

Figure 2.28: Lower secondary adjusted net attendance by province and gender in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % Male

Female

81.7

Viet Nam

88.4

84.3

90.1

86.8

75.8

Lao Cai

69.9

83.2

67.1

Ä?ien Bien

85.5 71.2

53.5

63.9

Ninh Thuan

72.1 72.6

84.6

70.5

Kon Tum

78.7 83.4

77.6

60.2

Gia Lai

68 65.8

74.9

86.6

HCMC

92.9

88.3

94.5

71.3

Ä?ong Thap

84.8

76.3

86.7

62.8

An Giang

74.89

66.5 2009

81.01 2014

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

111

Figure 2.29 shows that the primary attendance rate for lower secondary school age children declined sharply in all 8 provinces during the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014.

Figure 2.29: Percentage of children of lower secondary school age attending primary school by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 14.6

14.5

10.2

9.6

8.5

8.4 5.9

7.7

5.2

5.0

3.1

2.8

6.9

3.2

3.5

3.2

2.7 1.1

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

Đien Bien

Ninh Thuan 2009

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Đong Thap

HCMC

An Giang

2014

However, as shown in Figure 2.30, the percentage of ethnic minority children of lower secondary school age who attended primary school was much higher than the percentage of Kinh children in provinces with a high percentage of ethnic minorities, 10 times higher in Dien Bien, 6 times higher in Gia Lai, a little less than 3 times higher in Lao Cai, and almost twice as high in Ninh Thuan and Kon Tum. Gia Lai had the highest primary school attendance rate for lower secondary school age ethnic minority children, followed by An Giang, Kon Tum, Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, and Lao Cai. These statistics indicate a late start at school for ethnic minority children. They were the ones at risk of becoming OOSC.

Figure 2.30: Percentage of children of lower secondary school age attending primary school by province and ethnicity in 2014 Unit: % 12.8

8.9 6.5

6.1

5.8 4.9 3.6

2.0

Viet Nam

3.3

2.5 1.3

Lao Cai

1.1

0.5

Đien Bien

3.2

2.6

Ninh Thuan Kinh

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

HCMC

3.1

1.2

Đong Thap

An Giang

Ethnic minorities

2.6.3. Out-of-school children The following sets of tables and graphs present the out-of-school rates for primary and lower secondary school age children. 112

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

113

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

87.10

23.81

3.56

7.23

3.89

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

5.46

Thai

Disabled

1.77

Tay

10.02

2.52

Kinh

26.50

4.50

Rural

Other

2.40

Urban

Mong

3.99

Female

13.34

3.96

Male

Khmer

4.13

2.58

3.23

Muong

2.60

2.81

7.28

3.97

2009

Total

2.46

3.84

5.43

10.45

8.33

1.49

2.71

1.94

1.91

2.79

1.88

2.47

2.55

2.64

2.14

1.93

1.80

3.97

2.51

2014

Viet Nam

9.57

7.98

9.25

22.81

95.55

8.61

19.80

5.54

4.05

2.54

1.04

10.82

2.60

11.26

7.93

8.79

7.77

6.80

8.14

16.58

9.55

2009

3.62

1.79

4.28

5.38

0.00

1.62

1.27

4.04

1.02

3.05

4.05

1.50

2.95

4.53

2.00

6.94

3.56

2014

Lao Cai

15.42

33.17

15.42

29.18

84.64

16.65

26.75

0.00

4.00

1.38

1.42

17.24

1.93

18.98

12.70

15.24

14.59

12.75

12.84

23.53

15.75

2009

5.13

4.87

3.44

8.99

0.00

0.54

0.00

5.58

0.99

6.37

3.99

6.14

4.52

4.08

3.66

7.19

5.12

2014

Dien Bien

8.15

2.26

7.71

25.69

97.40

19.36

0.00

37.57

0.00

4.03

10.25

3.45

6.78

9.27

10.75

7.41

5.94

6.28

10.15

8.08

2009

4.12

8.96

7.12

0.00

3.14

4.63

3.54

4.31

4.22

6.17

4.23

3.20

2.93

4.65

4.26

2014

Ninh Thuan

5.66

10.04

5.11

30.72

100

8.78

0.85

3.39

1.96

1.25

6.87

3.09

5.33

6.22

6.06

5.10

3.79

3.82

10.38

5.80

2009

3.85

0.00

5.05

11.00

10.44

18.87

0.00

1.03

4.65

1.61

3.31

4.25

4.40

2.50

1.80

2.82

7.60

3.78

2014

Kon Tum

12.59

5.25

11.97

35.72

86.14

22.21

13.33

0.00

5.10

0.00

2.32

1.59

14.88

4.51

11.12

13.60

12.07

10.30

9.35

9.67

21.32

12.42

2009

6.89

0.00

12.25

11.79

0.00

1.50

7.08

5.41

6.21

7.11

9.83

5.85

5.27

5.37

7.04

6.66

2014

Gia Lai

Table 2.38: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province in 2009 and 2014

2.02

4.85

2.03

16.13

80.90

2.83

0.00

32.64

6.69

0.00

2.27

3.05

2.18

2.29

2.39

3.39

2.28

1.65

1.46

3.16

2.35

2009

1.26

3.28

3.23

0.00

1.44

2.02

1.39

1.42

1.61

2.36

1.59

0.88

1.19

1.48

1.52

2014

HCMC

4.37

12.07

4.18

32.71

89.08

0.00

4.47

4.56

3.90

4.12

4.78

5.82

3.99

2.38

2.95

7.77

4.46

2009

2.39

0.00

2.33

2.53

1.42

2.22

2.44

1.49

0.81

2.64

2.06

4.80

2.33

2014

Dong Thap

7.45

13.87

7.16

47.37

89.51

14.73

14.41

0.00

7.12

8.05

6.14

6.91

8.13

10.60

6.34

4.32

4.88

12.59

7.54

2008

5.63

7.81

32.91

16.67

4.73

6.25

4.40

5.15

6.27

6.50

6.04

6.38

3.32

6.15

5.71

2013

An Giang

Unit: %

As shown in Figure 2.31, in 2014, Gia Lai had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age (6.7 per cent), followed by An Giang (5.7 per cent). HCMC and Dong Thap had the lowest percentage of OOSC of primary school age (1.5 per cent and 2.3 per cent respectively), lower than the national average. The rates

in the other provinces were all higher than the national average. The percentage of OOSC of primary school age declined greatly during the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 in Dien Bien (by three times), Lao Cai (by 2,6 times), and in Gia Lai and Ninh Thuan (by two times).

Figure 2.31: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 15.8 12.4 9.5 8.1 5.1 4.0

3.6

4.3

3.8 2.3

Lao Cai

Ä?ien Bien

Ninh Thuan

Gia Lai

Kon Tum 2009

Figure 2.32 presents the percentage of Kinh and ethnic minority OOSC of primary school age in the 8 provinces in 2009 and 2014. In 2014, An Giang, Ninh Thuan and Dong Thap had the highest percentage of primary school age Kinh OOSC (4.7 per cent, 3.1 per cent and 2.3 per cent respectively), and in Dien Bien there were almost no Kinh OOSC of primary school age. The Kinh OOSC rates in the other provinces were all lower than the national average. The provinces with a high ethnic minority population had the highest percentage of ethnic minority OOSC. Gia Lai had the highest rate (12.0 per cent), followed by Ninh Thuan (7.0 per cent), Dien Bien (5.9 per cent) and Lao Cai (4.2 per cent), despite a sharp decline in the rates over the past 5 years. It is noteworthy

114

5.7 4.5

2.5

Viet Nam

7.5

6.7

5.8

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

HCMC

1.5

2.3

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

2014

that although An Giang had a small number of ethnic minority children of primary school age, the percentage of OOSC in this group in 2014 was higher than that in 2009 (21.4 per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively). However, at the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, there was still a big gap between the OOSC rate for the Kinh and the rates for the ethnic minorities. The biggest gap was observed in Gia Lai (1.5 per cent and 12 per cent respectively), followed by Dien Bien (0 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively), Kon Tum (1.0 per cent and 5.3 per cent respectively) and Lao Cai (1.3 per cent and 4.2 per cent respectively).

Figure 2.32: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

4.7

2.3

1.4 2.3 3.1 3.1

1.5 1.6

4.5

5.3

0 0

1.0 1.3

1.4

3.1 4.0

4.2 1.3 1.0

1.9 2.5

5.3

5.9

7.1

8.5

10.5

12.4

14.4

17.6

19.3

21.4

21.7

Unit: %

Đien Bien

Kinh OOSC of primary school age 2014

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum

Kinh OOSC of primary school age 2009

Gia Lai

Ethnic minority OOSC of primary school age 2014

Đong Thap

HCMC

An Giang

Ethnic minority OOSC of primary school age 2009

Figure 2.33 illustrates the OOSC rates for children of primary school age by province and migration status in 2014. Overall, children of primary school age from migrant families had less opportunities to attend school than children of primary school age from non-migrant families. In HCMC, the percentage of migrant OOSC was double the percentage of non-migrant OOSC. In other provinces, the migrant population was small. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious when drawing general conclusions..

Figure 2.33: Percentage of out-of-school children of primary school age by province and migration status in 2014 Unit: % 9.0 7.8 6.9

4.9

5.6

5.1 4.1

3.8

3.6

3.3

2.5

2.4 1.8

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

1.3

Đien Bien

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Migrant

0 HCMC

Đong Thap

An Giang

Non-migrant

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

115

116

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

25.72

10.84

Yes

91.40

Disabled

10.65

23.48

Other

No disability

41.36

Mong

31.01

38.63

Khmer

Partially disabled

9.83

15.57

Thai

Muong

6.62

Tay

10.52

Female

8.74

11.77

Male

Kinh

17.65

7.64

12.29

12.31

8.37

Rural

5.37

Urban

11.17

Total

2009

7.88

13.68

18.70

28.65

24.52

5.89

7.95

6.12

6.20

9.15

5.29

7.50

8.57

15.50

8.23

5.03

3.56

8.05

2014

Viet Nam

17.59

10.43

16.91

36.02

95.04

18.98

33.84

3.37

6.96

8.92

3.84

19.72

5.74

21.02

14.20

25.75

17.81

14.66

11.03

17.51

2009

12.01

4.08

12.33

19.89

0.00

10.11

0.38

13.72

0.61

13.53

10.29

24.80

9.75

8.53

5.34

11.85

2014

Lao Cai

24.50

40.67

24.43

42.73

70.89

34.00

38.45

0.00

14.29

8.91

1.84

27.20

4.76

33.46

17.00

32.16

25.90

22.65

18.18

24.78

2009

16.08

22.39

14.55

25.39

0.00

6.35

0.00

2.29

17.44

3.38

23.68

9.22

31.40

14.02

13.84

6.41

16.16

2014

Dien Bien

23.65

14.13

23.11

38.02

100.00

35.34

0.00

14.43

19.88

27.14

16.07

19.79

26.95

33.61

26.88

18.62

13.11

23.54

2009

18.77

22.59

25.69

0.00

16.19

20.11

16.24

12.77

24.14

29.88

21.02

14.68

6.93

18.86

2014

Ninh Thuan

15.81

19.53

15.25

42.50

90.49

24.25

17.54

5.13

15.44

4.74

18.44

10.37

13.00

18.58

25.06

17.16

12.66

7.69

15.91

2009

13.82

23.25

20.88

0.00

7.87

10.53

9.65

3.67

17.77

4.91

11.89

15.91

25.79

12.32

11.90

5.55

13.95

2014

Kon Tum

22.70

17.74

22.07

48.86

98.05

39.95

32.86

0.00

13.25

13.58

10.18

6.97

27.31

9.51

20.70

24.34

32.55

24.57

18.80

14.39

22.58

2009

20.96

19.07

37.69

32.37

0.00

4.97

24.89

8.58

18.42

23.36

38.37

21.08

14.24

10.21

20.90

2014

Gia Lai

7.81

26.26

9.60

16.82

92.14

9.24

74.44

0.00

31.84

9.79

15.16

8.70

9.12

10.66

17.20

10.86

7.36

3.85

9.92

2009

4.60

9.97

5.88

0.00

5.19

11.10

3.84

4.62

5.76

12.21

3.22

3.35

2.17

5.22

2014

HCMC

Table 2.39: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower-secondary school age by province in 2009 and 2014

19.32

32.81

19.02

43.43

91.18

3.39

72.60

19.46

20.75

12.30

17.40

21.28

32.07

21.79

15.80

7.57

19.45

2009

11.17

11.56

11.17

11.15

11.31

9.70

12.47

24.40

11.39

7.78

1.39

11.17

2014

Dong Thap

26.77

45.38

26.65

56.83

97.34

33.91

37.53

24.65

0.00

26.38

29.43

20.03

25.74

28.14

40.47

31.38

21.74

13.89

26.98

2008

18.39

21.74

65.56

35.35

16.60

20.90

12.11

16.50

20.53

29.39

20.38

13.99

9.90

18.46

2013

An Giang

Unit: %

As shown in Figure 2.34, in 2014, Gia Lai had the highest percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age (20.9 per cent), followed by Ninh Thuan and An Giang (18.9 per cent and 18.5 per cent respectively). HCMC had the lowest percentage of OOSC (5.2 per cent), lower than the national average (8.1 per cent). The rates in the other provinces were all higher

than the national average. The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age declined substantially over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 in HCMC (by half), Dong Thap (by nearly half), Dien Bien, An Giang and Lao Cai.

Figure 2.34: Percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 27.0 24.8

23.5

22.6

20.9

19.5

18.9

17.5

16.2

15.9

11.8

11.2

18.5

11.2

9.9 8.1 5.2

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

Đien Bien

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum 2009

Gia Lai

HCMC

Đong Thap

An Giang

2014

Figure 2.35 presents the percentage of Kinh and ethnic minority OOSC of lower secondary school age in the 8 provinces in 2009 and 2014. As with the OOSC of primary school age, An Giang, Ninh Thuan and Dong Thap had the highest percentage of Kinh OOSC of lower secondary school age in 2014 (16.67 per cent, 16.2 per cent and 11.2 per cent respectively). Meanwhile, Lao Cai and Dien Bien had the lowest percentage of Kinh OOSC of lower secondary school age (0.4 per cent and 2.3 per cent respectively). The rates in the other provinces were all lower than the national average. The provinces with a high percentage of ethnic minorities had the highest percentage of ethnic minority OOSC. Gia Lai had the highest rate (37.1 per cent), followed by Ninh Thuan (25.3 per

cent), Kon Tum (20.3 per cent), Dien Bien (18.0 per cent) and Lao Cai (14.0 per cent) despite a sharp decline over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 (except in Kon Tum and Gia Lai). However, at the time of the 2014 Population and Housing Census, there was still a large gap between the OOSC rate for the Kinh and the rate for the other ethnic groups. The biggest gap was observed in Lao Cai (0.4 per cent and 14.9 per cent respectively), followed by Dien Bien (2.3 per cent and 18.0 per cent respectively), Gia Lai (5 per cent and 37.1 per cent respectively), Kon Tum (3.7 per cent and 20.3 per cent respectively) and Ninh Thuan (16.2 per cent and 25.5 per cent respectively).

Figure 2.35: Percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age by province and ethnicity in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 47.1

37.1

35.2 28.0 22.7 16.9

6.2

25.5

22.5 18.0

14.9

0.4 Viet Nam

Lao Cai

26.4

20.3

19.9

19.5

16.2

3.7

2.3 1.8 Đien Bien

36.8

23.8

8.7 3.8

39.2

Ninh Thuan

4.7

Kon Tum

5.0

7.0

Gia Lai

11.6

9.8 5.2

16.6

11.2

5.8

HCMC

Đong Thap

Kinh OOSC of lower secondary school school age 2014,

Kinh OOSC of lower secondary school age 2009

Ethnic minority OOSC of lower secondary school age 2014

Ethnic minority OOSC of lower secondary school age 2009

An Giang

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

117

Figure 2.36 shows the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age by province and migration status. Overall, in 2014, primary school age children from migrant families had less opportunities to attend school than primary school age children

from non-migrant families. In HCMC, the percentage of migrant OOSC was double that of non-migrant OOSC. In other provinces, the migrant population was small. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious when drawing general conclusions.

Figure 2.36: Percentage of out-of-school children of lower secondary school age by province and migration status in 2014 Unit: % 31.5

30.5 28.5

22.4

21.4

22.6

22.1

21.7

22.0

18.8 16.0

15.2

15.4 11.5

10.7

5.7

4.1

Viet Nam

Lao Cai

Ä?ien Bien

Ninh Thuan

Kon Tum Migrant

2.6.4. Dropouts and overage students Dropouts are defined as children who once attended school and were not in school at the time of the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The next set of tables presents the attendance rate by these categories: never attended, attended but dropped out and currently attending. As in previous tables, the national average is listed as a reference point for the provinces that follow. The children are divided into 3 groups: never attended, attended but dropped out and currently attending. Although the percentage of children of primary school age

118

14.3

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Gia Lai

HCMC

Ä?ong Thap

An Giang

Non-migrant

in Dien Bien who had never attended school (see Table 2.40) decreased by fourfold over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, Dien Bien still had the highest percentage of children who had never attended school (3.37 per cent). Most of these children were Mong. 5.89 per cent of the Mong children of primary school age had never attended school. The figure in Lao Cai was 3.27 per cent. The percentage of Mong children who had never attended school declined substantially over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014. Similarly, the percentage of migrant children in Dien Bien who had never attended school decreased by sevenfold over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

119

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

96.41

98.10

98.82

96.19

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

91.71

14.21

79.89

97.20

93.81

96.91

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

76.56

98.07

Urban

Mong

96.82

Female

87.89

96.84

Male

Khmer

95.90

98.26

96.80

Muong

97.49

97.37

96.50

96.83

Total

2009

98.01

96.80

95.43

90.81

92.45

99.01

98.24

98.61

98.48

97.74

98.45

98.01

97.91

97.39

97.93

98.09

98.25

98.16

97.96

2014

Attending

1.11

2.99

1.12

3.49

2.57

2.59

3.57

4.60

1.03

1.53

0.65

0.87

1.26

0.84

1.12

1.19

2.58

1.64

0.74

0.52

0.38

1.16

2009

1.16

2.10

2.42

1.90

5.30

0.81

1.07

1.00

1.30

0.97

1.16

1.24

1.85

1.36

1.14

0.94

0.71

1.20

2014

Dropped out

Viet Nam

1.98

3.20

1.67

16.62

83.23

5.69

19.87

7.52

0.72

2.28

0.54

1.03

2.32

1.09

2.06

1.97

1.52

1.57

1.76

2.10

3.12

2.01

2009

0.83

1.11

2.14

7.29

2.26

0.18

0.69

0.38

0.52

0.95

0.58

0.83

0.85

0.76

0.71

0.78

0.81

1.13

0.84

2014

Never attended

92.84

93.99

93.15

79.91

4.45

94.14

84.66

100.00

97.42

98.05

99.25

91.95

97.82

91.15

94.47

91.21

92.23

93.40

92.28

95.19

92.86

2009

97.39

98.21

96.23

96.43

100.00

99.59

98.73

97.12

98.98

97.89

96.97

98.50

97.05

95.47

98.35

97.61

97.41

2014

Attending

2.13

1.55

2.10

3.85

0.00

1.97

3.98

0.00

1.47

1.31

0.32

2.33

1.00

2.33

1.92

4.50

3.32

1.30

1.03

0.49

2.12

2009

0.83

0.00

2.26

0.30

0.00

0.56

0.95

0.00

0.60

0.99

0.61

1.37

1.83

0.21

0.00

0.80

2014

Dropped out

Lao Cai

5.03

4.46

4.75

16.24

95.55

3.88

11.36

0.00

1.10

0.64

0.44

5.72

1.18

6.52

3.60

4.30

4.46

5.30

6.69

4.32

5.02

2009

1.79

1.51

3.27

0.00

0.41

0.71

1.93

1.02

1.51

2.05

0.89

1.58

2.70

1.44

2.39

1.79

2014

Never attended

Table 2.40: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

86.23

68.17

86.20

73.74

15.36

85.79

75.38

100.00

97.04

98.62

99.12

84.53

98.57

82.62

88.99

84.77

85.41

87.30

87.24

84.61

85.89

2009

95.51

95.13

98.23

91.97

100.00

99.46

100.00

95.11

99.01

94.02

96.84

93.86

95.48

95.92

96.34

95.80

95.50

2014

Attending

1.81

7.87

1.88

4.70

0.00

1.96

2.75

0.00

1.22

1.38

0.35

2.09

0.32

2.26

1.60

4.49

2.81

1.11

0.70

0.61

1.92

2009

1.11

1.90

0.00

2.15

0.00

1.26

0.00

1.41

0.87

2.49

1.81

0.56

0.58

0.26

1.13

2014

Dropped out

Dien Bien

11.97

23.96

11.92

21.55

84.64

12.25

21.87

0.00

1.74

0.00

0.53

13.38

1.12

15.12

9.41

10.75

11.78

11.59

12.06

14.78

12.19

2009

3.38

2.97

1.77

5.89

0.00

0.54

0.00

3.64

0.99

4.57

2.28

3.65

2.71

3.52

3.08

3.94

3.37

2014

Never attended

Unit: %

120

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

97.50

90.52

96.61

100.00

62.43

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

92.88

81.98

2.60

79.96

93.06

97.74

92.69

Other

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

96.16

91.04

100.00

97.24

95.47

97.06

96.24

95.78

93.83

95.77

96.80

97.07

96.66

96.01

2014

Mong

100.00

94.04

Female

Khmer

91.56

Male

100.00

89.33

Muong

92.75

94.08

94.17

93.45

92.75

Total

2009

Attending

2.47

0.50

2.44

3.47

0.00

5.21

0.00

37.57

0.00

1.45

3.14

0.97

2.05

2.81

5.01

3.27

1.95

0.98

0.90

2.45

2009

2.22

8.96

2.83

0.00

2.26

2.48

2.29

2.42

2.41

4.49

1.93

1.39

2.41

1.88

2.42

2014

Dropped out

Ninh Thuan

4.84

1.77

4.51

16.58

97.40

12.81

0.00

1.94

6.34

1.53

3.91

5.63

5.65

3.98

3.88

4.94

5.65

4.81

2009

1.62

0.00

4.28

0.00

0.50

2.05

0.65

1.34

1.80

1.68

2.30

1.81

0.52

1.46

1.58

2014

Never attended

95.78

91.98

96.31

73.76

0.00

93.24

99.15

99.34

94.84

97.74

96.06

95.31

93.94

94.90

96.36

96.52

96.43

95.66

2009

97.19

100.00

96.16

100.00

89.56

81.13

100.00

99.55

96.54

99.02

97.81

96.68

95.60

97.50

98.20

97.18

97.52

97.24

2014

Attending

1.77

1.36

1.66

7.03

2.28

2.69

0.00

0.85

0.35

2.06

0.97

1.69

1.81

3.68

2.87

1.25

0.82

0.34

1.76

2009

1.47

0.00

1.80

0.00

10.44

18.87

0.00

0.29

1.78

0.58

0.92

1.95

3.43

1.57

0.62

1.29

0.53

1.44

2014

Dropped out

Kon Tum

2.45

6.66

2.03

19.20

97.72

4.07

0.85

0.00

0.31

3.09

1.29

2.25

2.88

2.37

2.24

2.39

2.67

3.24

2.58

2009

1.34

0.00

2.04

0.00

0.15

1.68

0.41

1.26

1.37

0.97

0.92

1.18

1.54

1.94

1.32

2014

Never attended

Table 2.41: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

89.70

95.71

90.26

68.79

14.54

81.59

86.67

100.00

97.59

100.00

98.33

98.95

87.85

96.20

91.12

88.66

88.00

89.72

90.92

91.08

89.25

89.84

2009

93.74

100.00

88.62

88.21

100.00

98.88

93.61

94.92

94.51

93.38

90.17

94.37

94.73

94.63

95.67

93.94

2014

Attending

2.54

2.73

2.53

4.58

1.33

4.46

7.67

0.00

2.03

0.00

0.99

0.40

3.06

0.90

2.31

2.76

6.06

4.07

1.47

0.88

0.45

2.55

2009

3.11

0.00

5.45

4.07

0.00

0.77

2.57

4.30

3.30

2.71

5.31

3.20

2.23

2.97

1.46

3.01

2014

Dropped out

Gia Lai

7.76

1.57

7.21

26.63

84.13

13.94

5.66

0.00

0.38

0.00

0.68

0.66

9.08

2.90

6.57

8.57

5.93

6.21

7.61

8.05

10.30

7.61

2009

3.16

0.00

5.93

7.72

0.00

0.35

3.82

0.78

2.19

3.91

4.52

2.43

3.05

2.40

2.87

3.05

2014

Never attended

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

121

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

19.10

86.43

98.28

95.83

98.28

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

100.00

Thai

97.61

100.00

Tay

Other

98.07

Kinh

100.00

97.40

Rural

Mong

98.14

Urban

67.36

98.04

Female

93.31

97.96

Male

Khmer

96.64

Muong

97.79

98.68

98.47

98.08

98.00

Total

2009

98.85

96.93

97.42

100.00

98.66

97.98

98.77

98.78

98.44

97.64

98.41

99.12

98.81

99.14

98.60

2014

Attending

0.89

2.79

1.05

4.04

8.22

1.41

0.00

14.16

0.00

1.06

1.55

1.00

1.09

1.11

2.76

1.58

0.74

0.51

0.37

1.10

2009

0.91

2.41

2.58

0.00

1.03

1.55

0.98

1.02

1.18

1.84

1.47

0.64

0.68

0.78

1.10

2014

Dropped out

HCMC

0.84

1.38

0.67

9.53

72.68

0.99

0.00

18.47

6.69

0.00

0.87

1.05

0.87

0.93

0.60

0.64

0.79

0.81

1.55

0.90

2009

0.24

0.67

0.00

0.31

0.47

0.25

0.20

0.38

0.52

0.12

0.25

0.52

0.08

0.30

2014

Never attended

96.38

88.62

96.54

71.43

10.92

100, 00

100.00

96.28

96.24

96.51

96.66

95.94

94.20

96.01

97.77

97.29

95.66

96.29

2009

98.25

100.00

98.29

98.17

98.87

98.66

97.95

98.51

99.19

97.36

97.94

98.42

98.29

2014

Attending

1.83

4.35

1.84

4.31

0.00

1.86

1.92

1.55

1.61

2.09

4.57

2.85

1.12

0.67

0.44

1.86

2009

1.24

0.00

1.21

1.28

0.87

0.91

1.49

0.61

1.93

1.48

0.52

1.21

2014

Dropped out

Dong Thap

1.79

7.03

1.61

24.26

89.08

0.00

1.86

1.84

1.94

1.73

1.97

1.23

1.14

1.12

2.03

3.90

1.85

2009

0.52

0.00

0.50

0.56

0.26

0.43

0.57

0.00

0.20

0.71

0.58

1.06

0.50

2014

Never attended

Table 2.42: Attendance status of primary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

93.64

89.85

93.92

62.09

10.49

86.07

88.28

100.00

93.93

93.24

94.52

94.17

93.04

89.42

93.72

95.84

95.42

92.73

93.58

2009

94.97

92.19

69.35

83.33

95.85

94.22

96.45

95.38

94.38

93.50

93.96

93.62

96.68

96.55

94.87

2014

Attending

An Giang

3.11

2.23

3.10

4.03

0.00

8.23

4.26

0.00

2.98

3.38

2.32

2.76

3.41

8.19

4.08

1.62

1.35

0.87

3.10

2009

3.21

6.71

7.96

16.67

2.66

3.71

2.46

3.12

3.56

4.70

4.91

4.07

1.73

1.38

3.34

2014

Dropped out

3.25

7.92

2.98

33.88

89.51

5.70

7.47

0.00

3.08

3.38

3.15

3.07

3.55

2.39

2.20

2.54

3.23

6.40

3.32

2009

1.81

1.10

22.69

0.00

1.48

2.07

1.09

1.50

2.06

1.80

1.13

2.31

1.59

2.07

1.79

2014

Never attended

Unit: %

In these provinces, the dropout rate at lower secondary schools was generally much higher than that at primary schools, especially for the final grade. In Lao Cai, over 21 per cent of the 14-year-old students dropped out of school in the final grade. The figures for the other provinces were: Dong Thap (23.3 per cent), Dien Bien (23.1 per cent), Kon Tum (24.2 per cent), Ninh Thuan (24.7 per cent), An Giang (27.9 per cent) and Gia Lai (32.5 per cent). On average, one or two out of every five 14-year-olds dropped out of lower secondary school. The lower secondary school dropout rate for 14-year-olds was higher in 2014 than in 2009 in 4 provinces: Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Gia Lai. All 4 provinces are poor and are located in mountainous areas. The difference was most evident among ethnic minority children, children from migrant families, and children from rural areas. Among the children of lower secondary school age (see Tables 2.43 and 2.44), the children in Gia Lai had the lowest attendance rate (79.1 per cent). This low attendance rate was due to the high dropout rate (16.2 per cent). The dropout rate at lower secondary schools was high for all the ethnic groups in this province except the Kinh. The figure for the Mong was 32.4 per cent, and the figure for the Other group was 28.0 per cent. Of all the provinces, An Giang had the highest lower secondary school dropout rate for the Kinh (15.2 per cent). The figure for the Khmer was 33.7 per cent, and Other accounted for 37.7 per cent, the highest rate in all of the provinces. In Lao Cai, 10.5 per cent of the secondary school age children in rural areas had dropped out. This rate was 17 times higher than the rate for urban areas. In Dien Bien, 16.9 per cent of the Mong children of lower secondary school age and 10.5 per cent of the children from the other ethnic minority groups had dropped out, but only 1.8 per cent of the Kinh children of the same age had dropped out. In Lao Cai, 13.9 per cent of the Mong children and 0.4 per cent of the Kinh children of lower secondary school age had dropped out. 8.5 per cent of the Mong children of lower secondary school age in Dien Bien and 6.0 per cent of the children of the same age in Lao Cai had never attended school. There was an obvious gender disparity in Dien Bien, where 8.2 per cent of the girls and only 2.1 per cent of the boys of lower secondary school age had never attended school. In Ninh Thuan, 17.3 per cent of the children of lower secondary school age in rural areas and 12.9 per cent of the children in urban areas had dropped out. In Gia Lai, 19.0 per cent of the children of lower secondary school age in rural areas and 7.8 per cent of the children in urban areas had dropped out. The figures for Kon Tum were 15.8 per cent and 4.4 per cent respectively.

122

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

123

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

87.73

91.31

93.40

84.46

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

8.82

69.83

89.38

74.50

89.20

Disabled

Partially disabled

No disability

Yes

76.56

92.41

Urban

Other

89.51

Female

58.67

88.28

Male

Mong

82.43

61.39

87.75

Khmer

91.66

90.19

94.65

Muong

88.87

Total

92.16

86.36

81.36

71.44

75.55

94.23

92.23

93.93

93.83

90.90

94.74

92.53

91.48

84.60

91.80

95.00

96.46

91.99

2014

Attending

2009

9.17

23.06

9.40

14.40

8.72

18.77

20.76

32.37

8.91

13.02

6.00

7.86

10.37

6.71

8.70

10.19

15.77

10.55

6.74

3.87

9.47

2009

6.78

12.66

15.28

17.02

22.38

5.45

6.71

5.41

5.64

7.81

4.79

6.39

7.49

14.06

7.10

4.06

2.70

6.95

2014

Dropped out

Viet Nam

1.63

2.44

1.23

15.77

82.46

4.67

20.57

6.24

0.90

2.52

0.60

0.84

1.90

0.88

1.79

1.53

1.81

1.69

1.61

1.48

1.65

1.06

0.98

3.37

11.53

2.07

0.32

1.06

0.67

0.53

1.28

0.48

1.08

1.03

1.34

1.10

0.94

0.84

1.05

2014

Never attended 2009

82.45

90.35

83.11

64.78

4.96

81.03

66.18

96.63

93.04

91.12

96.27

80.31

94.38

79.03

85.83

74.38

82.19

85.37

88.97

82.54

87.99

95.92

87.67

80.11

100.00

89.89

99.62

86.28

99.39

86.47

89.71

75.20

90.25

91.47

94.66

88.15

2014

Attending 2009

12.86

5.66

12.66

18.97

6.41

15.09

22.40

3.37

5.31

7.63

3.18

14.35

4.42

14.41

11.24

20.16

13.05

10.61

6.62

12.78

2009

9.22

4.08

10.79

13.87

0.00

8.17

0.38

10.54

0.61

10.23

8.09

21.58

7.12

5.37

3.44

9.12

2014

Dropped out

Lao Cai

4.69

3.99

4.23

16.24

88.63

3.88

11.42

0.00

1.66

1.25

0.54

5.34

1.20

6.56

2.92

5.46

4.76

4.03

4.41

4.68

2009

2.78

0.00

1.54

6.02

0.00

1.94

0.00

3.18

0.00

3.30

2.20

3.22

2.63

3.17

1.90

2.73

2014

Never attended

Table 2.43: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

75.52

59.33

75.59

57.36

29.11

66.02

61.55

100.00

85.76

91.09

98.16

72.83

95.24

66.56

83.01

67.87

74.11

77.38

81.82

75.24

83.92

77.61

85.45

74.61

100.00

93.65

100.00

97.71

82.56

96.62

76.32

90.78

68.60

85.98

86.16

93.59

83.84

2014

Attending 2009

12.86

16.52

12.86

16.70

9.12

19.32

15.67

0.00

11.79

8.91

1.58

14.04

3.67

15.12

10.95

19.48

13.63

10.99

7.38

12.92

2009

11.11

10.52

10.50

16.89

0.00

5.08

0.00

1.76

11.93

2.71

15.44

7.08

23.08

9.95

7.81

4.09

11.10

2014

Dropped out

Dien Bien

11.63

24.14

11.55

25.94

61.77

14.66

22.78

0.00

2.45

0.00

0.25

13.14

1.09

18.32

6.04

12.65

12.25

11.63

10.79

11.84

2008

4.97

11.87

4.06

8.50

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.53

5.50

0.67

8.23

2.13

8.32

4.07

6.03

2.32

5.06

2013

Never attended

Unit: %

124

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

76.40

81.31

77.41

100.00

Khmer

87.11

100.00

Muong

Yes

100.00

Thai

76.92

85.57

Tay

83.93

No disability

80.19

Kinh

79.89

63.29

72.90

Rural

84.01

Partially disabled

84.04

Urban

87.41

0.00

80.21

Female

75.86

Disabled

73.16

Male

70.42

78.98

74.31

66.43

64.69

73.16

85.32

Other

81.45

93.07

100.00

87.00

81.22

2014

Mong

76.52

Total

2009

Attending

18.17

11.86

18.19

14.21

8.56

20.91

0.00

14.43

17.24

20.32

13.49

15.02

20.91

27.98

21.03

13.44

8.08

18.10

2009

15.71

22.59

19.92

0.00

14.30

17.27

12.93

10.38

20.62

24.66

18.63

12.36

5.23

15.87

2014

Dropped out

Ninh Thuan

5.43

1.03

4.89

22.50

91.44

14.40

0.00

2.57

6.78

2.47

4.77

5.93

5.59

5.80

5.11

4.92

5.38

2009

2.98

0.00

5.78

0.00

1.78

2.84

3.06

2.21

3.51

4.92

2.39

2.31

1.70

2.91

2014

Never attended

84.21

80.47

84.77

57.50

9.51

75.75

82.46

94.87

84.56

95.30

81.58

89.63

87.01

81.44

74.94

82.84

87.36

92.36

84.11

2009

86.18

76.75

79.12

100.00

92.13

89.47

90.35

96.33

82.23

95.09

88.11

84.09

74.21

87.68

88.10

94.45

86.05

2014

Attending

13.97

18.00

13.99

19.65

7.25

21.26

17.10

5.13

15.44

4.37

16.13

9.58

11.45

16.48

23.31

15.20

10.53

6.20

14.08

2009

12.33

17.74

18.39

0.00

7.87

10.53

9.65

3.48

15.77

4.45

10.31

14.39

24.20

10.70

10.17

4.29

12.40

2014

Dropped out

Kon Tum

1.83

1.53

1.24

22.85

83.24

2.99

0.44

0.00

0.33

2.29

0.79

1.54

2.07

1.74

1.96

2.11

1.44

1.82

2009

1.49

5.51

2.49

0.00

0.20

2.01

0.46

1.58

1.51

1.58

1.62

1.73

1.25

1.55

2014

Never attended

Table 2.44: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

77.32

82.26

77.96

51.14

1.95

60.06

67.14

100.00

86.75

86.42

89.82

93.06

72.71

90.52

79.34

75.67

67.52

75.44

81.20

85.62

77.44

2009

79.04

80.93

62.31

67.63

100.00

95.03

75.11

91.42

81.58

76.64

61.63

78.92

85.76

89.79

79.10

2014

Attending

17.34

15.75

17.29

20.73

9.49

29.44

27.92

0.00

13.25

13.58

9.73

6.35

20.90

7.36

15.36

19.13

27.32

19.06

13.78

9.05

17.31

2009

16.16

19.07

28.04

32.37

0.00

4.86

18.98

7.82

15.20

17.29

32.50

16.05

10.12

6.66

16.25

2014

Dropped out

Gia Lai

5.33

1.98

4.76

28.13

88.56

10.50

4.95

0.00

0.44

0.59

6.39

2.12

5.31

5.20

5.16

5.50

5.02

5.33

5.25

2009

4.80

0.00

9.65

0.00

0.10

5.91

0.76

3.22

6.07

5.87

5.03

4.12

3.55

4.65

2014

Never attended

Unit: %

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

125

Migrant

Disability

Ethnicity

Urban/rural

Gender

Age

82.99

89.40

90.97

91.34

85.05

90.30

68.16

100.00

Male

Female

Urban

Rural

Kinh

Tay

Thai

92.25

90.46

No disability

83.44

Partially disabled

73.93

13.18

Disabled

Yes

90.76

Other

Mong

25.56

89.20

Khmer

92.70

100.00

96.15

Muong

90.15

Total

2009

95.40

90.03

94.12

100.00

94.81

88.90

96.16

95.38

94.24

87.79

96.78

96.65

97.83

94.78

2014

Attending

7.04

24.69

9.10

8.12

5.18

8.52

66.92

0.00

31.84

8.94

13.60

8.01

8.44

9.64

16.06

9.92

6.55

3.32

9.07

2009

4.23

9.09

5.88

0.00

4.73

9.50

3.68

4.35

5.18

11.24

3.05

3.15

1.76

4.79

2014

Dropped out

HCMC

0.71

1.38

0.44

8.44

81.64

0.72

7.53

0.00

0.77

1.35

0.65

0.59

0.96

0.88

0.75

0.52

0.78

2009

0.37

0.88

0.00

0.46

1.59

0.16

0.27

0.58

0.97

0.17

0.19

0.41

0.43

2014

Never attended

80.72

67.19

81.00

57.78

8.82

96.61

27.40

80.57

79.27

87.83

82.64

78.75

68.00

78.24

84.21

92.46

80.58

2009

88.83

88.44

88.83

88.85

88.69

90.30

87.53

75.60

88.61

92.22

98.61

88.83

2014

Attending

17.77

28.36

17.83

24.49

5.74

3.39

72.60

17.89

19.19

10.66

16.02

19.54

29.81

20.35

14.43

6.36

17.88

2009

10.66

7.67

10.61

10.68

10.21

9.29

11.77

23.30

10.74

7.26

1.39

10.61

2014

Dropped out

Dong Thap

1.51

4.45

1.17

17.72

85.44

0.00

1.54

1.51

1.35

1.71

2.19

1.41

1.36

1.17

1.54

2009

0.51

3.90

0.57

0.46

1.11

0.42

0.70

1.09

0.65

0.52

0.00

0.57

2014

Never attended

73.37

45.15

2.66

66.09

62.47

75.35

100.00

73.66

70.60

80.03

74.28

71.90

59.64

68.62

78.26

86.15

73.06

2009

73.26

81.67

78.26

34.44

64.65

83.46

79.17

87.89

83.50

79.58

70.84

79.62

86.01

90.10

81.59

2014

Attending

55.02

Table 2.45: Attendance status of lower secondary school age children by province in 2009 and 2014

23.99

37.45

24.15

24.63

14.50

29.38

28.92

24.65

0.00

23.84

26.41

17.70

23.31

24.92

36.98

28.48

19.13

11.54

24.14

2009

16.39

19.49

37.66

33.75

15.23

18.37

11.47

14.59

18.42

27.95

17.53

12.43

7.83

16.45

2014

Dropped out

An Giang

2.75

7.54

2.48

30.22

82.85

4.53

8.61

0.00

2.50

2.99

2.27

2.41

3.18

3.39

2.90

2.61

2.31

2.80

2009

1.95

2.25

27.89

1.60

1.31

2.46

0.64

1.91

2.00

1.21

2.85

1.57

2.06

1.95

2014

Never attended

Unit: %

126

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

11.94

5.52

Official age for grade +1 (%)

Overage

7,173,488

1.59

4.14

83.28

10.98

2014

61,697

9.46

17.94

66.08

6.52

2009

64,583

1.26

3.65

93.55

1.53

2014

Lao Cai

54,591

15.92

19.11

57.02

7.95

2009

61,496

2.57

8.17

84.07

5.20

2014

Dien Bien

56,510

9.73

15.79

70.59

3.89

2009

53,316

2.53

7.47

77.70

12.31

2014

Ninh Thuan

50,052

9.86

16.47

72.26

1.41

2009

14.66

5.97

Official age for grade +1 (%)

Overage

2.28

7.09

82.14

8.48

2013

5,519,553 4,967,256

76.96

Official age for grade (%)

Total number of children in lower secondary schools

2.42

Underage (%)

2008

Viet Nam

45,318

12.05

20.37

62.56

5.02

2008

43,300

3.49

9.21

86.42

0.87

2013

Lao Cai

35,161

21.73

22.15

50.38

5.74

2008

37,291

5.29

15.12

76.10

3.49

2013

Dien Bien

40,280

9.63

20.44

68.37

1.55

2008

35,155

3.21

13.02

74.94

8.83

2013

Ninh Thuan

34,330

13.16

20.34

65.50

0.99

35,439

4.00

11.81

77.16

7.02

2013

Kon Tum 2008

16.41

21.22

61.44

0.93

2009

5.37

9.53

80.07

5.04

2014

Gia Lai

2.10

5.68

91.15

1.07

2009

0.80

1.51

87.61

10.07

2014

HCMC

5.77

14.35

78.32

1.56

2009

1.67

5.66

79.71

12.96

2014

Dong Thap

8.31

18.56

71.23

1.90

2009

1.65

6.75

75.02

16.58

2014

An Giang

86,492

12.66

21.66

65.18

0.50

2008

3.86

9.72

85.82

0.59

2008

0.62

2.42

88.75

8.21

2013

HCMC

88,490 322,306 369,910

6.16

11.43

79.08

3.33

2013

Gia Lai

94,023

5.09

15.42

78.89

0.61

2008

7.60

18.57

72.82

1.01

2008

2.61

10.71

75.39

11.29

2013

An Giang

93,254 106,242 104,369

2.31

7.78

82.86

7.04

2013

Dong Thap

52,470 146,658 149,237 428,996 547,495 130,245 136,018 166,082 179,141

2.48

6.87

80.94

9.71

2014

Kon Tum

Table 2.47: Overage in lower secondary schools by province in 2009 and 2014

6,779,518

78.61

Official age for grade (%)

Total number of children in primary schools

3.93

Underage (%)

2009

Viet Nam

Table 2. 46: Overage in primary schools by province in 2009 and 2014

Tables 2.46 and 2.47 present the overage situation in the provinces.

Figure 2.37: Overage at primary and lower secondary schools by province in 2009 and 2014 Unit: % 21.7

16.4

15.9 13.2

12.1 9.7

9.5 6.0

5.5 1.6

9.9

9.6

8.3 5.4

5.3 2.3

Viet Nam

3.5

2.6

1.3 Lao Cai

Overage at primary schools 2009

12.7

2.5

3.2

6.2

5.8

4.0

Ninh Thuan

2.5

2.1

Overage at primary schools 2014

According to the 2014 Population and Housing Census, four of the eight provinces had a higher percentage of overage primary school students than the national average (1.6 per cent). The two provinces that had an overage rate similar to the national average were Dong Thap (1.7 per cent) and An Giang (1.6 per cent), and the two provinces that had an overage rate that was lower than the national average were Lao Cai (1.3 per cent) and HCMC (0.8 per cent). Gia Lai had the highest percentage of overage students (5.4 per cent), 3 times the national average. The situation was worse at lower secondary schools, where in six of the eight provinces the percentage of overage lower secondary school students was higher than the national average (2.3 per cent). The percentage in Dong Thap was 2.3 per cent, and in HCMC it was 0.6 per cent. Gia Lai was again the province with the

Kon Tum

5.1

3.9 0.8

Ä?ien Bien

7.6

Gia Lai

HCMC

Overage at lower secondary schools 2009

0.6

1.7

2.3

Ä?ong Thap

1.7

2.6

An Giang

Overage at lower secondary schools 2014

highest percentage of overage lower secondary school students (6.2 per cent), nearly 3 times the national average. Dien Bien also had a considerably high percentage (5.3 per cent). Of the 8 provinces, HCMC had the lowest overage rates for both primary and lower secondary schools. Of course, the severity of overage depended not just on the percentage of overage children, but also on how many years older these children were. A fieldwork visit in early 2016 revealed that overage at school was one of the factors that discouraged students from staying in school. It made them drop out and become out-of-school children.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

127

2.7. Summary of the findings This section reports the key findings related to 5-14-yearold OOSC based on data from the 2009 Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey:

2014 was 2.51 per cent (which is equivalent to 180,521 children), a decrease of 1.5 per cent compared to 2009 (4 per cent).

1) The number of 5-14-year-old children in Viet Nam decreased from 14.2 million to 14.1 million over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, 1.5 million of which were 5 years old, 7.2 million were 6-10 years old and 5.4 million were 11-14 years old. 2) The attendance rate of 5-year-old pre-primary and primary school children in 2014 was 93.3 per cent, an increase of 6 percentage points compared to 2009 (87.8 per cent). The number of 5-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 99,496, which accounted for 6.7 per cent of the total group population and was 50 per cent less than in 2009 (12.2 per cent).

4) The percentage of 11-14-year-old children attending school in 2014 was 91.95 per cent. 89.2 per cent attended lower secondary school and 2.8 per cent attended primary school. The school attendance rate for 11-14-year-old children in 2014 increased by 2.8 per cent compared to 2009 (88.8 per cent). The percentage of children attending lower secondary school increased by 6.3 per cent compared to 2009 (82.9 per cent), and the percentage of children attending primary school reduced by 3.1 per cent compared to 2009 (5.9 per cent). The percentage of 11-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 8.1 per cent (which is equivalent to 435,717 children), onethird less than in 2009 (11.2 per cent)

3) The school attendance rate of 6-10-year-old children at primary and secondary schools in 2014 was 97.5 per cent, a 1.5 per cent increase compared to 2009 (96.0 per cent). The percentage of 11-14-year-old OOSC in

5) The total number of 5-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 715,412, 36.5 per cent less than the 1,127,345 OOSC in 2009. The 5-year-old group experienced the greatest decrease in the percentage of OOSC (43.6 per cent).

Table 2.48: The number of out-of-school children in 2009 and 2014 OOSC (thousands) Boys

% of reduction in 2014 compared to 2009

Girls

Total Boys

2009 Dimension 1: Pre-primary school children (age 5)

128

2014

2009

2014

2009

Girls

Total

2014

92.4

52.1

83.5

47.1

175.8

99.2

43.6

Dimension 2: Primary school children

136.3

94.6

126.3

85.9

262.6

180.5

30.6

32.0

31.3

Dimension 3: Lower secondary school children

377.7

238.1

311.2

197.6

688.8

435.7

37.0

36.5

36.7

Total (all 3 Dimensions)

606.4

384.9

521.0

330.5

1,127.3

715.4

36.5

36.6

36.5

Total (Dimensions 2+3)

514.0

332.8

437.5

283.5

951.5

616.2

35.3

35.2

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

6) The percentage of children who attended but subsequently dropped out decreased slightly over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, from 12.6 per cent to 9.7 per cent. The dropout rate deceased for all the age groups, but it increased dramatically with age. While in 2009 nearly 16 per cent of the 14-year-old children (those in the last grade of lower secondary school) dropped out, in 2014 this figure fell to 14.1 per cent, which was still much higher than the rates for the younger children. The dropout rate for the 17-year-olds (those in the final grade of upper secondary school) was lower in 2014 than in 2009. However, it was still double the lower secondary school rate (39.2 per cent in 2009 and 37.4 per cent in 2014). 7) The percentage of 5-17-year-old children who had never attended school decreased by almost half, from 2.6 per cent in 2009 to 1.5 per cent in 2014. Although the percentage of 5-17-year-old Mong and Khmer children who had never attended school fell by half, these two ethnic minority groups still had the highest percentage of 5-17-year-old children who had never attended school, higher the than other ethnic minority groups. The Mong had the highest percentage: 23.0 per cent in 2009 and 12.0 per cent in 2014. 8) Overage attendance reduced significantly over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014. The overage attendance rate at primary schools decreased from 5.5 per cent in 2009 to 1.6 per cent in 2014, and at lower secondary schools it decreased from 6 per cent to 2.3 per cent. Gia Lai and Dien Bien had the highest overage attendance rates. 9) Over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, the percentage of OOSC fell dramatically in rural areas. However, except for the 5-year-old OOSC (whose rate did not change much), the out-of-school rates in rural areas were still higher than in urban areas, and the discrepancy increased with age. In 2014, the percentage of primary school age OOSC was 1.5 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and the percentage of lower secondary school age OOSC was 1.7 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas. 10) There were remarkable differences in the OOSC rates in the various regions, and the disparities increased with age. In 2014, the Mekong Delta had the highest percentage of 5-year-old OOSC (14.7 per cent), about 6 times the percentage of OOSC in the Red River Delta, which had the lowest OOSC rate (2.5 per cent). The Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary and lower secondary school age (primary: 4.2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively, and lower secondary:

14.0 per cent and 12.9 per cent respectively). The Red River Delta had the lowest percentage of OOSC of primary and lower secondary school age (0.8 per cent and 2 per cent respectively). The percentage of OOSC of primary school age was 5 times higher in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands than in the Red River Delta, and the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age was 6-7 times higher in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands than in the Red River Delta. 11) There was very little gender disparity in the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC and the percentage of OOSC of primary school age in both 2009 and 2014. Disparity begins to show in the OOSC rates for children of secondary school age (11.77 per cent of the boys and 10.5 per cent of girls in 2009, and 8.6 per cent of the boys and 7.5 per cent of the girls in 2014).

There was a gender gap in the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary age in every region, where boys had less schooling opportunities than girls, except in the mountainous Northern Midlands.

Among the ethnic minorities, boys were often more disadvantaged than girls, except for the Mong boys. Despite improvements over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, Mong girls still had fewer opportunities to go to school than boys, especially Mong girls of lower secondary school age. The primary ANAR GPI of Mong girls was 0.85 per cent and the lower secondary ANAR GPI of Mong girls was only 0.56 per cent. The figures increased to 0.95 per cent and 0.79 per cent respectively in 2014. In 2014, the lower secondary attendance at the right age for Mong girls was 52.65 per cent, double what it was 2009 (24.4 per cent) but still lower than the rate for Mong boys in 2014 (66.7 per cent).

Gender disparity among migrant girls of lower secondary school age decreased over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, but it is not yet clear if this improvement will last. The GPI of migrant children of lower secondary school age increased from 0.95 in 2009 to the gender parity limit of 0.97 in 2014, which means migrant girls of lower secondary school age were no longer more disadvantaged than migrant boys the same age in 2014. However, as the GPI merely reached the gender parity limit, this newlyestablished equality could easily be lost.

There was gender disparity among children of lower secondary school age who were attending primary school. The report found that in every single disaggregated group studied, a higher percentage of boys than girls of lower REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

129

secondary school age remained in primary school in both 2009 and 2014. This clearly shows that boys made the transition from primary to lower secondary school more slowly than girls. 12) The percentage of OOSC among ethnic minority children in all three age groups was significantly lower in 2014 than in 2009 (one-third lower for the Khmer, more than one-half lower for the 5-year-old Mong and those of primary school age, and about one-third lower for both the Khmer and the Mong of lower secondary school age). There was a great disparity in the OOSC rates for the different ethnic minority groups in all three age groups. The OOSC rates for the Khmer and the Mong were highest in all three age groups. Compared to the rates for the Kinh, they were 3-4 times higher for the 5-year-olds, 4-5 times higher for the children of primary school age, and 4 times higher for the children of lower secondary school age. 13) Despite some improvement over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, there was disparity in the rates for migrants and non-migrants. Migrants consistently had worse OOSC rates than non-migrants, and the difference increased with age. In 2014, children from migrant families had a higher OOSC rate than those from non-migrant families. It was 1.2 times higher for 5-year-olds, 1.6 times higher for the children of primary school age, and 1.7 times higher for the children of lower secondary school age. 14) There was large disparity in the percentage of OOSC from the poorest households and those from the richest households, and the difference increased with age. The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC from the poorest households was 3 times higher than the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC from the richest households. The percentage of OOSC of primary school age from the poorest households was 5.5 times higher than the percentage of OOSC from the richest households, and the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age from the poorest households was 10 times higher than the percentage of OOSC from the richest households. 15) A cross analysis of residential location (urban or rural) with other characteristics showed that:

130

In the mountainous Northern Midlands, the percentage of 5-year-old OOSC was 3.3 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas (5.3 per cent and. 1.6 per cent respectively). It is noteworthy that the percentage of 5-year-old Khmer OOSC was significantly higher in urban areas than in rural areas (33.5 per cent and 19.8 per cent respectively). This shows that 5-year-old Khmer children in urban areas were no

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

more likely to attend school than their peers in rural areas. 5-year-old migrants in rural areas were 1.6 times more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. Children of primary and lower secondary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in all regions, especially children in the rural parts of the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands. This is shown by the fact that the percentage of OOSC in rural areas in the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands was higher than the percentage in urban areas, both among children of primary school age (2.9 and 1.5 times higher respectively) and among children of lower secondary school age (3.8 and 2.3 times higher respectively), and these rates were higher than those in the other regions. Ethnic minority children of primary and lower secondary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. The Khmer and the Mong had the highest percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age in both urban and rural areas compared to the other ethnic groups (the Khmer: 27.2 per cent and 23.9 per cent respectively; the Mong: 23.6 per cent and 28.8 per cent respectively). 16) A cross analysis of income quintiles with other characteristics showed that: Five-year-olds from the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile in every region except the Red River Delta, including the most disadvantaged in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands. The Khmer and the Mong from the poorest quintile had the highest percentage of 5-year-old OOSC (27.1 per cent and 15.7 respectively), while there were no 5-yearolds from the richest quintile who did not attend school. The 5-year-old Kinh children from the poorest quintile were 3.5 times more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile. Children of primary and lower secondary school age from the poorest quintile were more disadvantaged than their peers from the richest quintile in every region, most notably the Central Highlands, followed by the mountainous Northern Midlands, and the disparity was greater among children of lower secondary school age. The poorest of the Mong had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary and lower secondary school age (10.6 per cent and 29 per cent respectively), while in the richest group, all the children of primary school age were enroled in school. The poorest of the Khmer had the same percentage of lower secondary

school age OOSC as the Mong (29 per cent), but the richest Khmer also had children of lower secondary school age who did not attend school (13.1 per cent). 17) The report shows great differences in the 8 selected provinces.

In 2014, Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Ho Chi Minh City had higher rates of attendance for 5-year-old children than the other provinces.

The number of ethnic minorities may be a factor for the disparity, but this was not always the case. An Giang and Dong Thap had the lowest percentage of ethnic minorities, but they often had the worst attendance rates as well, which is reflected in the lowest percentage of 5-year-old children who attended school. The 5 provinces that made great improvement in getting 5-year-old children to attend school over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 were Dien Bien, Lao Cai, Gia Lai, HCMC and An Giang. The situation in Ninh Thuan did not improve much. The attendance rates of 5-year-old children in Kon Tum and Dong Thap remained the same. During a field visit in Dong Thap, the report writing team made an observation which could partly explain this situation. Some children from migrant families who came to Dong Thap to work at industrial parks did not attend school. Those children were included in the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey, but they were not included in the survey about the popularisation of education that was conducted by the Dong Thap Department of Education and Training, which produced a lower attendance rate for the 5-year-old children in Dong Thap. The percentage of children who attended school could even surpass 100 per cent as children from migrant families were included in the numerator but not counted in the denominator. Gia Lai had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age in 2014, and An Giang had the second-highest percentage of OOSC of primary school age in 2014. HCMC and Dong Thap had the lowest OOSC rates for children of primary school age, lower than the national average. The rates for the other provinces were all higher than the national average. The

percentage of OOSC of primary school age declined greatly over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 in Dien Bien (by three times), Lao Cai (by 2.6 times), Gia Lai and Ninh Thuan (by nearly two times). In 2014, the lower secondary school attendance rates showed improvement in all 8 provinces, but they were still lower than the primary school attendance rates. HCMC had the highest lower secondary school attendance rate, higher than the national average but still lower that its primary school attendance rate. All other provinces scored lower than the national average. Gia Lai had the lowest lower secondary school attendance rate of the 8 provinces, followed by Ninh Thuan. Attendance rates of children of lower secondary school age improved over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 in most of the provinces. The attendance rates in Dien Bien, Dong Thap and An Giang improved greatly, but there was little progress in Kon Tum and Gia Lai. Gia Lai had the highest OOSC rate for children of lower secondary school age in 2014, followed by Ninh Thuan and An Giang. HCMC had the lowest OOSC rate for children of lower secondary school age, lower than the national average (8.1 per cent). The rates in the other provinces were all higher than the national average. The percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age decreased substantially over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014 in HCMC (by half), Dong Thap (by nearly half), Dien Bien, An Giang and Lao Cai significantly. The overage situation varied significantly. On average, overage at both primary and lower secondary schools was lower in 2014 than in 2009. It fell from 6 per cent to about 2 per cent. By disaggregating the statistics into provinces, however, one finds that overage attendance rates at primary and lower secondary schools were much higher than the national average in more than half of the studied provinces. In Gia Lai, the percentage of overage children at both primary and lower secondary schools was higher than in the other 7 provinces, followed by Dien Bien (lower secondary only). Ho Chi Minh City had the lowest percentage of overage students at both primary and lower secondary schools.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

131

132

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

CHAPTER 3

BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS This chapter studies the barriers and bottlenecks that caused the children specified in Chapter 2 to be excluded from education. Barriers existed on both sides and they were intimately related: The demand side of education includes the children themselves and their parents, and the suppy side includes the providers of education services and their relationship with other stakeholders (e.g. communities with different social norms) and agencies that manage the socio-economic development process at all levels. The analyses were based on the results of recent research and surveys on education in Viet Nam such as the 2014 Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey (VHLSS) conducted by the General Statistics Office, the 2012 Urban Poverty Survey in Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City, the 2015 Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai, as well as field surveys in 6 provinces: Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang (hereinafter

referred to as the 6 surveyed provinces). The updated analytical results show that the barriers mentioned in MOETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2013 Report on Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam country study still remain, although perhaps to a lesser degree or on a smaller scale. The policies issued since 2010 have had an impact and have led to a reduction in the number of OOSC. At the same time, it is necessary to address the limitations of those policies and strengthen the effectiveness of their implementation i in order to minimise the number of OOSC in the future. In this chapter, each barrier group is analysed in connection with current policies and proposed policies as well as measures in the coming period in the context of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

133

3.1 Economic barriers on the demand side of education 3.1.1. Status Economic barriers are associated with poverty, economic costs related to education, the opportunity costs of child labour, migration and the disruption of household livelihoods due to climate change.

The issue of concern is the affordability of the indirect costs of education. Poverty has decreased over the years as the Government continues to improve and supplement policies that support children from poor households (those at or below the poverty threshold), but poverty remains the main economic barrier that prevents children from going to school. Poor households, near-poor households and disadvantaged households did not have enough money for indirect costs (e.g. student activities, class funds, uniforms, accommodation and travel) despite the fact that there were programmes that offered tuition fee support or tuition exemption. According to the different rounds of VHLSS conducted by the GSO during 2002 and 2014, the percentage of communes that had children of primary, lower secondary or upper secondary school age who had dropped out or were not enroled due to economic hardship/unaffordable costs fell from 73-78 per cent in the 2001-2002 school year to 6062 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 53-58 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year. However, in the 2013-2014 school year, over 50 per cent of the communes nationwide still had OOSC of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary school age who had dropped out or did not go to school due to poverty. The VHLSS results also show that the percentage of the population from the poorest income quintile that is 15 years old or older and has never attended school has declined over the years, from 18.0 per cent in 2006 to 15.5 in 2010 and to 15.2 in 2014, but these rates were still 12 times higher than those for the riches income quintile (1.2 per cent in 2014). Survey results in the 6 provinces also ranked poverty as the biggest barrier preventing children from attending school. The poverty barrier was greater for economically disadvantaged and remote areas, which had higher poverty rates than other areas, 134

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

especially ethnic minorities living in these areas. An analysis of the data from the 2014 VHLSS showed that the OOSC rate was highest for the 20 per cent of the population from the lowest income quintile, especially the ethnic minorities. Child labour continues to be the second-largest economic barrier preventing children from attending school. As a child becomes older, the barrier becomes increasingly difficult to overcome. According to the 2014 VHLSS, â&#x20AC;&#x153;I have to work to support my familyâ&#x20AC;? was the main reason given by children of lower secondary school age who had dropped out of or had never attended school. The number of communes with children who had dropped out fell from 26 per cent in the 2003-2004 school year to 25 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 21 per cent in the 20132014 school year, but in the 2013-2014 school year, one-fifth of the communes nationwide still had children who had dropped out or had never enroled because they had to work at an early age. However, in the mountainous Northern Midlands and in the communes covered under Programme 135, the percentage of children of lower secondary school age who had dropped out or had never enroled because they had entered the workforce early increased over the years (in the mountainous Northern Midlands from 26.7 per cent in the 2005-2006 school year to 31.4 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year, and in the communes covered under Programme 135 from 31.7 per cent in 2005-2006 school year to 34.2 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year). According to the 2012 National Survey on Child Labour, the number of 5-17-year-old children who were involved in some type of work was 2.83 million (16.7 per cent of the 5-17-year children in Viet Nam), 1,754,000 of them (9.6 per cent of the children in this age group) were child labourers in which girls accounted for 40.2 per cent. More than 912,000 children left school to work (52 per cent), 792,808 children both attended school and worked (45.2 per cent) and 49,112 children had never attended school (2.8 per cent). Boys were more likely to drop out of school to work than girls. However, according to the Centre for Ethnic Minority Education Research at the Viet Nam Institute for Education Science, among the ethnic minorities living in the mountainous and remote areas, girls of lower secondary school age are an important part of the labour force: They do all of the housework, babysit and cook, and they take care of the livestock, do farm work and other production work as well. So the percentage of girls who drop out during lower

secondary school or stop schooling after they complete primary school is always higher than that of boys. This is consistent with the situation of Mong girls as analysed in this report. The surveys in the six provinces in 2016 showed that many children who had to work to support their families often felt exhausted, performed poorly at school, got bored and dropped out. Children who joined their parents for seasonal wage labour also experienced disruption in their schooling. Upon return to their hometown, they fell behind at school and then dropped out permanently. Poverty and child labour are interlinked. Children from poor and disadvantaged households usually have to begin working at an early age. Children who migrate to find jobs still face a barrier to education. The results of the Survey of Urban Poverty conducted in Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City in 2012 revealed that migrant children had less access to education than non-migrant children. The lower secondary NAR for non-migrant children was 98.9 per cent, while that for migrant children was only 93.8 per cent. In addition, children from poor migrant families found it difficult to enrol at public schools. Therefore, more migrant than non-migrant households had to send their children to non-public schools and accept higher costs (18.2 per cent and 10.4 per cent respectively). According to the 2014 VHLSS, in the 2013-2014 school year, 19 per cent of the migrant and 4.6 per cent of the non-migrant children attended non-public schools. Most of these non-migrant children were from high-income families that were able to afford the school fees and the higher indirect costs in schools with a reputation for providing an education that was above-average in terms of quality. According to the 2014 VHLSS, migrant children benefited less from a reduction in or exemption from tuition fees, contributions for school facilities and other costs (costs that made schooling more expensive for such families) compared with nonmigrant children (30 per cent and 43.3 per cent respectively). Results from the surveys in the 6 provinces showed that children who followed their family to work in an industrial zone or to cross the border to find work in Cambodia had to leave school temporarily or drop out permanently. In addition, unstable employment and accommodation for migrant families adversely affected the school attendance of their children. Ho Chi Minh City was the pioneer in implementing a policy designed to keep all the children in the city in school, including migrant children. However, due to educational infrastructure constraints and an increasing number of migrant children over the years, the application of the phased approach to enrolment, migrant children were considered and enrolled after on-migrant children and thus were still at a

disadvantage compared to non-migrant children. Therefore, they were either not enroled during the daytime at formal educational institutions, or, if enroled, they had to study at schools that were far away or they attended a literacy programme. Climate change and natural disasters can be large barriers to education. Climate change and the fact that typhoons, floods and landslides now occur more irregularly, are of greater severity and last longer has caused impact such as the salinisation of the Mekong Delta. Since February 2016, there has been a salinised area located approximately 85 km from the mouth of the Tien River and the mouth of the Hau River, where the salinity rate is higher than 45,000 dS/m, and 4,000 dS/m is considered to be saline intrusion. As a result of typhoons and floods along the Central Coast, particularly in Ha Tinh in October 2016, when about 60,000 students experienced disruption in schooling. Drought in the central provinces and in the Central Highlands15 has caused and will continue to cause heavy damage to agricultural production 15 http://www.tongcucthuyloi.gov.vn/Tin-tuc-Su-kien/Tin-tuc-su-kientong-hop/catid/12/item/2670/xam-nhap-man-vung-dong-bang-song-cuulong--2015 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Typhoons, floods, landslides and particularly climate change occurring earlier and with higher severity have caused salinisation in the Mekong Delta region in 2015-2016 and drought on the Central Coast and in the Central Highlandsâ&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2016 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

135

and life in several rural areas. Survey results from the 6 provinces showed that the damage caused by natural disasters in Lao Cai, An Giang and Dong Thap had adversely affected the schooling of children. Extreme weather patterns and natural disasters resulting from climate change have also had an impact on education and on family economic conditions, sometimes delaying the return of children to school after a disaster. 3.1.2. Current policies and measures A series of policies have been issued since 2010 to assist children in overcoming economic barriers: Universal pre-school education for 5-year-old children Accordingly, allocation of the state budget reflects that priority has been given to ensuring that most 5-year-old children attend school and enjoy full-day schooling. The state provides a lunch allowance for 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children in kindergarten so that they can spend a full-day at a semi-boarding school. (Decision 239/QD-TTg, 9 February 2010.) Tuition fee exemption and support for learning expenses Decree 49/2010/ND-CP (14 May 2010) and Decree 74/2013/NDCP (15 July 2013) amended and supplemented several articles of Decree 49/2010/ND-CP (May 14, 2010) and Decree 86/2015/ ND-CP (2 October 2015). Accordingly, primary school students at public institutions do not have to pay tuition fees. Children in kindergarten, primary school and lower secondary school are exempt from paying tuition fees if they (1) are relatives of people who performed meritorious service for the revolution; (2) are disabled or partially disabled and have economic difficulties; (3) have no source of income according to Decree 136/2013/ND-CP (21 October 2013), which stipulates social support policies for social protection beneficiaries; (4) have parents who belong to poor households according to the stipulations set by the Prime Minister; (5) are children of officers and soldiers currently serving in the armed forces; (6) are nominated students (i.e. students who have been invited to attend an upper secondary education or precollege programme without having to sit for exams); (7) are ethnic minority students at a boarding school; and (8) ethnic minorities from very small ethnic minority groups in areas with difficult or extremely difficult socio-economic conditions. Those who benefit from reduced tuition fees include children in kindergarten and primary and lower secondary school students who are (1) ethnic minorities (but not those from very small ethnic minority groups) in areas with extremely difficult socio-economic conditions; (2) children of cadres who were injured on the job or suffer from an 136

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

occupational disease and therefore receive regular support; and (3) children whose parents belong to a household that is at or below the poverty threshold. The students who receive support to help cover learning expenses include children in kindergarten, primary school and lower secondary school who were orphaned, those whose parents are handicapped or disabled and have economic difficulties, and those whose parents are poor. Cash support Cash support equal to 30 to 100 per cent of the minimum wage (depending on the education level) is given to ethnic minority children from very small ethnic minority groups who are from poor households each month they are in school (Decision 2123 / QD-TTg, 22 November 2010). Rice support Rice is given to primary and lower secondary school students who are studying at semi-boarding ethnic minority schools, public primary schools and lower secondary schools with semi-boarding services in areas with extremely difficult socio-economic conditions, and it is also given to ethnic minority students whose parents or guardians have registered permanent residence in an area with exceptionally difficult socio-economic conditions who are not entitled to a boarding stipend and live so far from school that they cannot go to school and come back home on the same day. They receive 15 kg of rice per student per month for 9 months. (Decision 36/2013/QD-TTg, 18 June 2013). Support for meals and accommodation Support for meals and accommodation is given to semi-boarding students who study at a semi-boarding ethnic minority school in an area with exceptionally difficult socio-economic conditions and also to students at other public primary and lower secondary schools in these areas due to the fact that students sometimes live far away from their school, the roads are unpaved, transportation is difficult and they are unable to go to school and return home on the same day (Decision 85/2010/QD-TTg, 21 December 2010). Poverty reduction through the 2012-2015 National Targeted Programme for Sustainable Poverty Reduction (Decision 551/QÄ?TTg, 4 April 2013) The programme aims to (1) improve the living conditions of the poor, giving priority to the poor who are from an ethnic minority group; (2) comprehensively transform poverty reduction in the poor areas; and (3) close the gaps between urban and rural areas and among the regions, ethnicities and population groups. The

positive outcomes of the programme will help to remove the largest economic barriers to education. Facilitate the education of migrant children in their destination location

Social insurance and protection related to education and OOSC Over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, social insurance programmes and health insurance coverage were maintained. Social protection was ensured in accordance with Decree 136/2013/ND-CP (1 January 2014), which stipulates regulations for social assistance policies in communities on a regular and ad hoc basis and for community-based care and institutional care at social protection facilities and low-income housing. According to this decree, the social support allowance norms (collectively referred to as social assistance norms) are 270,000 VND, which is more than was offered previously, and more people now qualify to receive benefits. As a result of these important policies, especially tuition exemption, subsidies for school materials and lunch at school, many 5-14-year-old children in very difficult circumstances remained in school, which resulted in a lower dropout rate. However, many constraints and problems remain in the implementation of these policies: • “Poverty reduction results are not sustainable and wealth disparities between regions and population groups have not been narrowed, especially in the mountainous Northern Midlands and in the Central Highlands; resources to implement policies and poverty reduction programmes fall short of fast and sustainable poverty reduction requirements; there remain many shortcomings in the mechanisms for coordination, direction and administration at all levels; the potenital of some areas has not been fully maximised because even though much has been decentralised, local authorities are not fully empowered to make all decsions and accountability is unclear; there is overlap in the current poverty reduction policies, they are fragmented and unsystematic, and they fail to truly create links between production, processing and consumption and between

Ho Chi Minh City is a pioneer city in actively introducing policies, guidelines and measures to facilitate the attendance of migrant children at schools in the city. However, other localities have been somewhat passive in the preparation of facilities and schools, so they cannot yet accommodate all of the migrant children.

poor households/areas, scientists and enterprises;” 16 •

Some of the objectives of the Project on Universalisation of Early Childhood Education were not achieved, e.g. the 2010 target to have 100 per cent of the 5-year-old children in disadvantaged areas attend a public school and the 2012 target to have 90 per cent of the ethnic minority children in disadvantaged areas attend fullday schooling. Some communes in upland and ethnic minority areas were still without a kindergarten. By 2012, the plan to subsidise lunch had not been fully implemented, especially in disadvantaged areas. There was a shortage of infrastructure and facilities at preschools, and there was a quality issue. The 2015 target for nutrition was not achieved;

• The level of support offered was not enough to attract children to school, especially lower secondary school students, when economic difficulties or immediate economic benefits had a stronger influence on their decision to remain in or leave school. The lunch subsidy was low, and there was no provision for kitchen utensils, cooks or dining space. Therefore, it was difficult to 16 http://www.molisa.gov.vn/vi/Pages/chitiettin.aspx?IDNews=25513 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

137

prepare lunch for the children. As a result, the children went home for lunch, and only a few came back for the afternoon classes. Providing milk instead of lunch also created problems, especially in multi-grade classes, where 5-year-old children were entitled to receive milk and 3-4-year-old children were not. This caused people to feel bad; • There was delay in the implementation of the policies, for example distribution of the lunch support for 3-5-year-old kindergarten children, the provision of cash assistance to make up for reduction or exemption of tuition fees and support for learning expenses were not done in a timely manner in the right academic year. • Whether support should be in kind or in cash and whether it should be delivered to households or managed by schools requires further consideration so as to overcome shortcomings in administration and to maximise the impact of the support. Some parents may have misused the cash support, and some households did not need the learning materials and textbooks provided by the schools because they already had these items; • According to a recent review conducted by the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, existing shortcomings in social protection work still need to be resolved: There is a lack of social workers, and the professional qualifications of the staff in remote and mountainous areas are limited and fail to meet the increasing requirements. Social assistance policies for disadvantaged groups overlap, and some policies have had adverse effect, causing a moral hazard to the beneficiaries. 3.1.3. Recommended policies and measures Poverty reduction through the implementation of the 2016-2020 National Targeted Programme for Sustainable Poverty Reduction will ensure that household support is linked to educational goals, with a view to narrowing the inequality gap between regions and population groups, especially ethnic minorities, and that it is linked to interventions to minimise the impacts of climate change and enhance the resilience and adaptability of families and communities, especially in the context of the growing influence

138

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

of climate change. In the context of the 2030 Agenda, it is necessary to enhance policy commitments and implementation measures at all levels to bridge the disparity gap that still exists in education, both in terms of access to education and the quality of education for all children. Through the Social Economic Development Planning, and education sector planning and budgeting, it is proposed to ensure that the conditions for achieving the targets of SDG4 on education, are met. Continue to overcome the above constraints in order to effectively implement the following policies: universal pre-school education for 5-year-old children; tuition fee exemptions and support for learning expenses, working towards removal of tuition fees for 5-year old pre-school and lower secondary education; cash support for ethnic minority children from small ethnic groups who are from poor households; rice support for primary and lower secondary school children; food and accommodation allowances for semi-boarding students; the facilitation of education for migrant children in their destination places; and social insurance and social protection policies related to education and OOSC. Continue to remove the economic burden of education (e.g. extra tutoring, and the cost of uniforms and car/motorbike/bicycle parking) for disadvantaged families, and cover their medical expenses so that familes do not have to pay for healthcare with funds that are earmaked for education expenses. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure access to markets, employment opportunities and social protection mechanisms for all of the ethnic groups in Viet Nam. Encourage and support students in various ways and in a manner suitable to the local conditions. Prevent child labour by strengthening the following measures: (1) continue efforts to universalise lower secondary education and learning opportunities, especially for girls; (2) improve support measures that help children who have temporarily dropped out and those who have recently made a transition in order to help them keep up with their classmates and complete their studies; (3) continue to raise awareness in local communities and among parents about the importance of education and the risks related to child labour; and (4) encourage local governments to protect children’s right to an education by limiting the ability of private businesses to hire cheap child labour, which results in children dropping out of school.

3.2. Socio-cultural barriers on the demand side 3.2.1. Status There were still some socio-cultural barriers which prevented children from attending school and learning effectively and which ultimately caused them to stay out of school. These barriers include children not wanting to attend school; a lack of parental care; cultural norms that placed females in a subordinate position to males; and a social bias towards ethnic minorities.

A major issue: Recognition of the long-term value of education is affected by the fact that there are cases where having a higher education does not help secure a better job or avoid unemployment. Poor academic results and lack of interest continue to be barriers to childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schooling, and these barriers are expected to worsen in the future. Having poor academic results at school was still a reason why some students did not want to go to school and subsequently dropped out. The surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016 revealed that some underperforming children could not keep up with the curriculum, especially after the transition from primary to lower secondary school (grade 6), due to the completely new teaching and learning approach they encountered, and some of these children dropped out of school. Poor academic results can be a serious problem for ethnic minority students and students from poor households, because they do not receive support and encouragement from their parents when they do their homework or study. A lack of support from their teachers and having poorlyqualified teachers (compared to teachers in urban and better-off areas) are other reasons some of these students dropped out. Poor learning outcomes experienced by ethnic minority students are also due to a language barrier17 18. They found it more difficult to cope with the length and complexity of the materials/texts in grade 6 because they were very different than what they had experienced in grade 5, and because the teaching and learning methods in lower secondary school differed greatly from those in primary school. At lower secondary schools, each teacher taught one subject, and the students had to take notes and read books in order to understand the material. All this made it difficult

for students to understand the lessons. When they did not understand the lessons, they felt bored in class and eventually dropped out of school. The surveys in the 6 provinces revealed many reasons why children did not want to go to school, e.g. a low level of recognition of the value of education among children and parents; thinking that attending school makes no difference; perceiving that a costly investment in an education could still result in unemployment (because they knew that some of the local people with a higher education had been unable to find a job); being overage and thus feeling ashamed about being in a class with younger students; wanting the immediate benefits of working and making money; not wanting to repeat a class; wanting to play rather than go to school; child marriage; having a disability and not wanting to attend an inclusive school; local customs and stigmas; and feeling demotivated due to poor academic results. In addition, there were several reasons related to the education system (the supply side), e.g. a lack of a stimulating learning environment; bullying; violence; a language barrier that prevented children from understanding and caused them to perform poorly; a failure on the part of teachers and managers to care for underperforming students who were at risk of dropping out; and the poor quality of inclusive education for children with disabilities. These reasons will be further discussed in the following sections of this report. According the 2014 VHLSS, not being able to afford or not wanting to go to school were barriers in over 50 per cent of the communes, and the percentage of children who could not afford or did not want to go to school increased every year. At the primary education level, the percentage of communes with children who could not afford or did not want to go to school increased from 50.3 per cent in the 2001-2002 school year to 58.9 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 61.7 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year; and at the lower secondary level, the percentage of children who could not afford or did not want to go to school increased from 58.2 per cent in the 2001-2002 school year to 67.6 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 72.3 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year. This situation needs attention and improvement in the context of the reform of the education system which requires modernising teaching and learning methods and assessment in ways that will inspire students to want to learn; and persuading families to encourage their children to attend school and study.

17 Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai, page 127, https:// www.unicef.org/vietnam/vi/Designed_Lao_Cai_SitAn-Viet.pdf 18 Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in Ninh Thuan, page 95 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

139

A lack of parental care and attention to children’s education is on the rise. This is one of the major reasons children dropped out of school. Many parents did not recognise the value of an education and preferred for their children to work in order to help support the family. As discussed above, there was a link between parental neglect and poor academic performance. Both contributed to the increase in the dropout rate, particularly among children who had reached an age when their labour was economically valuable. According to the VHLSSs from 2002 to 2014, a lack of parental care was the reason nearly 62.3 per cent of the communes had primary school dropouts and 55.6 per cent of the communes had lower secondary school dropouts. The figures were particularly high in the communes in mountainous and remote areas, and they increased each year. The percentage of communes with primary school dropouts increased from 58.6 per cent in the 2001-2002 school year to 61.5 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 62.3 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year. The percentage of communes with lower secondary school dropouts increased from 52.4 per cent in the 20012002 school year to 55.6 per cent in the 2009-2010 school year and to 55.6 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year. Cultural norms in some ethnic minority communities place women and girls in a subordinate position to men. Due to male domination in some ethnic groups, boys were valued more highly than girls. 19 Surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016 also noted the fact that in large ethnic minority families, the mothers were often illiterate and the daughters did not go to school for long or they dropped out of school and married young. According to the MICS-5 (see Table ED.4), the OOSC rate for children of primary school age whose mothers had no educational qualifications was nearly 10 times higher than the OOSC rate for children of primary school age whose mothers who had at least a primary school education (12.3 per cent and 0.8-1.7 per cent respectively), and the percentage of female OOSC was 1.5 times higher than the percentage of male OOSC (14.5 per cent and 10.6 per cent respectively). The OOSC rate of ethnic minority girls of primary school age was higher than the OOSC rate of ethnic minority boys in the same age group (7.9 per cent and 5.5 per cent respectively). The rates for the children of lower secondary school age were similar (see MICS-5, Table ED.5). Early marriage is a reason why young girls drop out of school in some communities. Surveys in the 6 provinces and the 2015 Situation Analysis of 19 People’s Committee of the Province of Lao Cai & UNICEF, 2016. Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai, Item 5.3, Box 5.4.

140

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Children in Lao Cai showed that early marriage still existed in ethnic minority communities. Girls were pressured to get married early, and as a result they dropped out of school. According to the results of the 2015 Socio-economic Baseline Survey conducted by the Committee of Ethnic Minorities in collaboration with the General Statistics Office, the rate of underage marriage among ethnic minorities was 26.6 per cent. The highest rate of child marriage was among the ethnic minorities living in areas with difficult socio-economic conditions, including the O Dou (73 per cent), the Mong (59.7 per cent), the Xinh Mun (56.3 per cent), the La Ha (52.7 per cent), the Ro Mam (50 per cent) and the Brau (50 per cent). Early marriage was one of the causes of the rise in the number of out-of-school children, especially among those of upper secondary school age. The children in the lower grades who married young were isolated cases and not significant in number. 3.2.2. Current policies and measures •

Classify students at the beginning of the school year in order to be able to provide extra support to weak students;

•

Create a friendly, safe and attractive learning environment;

• Pilot implementation of mother-tongue-based bilingual education in the provinces of Lao Cai, Gia Lai and Tra Vinh that has been ongoing since 2008. The three languages used are: Mong in Lao Cai, Jrai in Gia Lai and Khmer in Tra Vinh; • Use ethnic minority teachers, teachers who know ethnic minority languages, and ethnic minority teaching assistants in areas with many ethnic minorities; • Foster collaboration between schools, families and society with the aim to motivate parents to pay more attention to their children’s education. The measures include: o Promoting awareness of the long-term value of education in communities, especially among parents who have never attended school and parents of ethnic minorities, particularly the Mong and the Khmer, through specific measures, e.g. propagating the longterm value of education and of lifelong learning and thereby changing their perception of education and getting them to allow their children to go to school, and educating them about the advantages of education at continuing education centres when children are not able to access regular fomal schools; o Raising awareness among parents about a child’s right to

birth registration, the rights of children with disabilities, and the right Mong girls have to go to school; o Maintaining regular communication with parents via mobile phones, community networks and the Parent Association in order to inform them of their children’s school performance; find out the reasons for a long absence; reaching out to a child’s family if the child drops out of school; and encourage the parents to attend all the meetings organised by the school so that they understand the requirements related to their children’s studies and can effectively coordinate with the school. •

Present a number of good examples of ethnic minorities who have done well for themselves as a result of having gone to school, and thus contribute to the promotion of education in general and motivate the children of ethnic minorities in particular;

• Implement policies on gender equality. The 2006 Law on Gender Equality stipulates the state’s policies on gender equality, which are meant to ensure gender equality in political and economic spheres and in the family; support and create conditions for women and men to develop their capabilities, have equal opportunities to participate in the development process and enjoy the fruits of development; apply appropriate measures to abolish backwards customs and practices that impede the realisation of gender equality objectives; support programmes that promote gender equality in remote and ethnic minority areas as well as areas with exceptional socio-economic difficulties; support the necessary conditions to increase the gender development index for sectors, fields and localities where the gender development index is lower than the national average; and eliminate all forms of gender discrimination, thus ensuring that women and men have equal rights and obligations in raising a family in an equitable, progressive, happy and sustainable manner; • Implement the project designed to eradicate underage and consanguineous marriage in ethnic minority areas by the year 2025 and encourage these people to return to school. 3.2.3. Recommended policies and measures In the context of the implementation of the 2030 SDG Agenda, it is necessary to ensure a breakthrough in order to substantially eradicate the above-mentioned social and cultural barriers, and to then promote the capacity of children to find, advocate and enjoy equal access to high-quality education. Continue to implement current policies for students with poor

learning outcomes and students who do not want to go to school. MOET always encourages localities to continue to maintain and expand the provision of mother-tongue-based bilingual education. Continue to seriously implement the Ordinance on Population and thereby eradicate the idea that men are more valuable than women, and ensure equal rights and fair assessment for men and women. The following measures should be applied:20 Daughters should be included in the family lineage; the full name of a child should include the family names of both the mother and the father; inheritance rights should be given to all children, male and female, in order to eradictate the idea that a family will not continue if the first child is a girl or if all of the children are girls. In addition, policies that encourage giving birth to girls, e.g. financial support for female babies and exemption from and/or a reduction of school fees for female students, especially in disadvantaged areas, should be adopted. Those who abort a female or put pressure on the third birth to look for a boy should be punished more strictly, including disciplinary action taken against the husband (rather than just focusing on the wife). Continue the implementation of the project designed to eradicate underage and consanguineous marriage in ethnic minority areas by the year 2025. Implement the 2016-2020 Action Plan for Equality in the Education Sector, which was approved by the Minister of Education and Training and is in line with Decision 4996/QDBGDDT (28 October 2016). The overall objective of this plan is to narrow the gender gap in terms of access to, participation in and benefiting from education and training. Specific objectives include narrowing gender inequality, especially among ethnic minorities in disadvantaged areas; integrating gender issues and gender equality into the overall curriculum, the subject-matter curriculum and new general education textbooks; improving the quality of communication about gender equality and gender issues at education management agencies and training institutions, and with parents and the community; strengthening gender-disaggregated statistical data management; and mainstreaming gender in policy formulation, sector planning and budgeting, and the management of the education and training sector. Perform cross-sectoral coordination to reduce the dropout rate among boys and girls who have to work at home or do a parttime job to help support their families and also those who marry underage, and encourage children who have dropped out to return to school. 20 http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/PrintStory.aspx?distribution=17 7&print=true REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

141

3.3. Barriers and bottlenecks on the supply side 3.3.1. Status There were bottlenecks in the supply of education that influenced school enrolment and attendance. They were related to infrastructure, resources, teachers and school management.

Issues of concern: Relevance, inclusiveness and a lack of child-centred approaches.

School facilities and learning environment Barriers in school infrastructure concern the quantity and quality of schools and classrooms and inadequate physical facilities for children with disabilities. At many schools at all levels there was a lack of specialised classrooms (e.g. for music), laboratories (e.g. for chemistry and physics), and equipment for recreation, entertainment and after-school/extracurricular activities, and this affected the quality of education. There was a lack of interest in getting an education among some students; the distance from home to school was discouraging for some; a lack of transportation was an issue for some; and sometimes there was a lack of clean water and sanitation facilities at schools. These barriers had a remarkable impact on schooling opportunities and schooling commitment to the the final grade of each education level, as well as on the learning environment, and thus increased the challenges related to out-of-school children. Schools of all education levels in the remote and mountainous areas did not meet the current requirements in terms of quantity and quality. Over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, many decent schools were built especially in the communes in extremely disadvantaged areas covered under Programme 135,. However, the surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016 showed that school facilities, particularly satellite campuses, were still inadequate in terms of quantity and quality, particularly in the remote and mountainous areas. For big cities like Ho Chi Minh City, where the number of immigrants increases each year, many kindergartens had to share a campus with a primary school, which affected education in terms of scale and quality and made full-day schooling impossible for many. Activities at community learning centres faced numerous difficulties, and non-public schools failed to meet local needs. 142

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Information technology (IT) infrastructure was either missing, in poor condition or technically obsolete. A lack of teaching aids (e.g. equipment and laboratory facilities for biology, chemistry and physics, projectors, musical instruments) resulted in minimal practical training. There was a lack of playgrounds, a lack of indoor and outdoor equipment, facilities, toys and games, especially at the satellite campuses, and infrastructure at preschools was poor. Some schools received more students from industrial zones than they could accommodate properly, while school infrastructure and facilities remained limited and were in poor condition. Some schools had deteriorating facilities and lacked funding for renovation, and when schools were affected by natural disasters and climate change, additional challenges arose. A lack of classrooms for full-day schooling and function rooms was commonplace. Implementation of the 2010-2020 project to develop schools to meet the national standards was progressing slowly. There was a limited admission quota for children who wanted to attend an ethnic minority boarding school. There was a lack of support services for children with disabilities, and some schools were difficult for them to access. In addition to the commonly found barriers, children with disabilities faced other barriers. The conditions at most schools had not improved. They did not have the appropriate infrastructure, function rooms and other facilities for children with disabilities; there were no special schools for children with disabilities; and there were no teachers who had been trained to teach children with intellectual disabilities and help them to integrate. Children with disabilities did not feel motivated to go to school, stay in school and complete school. Although the education sector has advocated inclusive education for children with disabilities and this has been introduced into the teacher training programme at pedagogical schools, not all pedagogical schools nationwide have implemented inclusive education on a regular basis or given it priority. Most graduates from these institutions do not have the knowledge and skills needed to offer inclusive education. Although guidelines are in place to establish the position of inclusive education in the training programmes for teachers and educational administrators, they were just introduced in 2016, and teachers and educational administrators have not been able to play a key role in the creation of an inclusive education environment. Some newly-established provincial resource centres for inclusive education have not yet been fully funcational. Viet Nam currently has about 1.3 million children with disabilities, but they have not yet been included in the plan to universalise education. Special education teachers

and teachers who teach in inclusive schools lack the necessary knowledge and skills to teach children with disabilities. Only a few teachers have received training in inclusive education, some teachers are reluctant to teach children with disabilities, and the quantity and quality of inclusive education teachers and teaching assistants falls short of the demand. Very few teachers and educational administrators have disabilities, and very few have enough empathy and understanding to accept children with disabilities into their school and classroom. There is a lack of a uniform definition of children with disabilities across all sectors, a lack of incentives for both inclusive education teachers and children with disabilities, and absence of strong and systematic cross-sectoral coordination. Distance to school and a lack of means of transportation According to the 2014 VHLSS, distance to school was cited as among most common reason why a student dropped out of school. The first reason was difficult circumstances/too expensive followed by lack of parental attention to a child’s education and children do not have the capacity to learn/do not want to go to school. In the 2013-2014 school year, 10 per cent of the communes nationwide reported there were primary and lower secondary students who had dropped out because they lived too far away from school. In the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands, this occurred in 20-30 per cent of the communes. Distance to school is associated with geographic barriers such as mountains and rivers, especially during the rainy season, when there are many storms. Attending a school that is far away from one’s home, especially in places with difficult terrain during unfavourable weather conditions, often results in long-term absences, which affects a child’s education and can result in a child dropping out of school.21 According to the 2014 VHLSS, the average distance to the nearest primary school was 2.5 km, and the average distance to the nearest lower secondary school was 2.8 km. In remote and mountainous areas, this distance was longer. For example, in the Northwest the distance to the nearest primary and lower secondary school was 3.9 km and 4.8 km respectively, and in the Central Highlands it was 3.1 km and 3.4 km respectively. The situation has hardly improved over the years although the total number of communes that receive special hardship benefits from Programme 135 Phase 3 has reached over 6,091 communes, receiving a total of more than 215 trillion VND from the state budget, the programme with targeted priorities of electricity, roads, schools and healthcare facilities. In addition, many international cooperation programmes support education in Viet Nam, including the Education for Children Project (UNICEF); the Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children Project (PEDC) 21 Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai, Box 5.5

(WB, DFID, AusAID, Norad); the New School Model Project (Viet Nam Escuela Nueva) in Viet Nam (WB); the Lower Secondary Education for the Most Disadvantaged Areas Project (ADB); the Enhancing Access and Quality of Inclusive Education Through Information Technology for Children with Disabilities Project (USAID & CRS); and the School Education Quality Assurance Programme (SEQAP) (WB, DFID, Belgium), which has built 4,650 classrooms for schools in the project areas. According to the 2014 VHLSS, the most common means of transportation to school among primary school students was the bicycle (67.6 per cent in 2014), and this percentage has been increasing over the years. About 25 per cent of the students walked to school, and this percentage has been declining. However, up to 61 per cent of the children in the Northwest still walked to school. A long distance to school for primary and lower secondary school students (especially primary school students), a lack of a means of transportation, challenging road conditions in remote mountainous and island areas,22 and the tendency to merge satellite campuses with their main school sites when re-planning the school network explains why a high number of children were not attending school or had dropped out of primary or lower secondary school. A lack of clean water and sanitation facilities According to the results of research23 conducted by TNS Consultancy and sponsored by UNICEF, there is no direct link between a school having washrooms and toilets (with clean water) and teachers being absent or students being absent or dropping out. However, the research does indicate that having a hand-washing facility and a toilet has a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning as they contribute significantly to ensuring a positive learning environment. When there is a good environment for teaching and learning, the learning outcomes improve, which helps students to be more interested in learning and to not drop out and become OOSC. The surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016 also showed similar results. In all of the provinces except HCMC, few schools had running water, especially in Lao Cai and Kon Tum. This affected the learning environment in general and the boarding activities of students and teachers in particular, especially for girls who had begun menstruate and students with disabilities. Teachers There are too many teachers in some places, not enough in others, and in some cases there are too many teachers for some subjects 22 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Census, 2011 23 TNS-UNICEF, 2011. A national study on the impacts/effects of school sanitation services on the absence rate of children and teachers and the dropout rate in Viet Nam. REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

143

and not enough for others (e.g. too many history teachers and not enough music teachers). The surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016 showed that there was often a shortage of pre-primary and primary school teachers at full-day schools and a shortage of teachers at boarding schools. The number of lower secondary school teachers for each subject was not reasonably provided, resulting in a shortage and a redundancy at the same time, especially for subjects like art, music and foreign languages. A lack of ethnic minority teachers, especially local ethnic minority teachers, was also common in ethnic minority areas. Training for village-based teachers was not of very high quality. There was turn-over and quality issues concerning teachers at private preschools. One of the requirements for the comprehensive restructuring of the education system is the creation of several new employment positions, but increasing the teacher payroll limits has proven to be difficult. There is pressure to rationalise staff in the education sector, though it is important to have consistent understanding about how to do this to and meet the objective requirements of development. Particular attention should be given to new subjects and changes in teaching methods, and the number of students per classroom and the number of classes per school needs to be seriously reviewed and addressed in a timely manner. Concerning teacher competence, there is much room for improvement. Survey results in the 6 provinces confirmed a lack of competence and qualifications in a number of the educational administrators and teachers who did not meet requirements for renovation of education. In general, teachers have improved teaching methods, but they have a long way to go before they will be able to satisfy and inspire their students. Students at Tan Hoa Lower Secondary School in Tan Hoa Commune, Thanh Binh District, Dong Thap Province expressed a desire for their teachers to use IT and visual aids to make lectures more stimulating and interesting. Some teachers were reluctant to teach ethnic minority students or students with disabilities. Their competence and their understanding of inclusive education for ethnic minority students and students with disabilities was very limited, and they require systematic training. Some of the teachers met the training qualification standards but they did not meet the occupational standards, especially those related to pedagogical skills, and there was a great disparity between the teachers in remote and mountainous areas and the teachers in urban areas. Some of the teaching methods used were not suitable for ethnic minority students due to a lack of the necessary modules available 144

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

at teacher training institutions where teachers are taught how to teach students in ethnic minority areas whose mother tongue is not Vietnamese. Policies for teachers should be further improved. Salaries in particular and incentives in general were not in line with what teachers were required to do, and this diminished their enthusiasm, especially when they were in charge of large classes and had a high volume of homework and exams to mark. According to the surveys in the 6 provinces, a follow-up visit in remote areas to encourage students to return to school involved travel expenses and a huge effort on the part of the teachers. However, they were not paid for this effort or reimbursed for their expenses. There were limited incentives for teachers who taught multi-grade classes and classes with children with disabilities. There were no policies concerning the management of boarding facilities at boarding and semi-boarding schools, thus there were no funds to pay for cooks, healthcare workers, guards and managers, and there was no additional renumeration for the homeroom teachers and staff who assumed additional responsibilities and looked after the students at boarding facilities. Financial constraints resulted in limited investment at boarding facilities. Kindergarten teachers had a very heavy workload and there were many children in their multi-grade classes, but they were not treated the same as primary school teachers who taught multi-grade classes. It was difficult to implement rotation schemes for teachers in provinces where there were a high number of extremely disadvantaged communes. In general, the teachers and education managers in remote and mountainous areas which had unfavorable accommodation and teaching conditions need further support in terms of remuneration, allowances (e.g. a travel allowance) and working conditions in order to motivate them to continue their service. In Ho Chi Minh City, teachers at all education levels had to work extra hours marking studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; papers or teaching classes with a high number of students, because the number of students had increased rapidly. As a result, they were unable to give adequate individual attention to their students, especially those with learning difficulties. Working longer hours without renumeration for the extra work negatively impacted their enthusiasm and the quality of their teaching. School management Some shortcomings in terms of school management negatively impacted the quality of teaching and learning, the academic results of students, dropouts and school enrolment.

Pursuit of exaggerated achievements The pursuit of exaggerated achievements in grade transition and completion was not as commonplace as before, but this issue remained, for example in the practice of allowing some unqualified students to enrol in lower secondary school. These students were at great risk of dropping out, because in the sixth grade they were faced with different teaching and learning methods and a heavier curriculum load than before. Challenges in school management remain The situation of out-of-school children might be correlated with management practices. Educational administrators had limited data on all the children of school age, especially the disadvantaged groups, as their focus was mainly on those who were attending. Getting dropouts to return to school is generally difficult. In some areas, coordination between schools, local authorities and mass organization officials has been poor and ineffective when trying to get children to enrol, and there is insufficient data on out-of-school children. The dropout rates reflect the challenges of efficiency and effectiveness of education, of which there has not been a substantive analysis to inform education management and financing. There is no immediate or long-term socio-economic analysis of the OOSC issues to provide a basis for policy advocacy. Managing far-away satellite schools was also very challenging. For example, lunches could not be arranged at schools, so lunch allowances were given directly to households, thereby reducing the efficacy of the support policy. Many areas were almost inaccessible due to divided terrain, and they were prone to natural disasters (e.g. floods and landslides), which affected supervision and oversight. The rapid increase in migration to big cities created challenges in ensuring that there was an adequate number of classrooms for all the children, especially migrant children in difficult circumstances, and this added to the pressure educational administrators were under. Guidance in inclusive education had been not effectively implemented due to a lack of data needed for management. In some areas, schools had not made substantive effort to create an inclusive learning environment, and stigma against students with disabilities remain. There were inconsistencies in the definitions of disabilities across sectors, and there was poor crosssectoral coordination. This was the case when a child needed certification of disability to benefit from inclusive education policies. The percentage of children with disabilities who studied in an inclusive education environment remained low.

In some locations, school principals had a limited capacity to do their job. Some principals did not pay any attention to outof-school children in the community. Some teachers did not prioritise extra-curricular activities or training in ethics and life skills for students, and they did not develop a child-friendly environment in order to attract students. Some of the educational administrators in some localities that had a large number of boarding schools also had limitations and shortcomings and exhibited unprofessional behaviour.24 25 The quality of the learning environment remained poor, and some teachers did not use proper teaching methods or help their students in a timely manner. Local authorities and families have not worked closely together to help children at risk of dropping out and those who had dropped out. The field surveys in the 6 provinces showed that the majority of the provinces did not have accurate data on migrant children of school age in industrial zones and export processing zones, so they could not proactively develop a plan to ensure their enrolment. Despite the political will in HCMC to enroll all the migrant students in the city, schools could not accommodate the increasing number of students. Therefore, enrolment priority was given to resident students, and migrant students had to attend schools that were further away or attend a literacy programme. The provinces migrants came from had no system in place to facilitate the education of migrant children in their destination provinces, e.g. academic records were not sent from the old school to the new school. There is limited capacity to collect accurate data on the number of OOSC, classify them and understand the reasons why they do not go to school, which results in constraints in identifying measures to support OOSC to return school. MOET has not collected sufficient data on OOSC, and none of the other ministries (except for the General Statistics Office) has collected any at all. Vulnerable students have limited access to full-day schooling. Full-day schooling was being piloted throughout the country and an initial review had been conducted. This was a good opportunity to improve the quality of education for children, especially vulnerable students. Schools utilised the additional time to strengthen Maths and Vietnamese, to teach subjects which half-day schools only devoted a limited amount time to (e.g. music, art, foreign languages and information technology), and to provide extra support for students who performed poorly. However, full-day schooling was dependent on family paying for the second half of the learning day, the administrative 24 Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in KonTum 25 Report on the Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

145

management costs and for their childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lunch and this practice was referred to as socialisation. However, according to a recent independent evaluation,26 localities wishing to apply this model of education must have the proper infrastructure, classrooms, function rooms, specialised classrooms, materials and facilities (e.g. audio visual equipment, maps and laboratories), and bedrooms and dining rooms for the students, and the school must provide lunch. If lunch were not served, the students would need to go home and return to school during the lunch break, and in some areas this is not without difficulties (e.g. families had to spend a lot of time picking up and dropping of the chidren, or other challenges where boat transportation is involved), and this is often a tiring journey for students in remote and mountainous areas. As a result, full-day schooling was mostly offered in urban areas and the most prosperous regions of the country and was mainly possible thanks to family financial contribution through socialisation. Schools in rural and disadvantaged areas often had limited infrastructure, and families could not afford to pay for teachers to teach the entire day. In major cities such as Ho Chi Minh City, schools failed to meet the demand for full-day schooling due to a shortage of classrooms. Therefore, children from well-off families or permanent residents usually had more opportunities for full-day schooling compared to migrants. Vulnerable children who had learning difficulties and needed more support and care from their teachers had limited opportunities for full-day schooling. Discrimination, bullying and violence According to a survey conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Ha Noi Medical School in 2013,27 one out of every six 13-17-year-old students experienced physical violence at least once during the 12 months before the survey, and the rate was higher for boys (26 per cent) than for girls (10 per cent). As reported in the media, school violence persists28 and with increasing complexity. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Just because of trivial daily things, students treat one another in an inhumane and immoral manner.â&#x20AC;?29 According to a study on gender-based school violence in Viet Nam conducted by UNESCO in 2016,30 about half (51.9 per cent) of the students involved in the survey reported experiencing at least one form of violence in the 6 months preceding the survey. Awareness of gender-based school violence among all of the participants in the survey was limited, and they mainly referred to injury-inducing behaviour and ignored other forms of violence like sexual harassment and acts which causes psycho26 http://www.vjol.info/index.php/sphcm/article/viewFile/19168/16880 27 WHO & Ha Noi Medical University. (2013). School-based Student Health Survey: Factsheet for Viet Nam 2013. Ha Noi: WHO. 28 http://nld.com.vn/bao-luc-hoc-duong.html 29 http://www.24h.com.vn/giao-duc-du-hoc/bao-luc-hoc-duong-nguyennhan-quan-trong-la-giao-duc-tu-nha-truong-c216a831000.html 30 UNESCO 2016. Towards a Safe, Equitable and Inclusive School Environment: Report on gender-based school violence research in Viet Nam

146

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

social impact such as exclusion. 13 per cent of the teachers and administrators agreed that it was sometimes necessary for a teacher to hit or scold students in order to maintain discipline, and in fact teachers did so. This explains why during the survey in the 6 provinces in 2016, some teachers said that the learning environment was hostile and students were afraid of their teachers and did not dare to ask questions even when they did not understand the lessons. The general education curriculum is still overloaded. The field survey in the 6 provinces in 2016 showed that due to a high workload, both teachers and students had to race to complete the curriculum. Several teachers reported that the first semester of the sixth grade is the most challenging time for students. It is a time of transition from primary school to lower secondary school with a totally new way of teaching, learning and grading, which results in increased pressure on teachers and students. Since they had to keep up with a heavy curriculum and a heavy grading workload, teachers did not have enough time to give individual attention to students, especially low performers. Teaching methods have been somewhat reformed, but this has not had much impact on learning performance. In addition, there was a lack of entertainment and physical activities to stimulate learning. Therefore, in a number of locations, the poor quality of teaching discouraged children, especially ethnic minority children, and resulted in dropping out. The fact that all the students in the whole country had to use the same textbook often made things difficult for ethnic minority students. They found the material used in the lessons very strange and unfamiliar, especially in the first grade of primary school. Some provinces failed to develop local content for the curriculum even though this was required by MOET, and many teachers did not have adequate professional capacity and failed to incorporate local cultural values and make the learning content more relevant to the lives of ethnic minority communities. The lack of relevance of education resulted in the loss of motivation for schools and many have dropped out. In some cities, the time and cost spent taking extra classes made education a burden for children and their parents. Language barriers remain for some ethnic minority children. Language barriers continued to affect learning for ethnic minority children, resulting in their limited comprehension and lower academic results, and thereby reducing their confidence in their ability to communicate and learn. Survey results in the 6 provinces showed that Mong, Cham, and Khmer children still faced a language barrier that affected their

ability to comprehend the lessons. This was perhaps the biggest challenge for ethnic minority children, followed by the quality of teaching and the learning environment and the distance to school. Bilingual teachers (who spoke Vietnamese and an ethnic minority language) could help students learn more effectively. However, the percentage of ethnic minority teachers at primary and secondary schools nationwide was only 12.7 per cent and 7.9 per cent respectively.31 There were not enough of them in places where they were much needed,32 and Kinh teachers did not have a sufficient knowledge of the languages spoken by their ethnic minority students. This was really a challenge for students in the first grades of primary school, particularly children who had not attended a pre-primary school at the age of 5 in order to learn Vietnamese. Despite having attended kindergarten at the age of 5, the vocabulary and language ability of ethnic minority students did not meet the primary school requirements, especially with regard to abstract meaning of certain vocabulary and scientific terms used in the lessons. Lessons were difficult and students did not understand them or only partially understood them, and no one at home helped them study. Some children completed the first or second grade before dropping out. Those who did not drop out continued to face this barrier in the following years, even when they were in lower secondary school. They often had difficulty expressing themselves, especially when writing about and discussing literature in Vietnamese. The principal of La Pan Tan Upper Secondary School (in La Pan Tan Commune, Cao Son District, Lao Cai Province) said Mong students had difficulty discussing complex issues.33

migrant children (who are not counted in the denominator).

Gaps in data and information related to ethnic minority groups and other vulnerable groups

Governance at the school level had many shortcomings. In many places, the interaction between principals and teachers and the collaboration between schools, parents and local authorities was limited, thereby limiting the effectiveness of activities such as persuading children return to school or discussing ways to help families with children at risk of dropping out so that they would not have to drop out of school.

The collection and management of student data has been improved. However, data on ethnic minority groups by region was often not available, thus limiting the data analysis. The situation was similar for children with disabilities, child labourers, migrant children and children affected by HIV and AIDS, natural disasters and climate change. These children often face multidimensional barriers. Currently, the data for students in the Education Management Information System (EMIS) does not include data from the separate universal education database, which means there are discrepancies in the data. As a result, the data on children with disabilities, for example, from the universal education database has not been used in the education planning process. No technical instructions have been given to address the issue of an erolment rate that is over 100 per cent, which is due to the enrolment of 31 Statistics Book 2014, GSO 32 Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai 2015

Data gaps regarding schooling age, especially data on the officially-correct age for each grade, between the education sector and the statistics sector remain unresolved, leading to inconsistency in the use and publication of statistics. There is no common definition among the relevant government agencies for some statistical indicators such as the definition of disability, and this is a barrier for the collection, analysis and publication of data on OOSC. Some headmasters do not pay due attention to data reporting. They do not consider data to be an important element for sector management and planning, and as a result they do not assign anyone on their staff for the statistical function. They do not ensure time series data, and data is not collected and updated on a regular basis. A number of DOETs do not pay much attention to disadvantaged and out-of-school children, especially students with disabilities, and they therefore do not conduct in-depth analyses of this group to inform the sectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning and management process. Most of the staff doing statistical work do so on a part-time or rotational basis, and they do not receive any additional renumeration for this work. The demand for data is growing and no funds have been allocated to pay the people who do the statistical work. Governance-related bottlenecks remain.

Regarding the implementation of policies and projects, problems related to the capacity of educational administrators persist: â&#x20AC;˘ The school infrastructure development project, including the building of schools, classrooms and housing for teachers from 2014 to 2015, and a roadmap to 2020 was approved by the Prime Minister (Decision 1625/QD-TTg, 11 September 2014), but there was delay in implementation and the allocated budget is not sufficient; â&#x20AC;˘ Tuition fee support policies related to the collection of tuition fees at national educational institutions and the tuition fee exemption and reduction policy

33 Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai 2015 REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

147

for 2010-2015 and 2016-2020 require adjustments in order to achieve the sustainable development goals, e.g. the implementation of the roadmap to free tuition for 5-year-old pre-school children and lower secondary school students, and an expansion of beneficiaries; • Appraisal of investment funds for projects related to relevant ministries is often prolonged, resulting in delays in project implementation. Preparation of an investment dossier and implementation remain slow, and there is a lack of funding to implement programmes and projects as set in the roadmap, which has led to delays. The arrangement of counterpart funds for projects in cooperation with international, bilateral and multilateral organisations has been difficult and remains limited; • Lunch support for 3-5-year-old preschool children and tuition fee subsidies are never deployed in a timely manner. •

No instructions have been given as to how to implement and coordinate projects at non-public schools in an efficient and coherent manner. Some policies are inappropriate, but are slowly adjusted (e.g. incentives and support policies for preschool teachers are limited, and payment for working overtime is not very reasonable).

Financial bottlenecks The portion of the state budget allocated for education increased from 12.1 per cent in 2010 to 15.7 per cent in 2014,34 and by far the greatest amount was allocated for staffing expenditures, (roughly 80 per cent). According to the surveys in the 6 provinces in 2016, mountainous provinces like Lao Cai had a high number of teachers because the population was scattered over a wide area and there was a low number of children per class, and this resulted in high salaries and salary-related allowances. Budget allocation was based on the population and it was stabilised for a three-year period. Budget allocation on this basis was therefore not appropriate in sparsely-populated areas. The remaining 20 per cent of the recurrent budget was spent on teaching and learning materials, equipment and the renovation of the general education curriculum, and this amount was not enough to meet the requirements (this is called expenditure for teaching and learning). In addition, the field surveys in the 6 provinces showed that saving on recurrent expenditures for 34 Statistics Book 2015, GSO, non-business expenditures only; total spending has accounted for 20 per cent since 2010

148

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

teaching and learning has resulted in challenges in collecting money from families, especially at small schools and where families have difficulty paying. Many schools did not spend 20 per cent of their recurrent budget on educational activities. Needs for capital budget was fairly large compared to the modest annual funding allocation, and this posed challenges in accomplishing goals. A lack of funds made it difficult to implement projects and programmes according to the schedule, e.g. the project to build schools according to national standards and the preschool universalisation project for 5-year-old children. Initial funding for community learning centres was not uniformly allocated. Budget and financial data was not broken down for each educational level, so it was not possible to accurately measure the level of investment compared to the actual needs, e.g. gaps in preschool education. Fees for education increased as students progressed through the grades, and for those enroled at non-public or semi-public schools, fees were sometimes several times higher than fees at public schools, and there were many other unofficial charges. Many children from poor migrant families were not enrolled in public school and had to go to non-public or semi-public schools instead. This is one of the causes of increased disparity in education in Viet Nam. Having to help pay for school upkeep and renovations made education expensive for poor people – even when they were exempt from paying fees. The field survey at Tan An Lower Secondary School in Tan Chau District in An Giang Province showed that an outstanding eighth grade student from a poor household was entitled to a tuition fee exemption, but she was at risk of dropping out because her family could barely afford to pay the required contributions (nearly 500,000 VND) in the second semester of the 2015-2016 school year. In addition, extra classes also placed an extra burden on households. Similarly, full-day schooling could also pose a financial burden for ethnic minority and poor students because their parents had to pay additional money. Despite the support from the state, especially during the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, the cost of sending a child to school remained high35 for many poor families due to other multiple collections. The following graph36 shows household expenditures on education from 2002 to 2014:

35 Conclusion No.51 of the Central Executive Committee, 2012 36 GSO, Results from the 2014 Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey

Figure 3.1: Education expenditure per capita per year by type of expenditure, 2002-2014 Viet Nam Household Living Standards Surveys

Unit: %

100% 90% Other expenses

80% 70%

Extra classes

60%

Study aids

50%

Textbooks

40% Uniforms

30%

Contributions to schools

20%

School fees

10% 0%

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

3.3.2. Current policies and measures Current policies and measures related to school infrastructure and facilities Consolidate and expand the network of schools and classes; build enough classrooms for the 5-year-old preschool classes in the communes in the disadvantaged, border, island and ethnic minority areas; ensure that all disadvantaged communes and ethnic minority areas have schools with at least 3 classes in a central location and that classrooms at satellite campuses are built in a standardised manner; ensure that there is adequate equipment and toys to implement the new preschool education curriculum; and enhance the quality of preschool education for 5-year-old children (the 2010-2015 Universalisation of Early Childhood Education for 5-year-old Children Project). Develop a rational network of schools, including an expansion of satellite campuses for primary and lower secondary schools, so that there is a school near every student’s home; develop the network of semi-boarding general education schools and the ethnic minority boarding schools in mountainous ethnic minority regions and in areas with exceptional socio-economic difficulties (Decision 85/2010/QD-TTg, 21 December 2010); and develop and consolidate the system of ethnic minority boarding schools (20112015). Decision 85/2010/QĐ-TTg (21 December 2010) regulates the provision of support for ethnic minority semi-boarding

2012

2014

sstudents and schools. On average, each province has 1 provinciallevel boarding school and 1 district-level boarding school for ethnic minority students. Improve the facilities at schools and in classrooms in villages with students from very small ethnic minority groups, and build a sufficient number of new classrooms and supply enough equipment and teaching aids for primary schools with students from very small ethnic minority groups as stipulated by the project to develop education for students from very small ethnic minority groups (2010-2015). Support boarding schools for ethnic minority students by investing in facilities and equipment: • Housing, beds, kitchens, dining rooms, bathrooms, sanitation facilities, the accompanying utensils and clean water facilities for semi-boarding students are furnished according to the current school design standards; • Every year, schools are supported to buy, supplement and repair sports equipment, musical instruments and televisions to facilitate the organisation of cultural activities, physical education and sports for semiboarding students; • Every year, semi-boarding schools have adequate stock of medicines, including those for common illnesses and for emergency cases. REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

149

The policies that support children with disabilities and enable them to go to school include:

capable of implementing the new general education curriculum after 2015;

• The 2010 Law on Persons with Disabilities, which stipilates that the state shall provide people with disabilities with learning opportunities that are appropriate to their capabilities and demands;

• Ensure that there are enough teachers to conduct comprehensive education according to the pre-school and general education curriculum and to offer full-day schooling; and ensure that there are enough foreign language teachers, school counsellors, teachers for career guidance education, special education and continuing education;

• The 2012-2020 Project to Support People with Disabilities, which was designed to increase the mobilisation of children with disabilities who are capable of learning and facilitate their schooling; develop curriculum and learning materials; provide professional training for educational administrators involved in the education of children with disabilities; provide professional training for teachers who teach children with disabilities; provide materials for students with disabilities; and provide sign language materials for all levels of education. Current policies and measures related to teachers The project to develop and consolidate the system of boarding schools for ethnic minority students (2011-2015) has facilitated the improvement of the pedagogical capacity of educational administrators and teachers at ethnic minority boarding schools in order to meet the quality requirements for teaching and learning and school management. The universal preschool education scheme for 5-year-old children (2010-2015) set the following objectives for training and improving the quality of preschool teachers: 100 per cent of the preschool teachers who teach 5-year-old preschool children will meet the teaching standards by 2010; 50 per cent of the teachers (who have completed secondary school but have not attended a college or university) will complete a pre-college teacher training programme by the year 2015; 80 per cent of the teachers will meet professional standards; appropriate policies will be formulated and resources will be allocated to implement policies related to teachers and educational administrators; the state will fund the salaries of the teachers and educational administrators at private preschools, and salaries and wages will be increased periodically. The 2011-2020 Education Development Strategy stipulates how teachers and educational administrators are to be trained: • Consolidate and finalise the system of teacher training; fundamentally and thoroughly renovate the contents and methods of teacher training and capacity development in order to form a contingent of educational administrators and teachers who are 150

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

• Standardise the training, selection, deployment and evaluation of teachers and educational administrators; and ensure that teachers behave in a professional manner, are of good character and set good examples for their students; • Provide incentives through material support and/or training opportunities in order to motivate teachers and education managers, especially preschool teachers; adopt targeted policies in order to attract experienced and reputable teachers, scientists and experts within the country and from overseas and encourage them to participate in educational development; • Implement the rotation of teachers in remote, isolated and ethnic minority areas (Central Executive Committee, Conclusion 51-KL/TW, 29 October 2012). Decree 19/2013/ND-CP (23 February 2013) amends and supplements a number of articles in Decree 61/2006/ND-CP (20 June 2006) that concern the policies for teachers and educational administrators who work at special schools and in areas with extreme socio-economic difficulties. Current policies and measures related to school management The project to develop and consolidate the system of ethnic minority boarding schools (2011-2015) includes the following: • Enhance the pedagogical skills of the administrators and teachers at ethnic minority boarding schools so that they teach at the level of current requirements, thereby improving the quality of teaching, education and management; • Enhance resources and support for educational activities and educational management at ethnic minority boarding schools so that they meet current requirements. •

Policies concerned with the prevention of school violence and abuse include: lessons about ethics at school; the

dissemination of information about laws; and measures to control publications and videos with inappropriate messages. However, not much priority has been given to the implementation of these policies. Some schools have not taken measures to prevent school violence in a substantive and adequate manner, and students have not been equiped with the knowledge and skills needed to prevent abuse. In addition, some parents lack the knowledge and skills needed to care for and educate their children. They do not pay much attention to their children, and as a result they do not know much about the feelings, emotions, expectations and psychological and social emotional development of their children. The social environment is complex, and the downside of market mechanisms has had a negative impact on children’s perceptions, emotions and behaviours, and it has led to the violation of children’s rights. Current policies and measures related to the general education curriculum In order to reduce the pressure of the curriculum, MOET instructed schools to actively review and adjust the content of the general education curriculum, streamline it and eliminate overlapping academic content which is theoretical and irrelevant for the physical and psychological development and the age of the students. Schools have the right to actively develop their teaching plan and implement a flexible, student-centered curriculum that is relevant and incorporates local cultural and historical values. Schools may actively develop integrated, interdisciplinary themes with knowledge and content that address two or more subjects, and they may offer cross-disciplinary themes or add relevant knowledge to existing subjects. • Use information technology as part of reform of teaching methods, and try to create a positive, active and creative learning environment. • Use modern teaching and learning methods to help students synthesise knowledge and skills when solving problems, e.g. the hands-on method and methods used in the new school model (VNEN). • Revise examinations and assessment of the students’ learning outcomes, and instead of assessing the extent to which students memorise knowledge at the end of each term or year, evaluate how children are involved in the learning process and their ability to apply knowledge and skills.

Current policies and measures related to language barriers Use native-speaker teachers (teachers who know ethnic minority languages) and native-speaker teaching assistants, and continue mother-tongue-based bilingual education in the provinces of Lao Cai, Gia Lai and Tra Vinh that has been ongoing since 2008. The three languages are Mong in Lao Cai, Jrai in Gia Lai and Khmer in Tra Vinh. Current policies and measures related to information and data barriers OOSC are included in MOET’s statistical reporting system. OOSC data and information are integrated into the EMIS and the universal education survey at the beginning of the school year. An Giang has facilitated cooperation between education sector and the statistics sector to ensure linkages between the universal education survey with the 2014 Intercensal Housing and Population Survey to overcome the discrepancies in data of the school age children between the two sectors. MOET has initiated work with the statistics sector to find solutions to problems related to the school-age population data at the provincial and national levels. Current policies and measures related to social audit and financial governance bottlenecks The 2011-2020 Education Development Strategy is concerned with the restructuring of education management, including a number of specific policies as follows: • Implement systematically decentralised education management and finalise the coordination mechanism across the ministries, sectors and localities in the state management of education, clearly delineate the functions, tasks and level of competence associated with the various responsibilities, and intensify inspection and monitoring. Increase the autonomy and accountability of educational institutions in parallel with the finalisation of the mechanism for transparency, ensuring that they are supervised by state agencies, socio-political organisations and the public. • Implement mechanisms for learners to evaluate teachers, for teachers and lecturers to participate in the evaluation of managers, for managers to evaluate higher level managers, and for educational institutions to evaluate how the state manages education; •

Publicise the quality of education and the infrastructure, and ensure transparency in regard to human resources

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

151

and the financing of education institutions. Implement the social audit of educational quality and effectiveness; • Enhance the use of information and communication technologies to raise the efficiency of educational management at all levels. The strategy also stipulates an increase in investment resources and the restructuring of education financing, specifically: • Continue to restructure the financing of education in order to mobilise, allocate and make more efficient use of state and community resources. Increase the autonomy of educational institutions so as to ensure transparency and accountability; • Ensure that at least 20 per cent the total state budget is spent on education and that it is efficiently managed. Priority is to be given to ensuring the universalisation of education, especially in extremely disadvantaged ethnic minority areas and among social assistance beneficiaries; • Define the responsibilities of each sector and those of socio-political organisations, communities and families in contributing resources and participating in educational activities. Set and implement new tuition fees so that the cost of education is reasonably shared between the state, the students and the social sector. Some of the barriers mentioned above continue to limit the effectiveness of the implementation of this strategy. 3.3.3. Recommended policies and measures In the context of implementing the 2030 SDG Agenda, it is important to strengthen the policy commitments made by the Government to ensure conditions for the equitable, effective and sustainable provision of education. These conditions include infrastructure, teachers and education management. Suggested policies and measures related to school infrastructure and facilities Implement item 4 of the 2016-2020 National Target Programme for New Rural Development: Complete all construction and ensure the standardisation of infrastructure and facilities at preschools, primary schools and lower and upper secondary schools. Support the construction of preschools in disadvantaged communes that do not have a public preschool.

152

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Continue to implement the unfinished portions of projects from 2010-2015: •

The 2014-2015 project to concretise schools, classrooms and housing for teachers and the roadmap until 2020;

• The 2012-2020 project to support people with disabilities; • The 2016-2025 project to develop early childhood education; • The 2011-2015 project to consolidate and develop ethnic minority boarding schools (the construction items still unfinished); • The 2017-2020 project to consolidate and develop ethnic minority semi-boarding schools. Several specific suggestions: • Enhance effective investments in school infrastructure, with priority for sanitation facilities and clean running water, and kindergartens, especially in ethnic minority and remote areas in the Northwest, the Northeast, the Central Highlands and the Mekong Delta; • Ensure re-planning of satellite secondary schools that mirror satellite primary schools in order to bring schools to children rather than bring children to schools, especially in remote areas. Having a school near the students’ homes, especially the first few years a child is in school, is an effective way to keep children in school. This policy should be further extended to lower and upper secondary schools, since the distance from home to school is one of the major reasons children drop out of school; • Utilise different resources and continue to develop ethnic minority semi-boarding and boarding schools; • Improve facilities and teaching and learning aids for children with disabilities. In parallel to inclusive education, more resources should be mobilised to develop and build more resource centres for inclusive education (like the ones in Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City) in rural areas where there are many children with disabilities of preschool, primary and lower secondary school age. Provide sufficient textbooks and teaching aids and materials; and improve facilities and create a friendly learning environment for children with disabilities;

• Develop and scale up the model of community-based preschools (which were successfully piloted in Da Nang, Dak Lak, Bac Ninh and Lao Cai) in order to enhance socialization of child care and education services, and to strive to make 50 per cent of the preschools communitybased); • Expand and improve the quality and management at semi-boarding schools in ethnic minority and most isolated mountainous areas; • Improve and use new technologies, e.g. the connecting school iniative, to educate children in remote areas where there are no schools. Having a digital school radio is an idea worth considering. Viettel should extend their internet coverage to a greater number of remote schools. MOET should work on the development of digital learning materials in ethnic minority languages as well as Vietnamese.

dropping out, especially in the first grade of each education level. Link qualifications to salary scales and link promotion to adherence to professional standards. Review, revise and offer more incentives to teachers, especially those at kindergartens and primary schools who teach inclusive classes and multi-grade classes. Provide travel allowances for teachers and educational administrators in mountainous areas serving at satellite schools in high sloping terrain that are far away from main schools. Provide allowances and incentives so that they can visit the homes of students in remote areas to encourage them to enroll and to return to school. Construct adequate accommodation for teachers in disadvantaged areas. Policies and measures related to management activities Implement the 2016-2020 Action Plan on Gender Equality in the Education Sector, and continue to implement the unfinished portions of projects from 2010-2015.

Recommended policies and measures related to teachers

Several specific suggestions:

Continue to implement the Central Executive Committee’s Conclusion 51-KL/TW (29 October 2012), the 2011-2020 Education Development Strategy, and implement the unfinished agenda in policies and the projects from 2010-2015 as well.

Recommendations on how to address the issues related to OOSC fall into 3 categories: (1) education planning and policy development, (2) implementation of sector plans and policies, and (3) monitoring and evaluation.

Some specific suggestions:

Education planning and policy development

Develop plans to increase the number of ethnic minority teachers, especially local ethnic minority teachers and inclusive education teachers, train them and send them where they are needed.

OOSC issues should be incorporated into education sector planning and the Socio-Economic Development Plan from the central to the local level to systematically address OOSC issues and to reduce barriers and promote equity in education. Planning capacity should be improved at all levels, with a focus on the right to education of OOSC.

Invest in improving the quality of teacher training so as to improve the quality of teaching, including inclusive education for children with disabilities, differentiated instruction and child-centered teaching methodologies. At the same time, training should be provided to improve the communication skills of teachers and educational administrators so that they will be able to promote the long-term value of education when speaking with parents and avoid stereotyping. Continue to develop policies that focus on improving teaching methods, especially in ethnic minority, rural and remote areas, and areas with children from the poorest families, so that they will be more interactive and interesting to learners. Improve training for teachers in the language, culture and customs of the communities in which they teach. Use ethnic minority languages and cultures as criteria for assessment in schools in ethnic minority areas.

Education sector planning should be based on adequate data in order to properly analyse the education situation of students, especially disadvantaged students and OOSC. Then work out specific objectives and management and technical measures for the DOET, BOET and schools, including inter-sectoral coordination to address the barriers related to OOSC and children who drop out. The allocation of resources should take into account the barriers related to OOSC. The general analyses of the situation might not be able to highlight the gaps and inequities in education for some groups of disadvantaged children. Therefore, it may not be possible to determine appropriate and focused solutions and measures that would ensure quality education for such children.

Instruct and encourage teachers to become more enthusiastic and committed to students, and improve the quality of tutorial support for underperforming students and those at risk of REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

153

Implementation of sector plans and policies Improve the effectiveness of monitoring the implementation of policies. In particular, identify and propose timely solutions that address the duplication and overlap of policies. Allocate funds from policies for the right target groups in a timely manner according to the school year. DOETs should proactively make proposals to the Provincial People’s Committees for the necessary resources to deliver the education mandate; utilise resources efficiently; and mobilise resources from philanthropists, the private sector and elsewhere, and not require or take contributions from parents from poor and near-poor households. Support full-day schooling at schools in disadvantaged areas to benefit children from the poorest families and ethnic minority children. Improve the management of schools to allow for more autonomy for schools, teachers and educational administrators; promote the participation of children; and promote the mobilisation of resources (e.g. money and donated land) from the private sector for education purposes (e.g. education promotion funds, scholarships for children in special/difficult circumstances and poor children and donating land for school construction). Implement measures to create a child-friendly learning environment; create spaces for recreational activities and physical exercise (e.g. a safe and child-friendly playground); and promote extra-curricular activities (e.g. music and sporting events) in order to stimulate learning and build confidence among ethnic minority children and children with disabilities in an inclusive environment. Do whatever is possible to make the slogan Each day in school is a happy day be true for every student. Implement Objective 5 of the 2016-2020 Gender Equality Action Plan for the Education Sector: Prevent gender-based violence in school, and promote a safe and friendly learning environment by taking the following specific measures: • Teach children a code of conduct so that they behave properly, respect the rights of others, are honest and act with integrity. Also make them aware of the consequences of their actions and how those actions will affect their friends, family, school, community and society; • Teach students about relevant laws so that they realise that if they commit a serious crime or hurt other people, they will be punished severely; • Increase 154

the

responsibilities

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

educational

administrators, teachers and staff so that they can closely monitor and prevent violence from occurring and take appropriate action when required. Improve coordination with families and communities in order to monitor and prevent violence. Monitoring and evaluation The monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of planned targets should align with the indicators on out-of-school children and effective monitoring of the implementation of the measures to address the barriers. Improve educational statistics to obtain accurate and sufficient data on OOSC and dropouts. This is important because the data serves as an evidence base for policy advocacy and intervention efforts to help OOSC to realise their right to education. Improve the monitoring of the implementation of policies to document lessons learnt and promote cross-sectoral coordination to solve problems which limit the effectiveness of policies. Strongly fight the pursuit of exaggerated achievements (a practice that has negatively influenced the assessment of and support for children, especially children who do poorly at school and children with special conditions) when, for example, determining if children are ready to move on to the next grade or to complete primary education. The monitoring of OOSC should be integrated with the monitoring of the implementation of the National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in the Education Sector (Decision 2161/QD-BGDDT, 26 June 2017, Ministry of Education and Training), which has 6 general objectives, 33 specific objectives and 45 monitoring indicators, with a strong focus on monitoring of those indicators related to OOSC. Recommended policies and measures related to the general education curriculum and language barriers Continue to implement current measures to reduce the pressure of the curriculum. Improve solutions to remove language barriers, including the replication of good practices in mother-tongue-based bilingual education, and implement the scheme to improve the abilitiy of preschool and primary school children in ethnic minority areas to speak Vietnamese (2016-2020) and the vision for 2025.

Several specific suggestions: • Curriculum development and textbook reforms should focus on improving life skills education, especially creative thinking, problem solving, practical experience and adaptation skills, which are the core skills of the 21st century; • Textbooks should reflect gender equality and cultural diversity, and they should be relevant to ethnic minorities in terms of images, cultural characteristics and customs. Have positive and strong images of ethnic groups in textbooks, and use mass media to raise public awareness and to help eliminate deep-rooted stereotypes; • Localities should mobilise resources from domestic and international agencies as well as organisations and mass organisations for continue technical and financial support to expand the mother-tongue-based bilingual education programme in ethnic minority areas in an appropriate and effective manner; • Take appropriate measures to help ethnic minority students learn the curriculum in a substantial and effective way. Research and implement measures that will help ethnic minority children meet the curriculum standards. Recommended policies and measures related to data and information collection systems Improve the statistical data on OOSC by first reviewing current practices for statistical data collection related to OOSC and then identifying areas in need of improvement. In the long-term, the education sector should: • Coordinate with the General Statistics Office, MOLISA and the family planning agencies to address discrepancies in the data on age group populations; improve the coordination between the central and local level regarding the collection, analysis and publication of statistics on OOSC by institutionalising the utilisation of data from the population census for analysis in the education sector; • Refine the universal education database for use in sector planning and management, and identify ways to compile statistics on OOSC and dropouts. Pay due attention to disadvantaged groups such as children with disabilities, ethnic minorities, migrant children

and children who have been severely affected by natural disasters and climate change; • Obtain data on different groups to clearly understand the disparities in access to education and learning outcomes, including (1) gender-disaggregated data for boys and girls on enrolment and completion of primary and lower secondary education; (2) disaggregated data on healthcare, nutrition and child protection among ethnic minorities and the poor, including children with disabilities, orphans, abandoned children and singleparent and poor households, as these characteristics are attributed to OOSC; and (3) data on migrants; • Coordinate with MOLISA and other sectors to obtain better quality data on the number of children involved in child labour and potentially doing hazardous jobs, and identify solutions to address the problems, if any. It is important to incorporate data on child protection issues in order to get a full picture of a child’s situation concerning issues such as HIV/AIDS, trafficked children, child abuse and drug use. Recommended policies and measures related to bottlenecks of social governance and finance Ensure the implementation of Decree 115/2010/ND-CP regarding the state management responsibility for education across the country; research the amendment to the Law on the State Budget in order to decentralise financial management more effectively and consistently; and ensure that delivery of the education mandate comes with the assurance of the human and financial resources needed to provide a quality education system that is affordable for everyone regardless of the beneficiaries’ ability to pay. Continue to implement the Education Development Strategy for 2011-2020, with the aim of restructuring education management, increasing investment resources and restructuring the financing of education, and at the same time reducing the burden of education expenses for families through policies that allow free tuition for 5-year-olds in preschool and lower secondary school students. According to the Education Development Strategy for 20112020, policies to promote education development, especially through capital investment and salary, should be implemented; and priority should be given to resource allocation for the universalisation of education and education for vulnerable groups.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

155

3.4. Summary analysis of the barriers and policies 3.4.1. Summary analysis of the barriers The major barriers to out-of-school children related to the demand side include poverty; children having to work; migrant children having to attend non-public schools; children with disabilities being vulnerable to social stigma and not having access to inclusive education; ethnic minority children in remote areas not knowing or not having a good command of Vietnamese and therefore having difficulty understanding the lessons; a lack of parental awareness of the long-term value of education, which is influenced by the fact that many children who go to school fail to find a good job, and some do not find any job at all; and a lack of parental attention to their children’s education. The barriers related to the supply side include a lack of infrastructure and facilities, especially pre-primary schools; the distance to school; a shortage of teachers, especially local ethnic minority teachers; teachers’ capacity and policy incentives for teachers; curriculum and a language barrier that affect children’s ability to learn; the manner in which schools are run; and the financing of education. The children’s poor performance at school, not wanting to go to school, and finally dropping out might be due to barriers related to the children themselves and their families as well as barriers related to the education system, especially the extent to which children are supported and are able to learn in an inclusive and supportive education environment that enables them to do well at school and not drop out. A recent study37 suggested a correlation between qualified teachers and good educational administrators at school with the difference a school can make for disadvantaged children. When education costs become the responsibility of families, there is inequality in access to education and a quality education becomes unattainable for poor children, both male and female. When education becomes too expensive, it is likely that children will turn to employment as an alternative. The disparities in educational attainment between the Kinh and the other ethnic groups, and between rural, urban areas and remote communities reflect gaps in equitable access to educational opportunities in Viet Nam amidst the increasing richpoor differentiation and uneven socio-economic development among the regions. Narrowing the gaps and inequalities in education is not the responsibility of the education sector alone. 37 World Bank (2011) Viet Nam: High quality education for all, Report No. 56085-VN Volumes 1, 2& 3: Human Development Department East Asia and Pacific Region

156

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

This requires efforts to narrow social inequality at the macro level. A possible solution is to understand the social and cultural characteristics of the ethnic minority children in remote areas who have dropped out as well as to have relevant curricula that are appropriate to their cultural and social background instead of forcing them to change and be more like the Kinh. The gaps between the Kinh, vulnerable ethnic minority groups and disadvantaged children are still on the rise. The development of a positive image of ethnic minorities and disadvantaged children in textbooks and learning activities and in the mass media will generally support the elimination of cultural barriers. Understanding the circumstances, needs and the right to education of children with disabilities, migrant children and other disadvantaged children is an important starting point for a suitable approach to them. The support of teachers and school administrators, the assurance of an inclusive educational environment for all children, and the enhanced involvement of families and communities in collaboration with local authorities would provide comprehensive support for these children and enable them to attend school. 3.4.2. Analysing the impacts of policies related to out-ofschool children Figure 3.2 shows the change in population size and distribution of 5-year-old preschool students, primary school students and lower secondary school students from 2009 to 2014. The solid light blue line shows the population of 5-14-year-old students according to the GSO’s population projections based on the 2009 Census, while the thin dark green line with a small triangle at each end shows the population of 5-14-year-olds according to the 2009 Census and 2014 Intercensual Population Survey. The thick solid line with small squares shows the number of 5-14-year-old students according to statistics from MOET, and the light blue line represents the number of 5-14-year-old children according to the data from the 2009 Census and 2014 Intercensual Population Survey. As can be seen in Figure 3.2, the number of 5-14-year-olds decreased, but the number of students increased significantly over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014. Based on this analysis, many policies in the education sector that directly addressed the issue of OOSC were implemented during this period, while no substantial changes were made to policies on poverty reduction,

social security and economic development. This is evidence that the policies implemented in the education sector from 2009 to 2014 that were designed to address the OOSC problem were effective, and as a result many students have been enroled at school, thereby reducing the number of OOSC. This issue requires more in-depth research in order to better explain the impact that the policies have had.

Figure 3.2: Population and number of students by age, education level and year

Unit: Thousand people

15.000

14.500

14.000

13.500

13.000

12.500

12.000 2009

2010

5-14-year-old students (Census & IPHS)

2011 Number of 5-14-year-olds (GSO projection)

2012

2013

5-14-year-old students (MOET)

2014 Number of 5-14-year-olds (Census & IPHS)

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

157

158

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter consists of three sections. The first summarises the findings from Chapter 2 and the main barriers and proposed policies and measures discussed in Chapter 3. The second is the data source for the development of the report and recommendations for future improvement of this data source. The third is the conclusion.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

159

4.1. Summary of the findings, main barriers and proposed policies and measures 4.1.1. Summary of the findings The report provides national-level findings and findings in the 8 provinces. 4.1.1.1. The national-level findings are as follows: General findings 1) The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 6.7 per cent (about 99,200 children), almost 50 per cent less than in 2009 (12.2 per cent); 2) The percentage of 6-10-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 2.5 per cent (about 180,500 children), almost 50 per cent less than in 2009 (4 per cent); 3) The percentage of 11-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 8.1 per cent (about 435,700 children), almost one third less than in 2009 (11.2 per cent); 4) The total number of 5-14-year-old OOSC in 2014 was 715,400, 36.5 per cent less than in 2009 (1,127,300 children), and the percentage of 5-year-old preschool childen fell most sharply by 43.6 per cent. Findings related to location (urban or rural) 1) The OOSC rate in rural areas was higher than that in urban areas, and the gap between the two areas increased with age; 2) In 2014, the percentage of OOSC of primary school age and lower secondary school age was higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.5 and 1.7 times higher respectively). Findings related to region 1) The Mekong Delta had the highest percentage of 5-yearold OOSC (14.7 per cent), nearly 6 times higher than the rate in the Red River Delta, which had the lowest percentage of 5-year-old OOSC (2.5 per cent). 5-year-old children in the rural parts of the mountainous Northern Midlands were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in terms of pre-primary education: The percentage of 5-year-old OOSC was 3.3. times higher in rural areas than in urban areas (5.3 per cent and 1.6 per cent respectively); 160

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

2) The Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands had the highest percentage of OOSC of primary and lower secondary school age (primary: 4.2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively; lower secondary: 14.0 per cent and 12.9 per cent respectively). The Red River Delta had the lowest percentage of OOSC of primary school and lower secondary school age (0.8 per cent and 2 per cent respectively). The OOSC rates in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands were higher than those in the Red River Delta, 5 times higher for children of primary school age and 6-7 times higher for children of lower secondary school age. Children of primary and lower secondary school age in rural areas were more disadvantaged than those in urban areas in all regions, especially rural children in the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands. This is evidenced by the fact that the percentage of OOSC of primary school age in the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands was higher in rural areas than in urban areas (2.9 and 1.5 times higher respectively), and the percentage of OOSC of lower secondary school age in the mountainous Northern Midlands and the Central Highlands was higher in rural areas than in urban areas (3.8 and 2.3 times higher respectively). These rates were higher than those in the remaining regions. Findings related to gender: 1) The gender gap for 5-year-old OOSC and OOSC of primary school age was very small. This gap was greater among OOSC of lower secondary school age: 11.8 per cent of the boys and 10.5 per cent of the girls in 2009, and 8.6 per cent and 7.5 per cent respectively in 2014; 2) The gender gap for OOSC of lower secondary school age showed that boys had less opportunities to go to school than girls, in all regions except the mountainous Northern Midlands; 3) The gender gap for OOSC in most of the ethnic minority groups showed that boys had less opportunities to go to school than girls, but the opposite was true for the Mong. Mong girls were less likely to go to school than Mong boys, especially those of lower secondary school age. In 2014, 52.7 per cent of the Mong girls of lower secondary school age attended a class at school that was right for their age,

double the rate in 2009 (24.4 per cent), but still lower than the rate for boys in 2014 (66.7 per cent); 4) Over the 5-year period from 2009 to 2014, improvement was observed in the level of gender disparity in the OOSC rate for migrant girls of lower secondary school age versus the rate for boys in the same group. However, this improvement was only slight and may not last. The gender equality index (GPI) of lower secondary school age migrants reached the gender equilibrium level of 0.97, which means migrant girls of lower secondary school age were considered to be equal to migrant boys in 2014. However, since the new GPI is at the minimum threshold of 0.97, this equality may not last. Findings related to ethnic minority groups 1) The OOSC rates for ethnic minority children from all three age groups were significantly lower in 2014 than in 2009. The Khmer and the Mong made the most significant progress over the 5-year period, but they still had the highest OOSC rates for all three age groups; 2) It is noteworthy that the OOSC rate for 5-year-old Khmer children in urban areas was significantly higher than the rate for those in rural areas (33.5 per cent and 19.8 per cent respectively). This shows that 5-year-old Khmer children in urban areas did not have greater access to education than their peers in rural areas, despite the fact that there were more schools in urban areas than in rural areas. The percentage of Khmer and Mong OOSC in both urban and rural areas was higher than the rates for the other ethnic minority groups (Khmer: 27.2 per cent and 23.9 per cent respectively; Mong: 23.6 per cent and 28.8 per cent respectively); 3) The Khmer and the Mong from the poorest quintile had the highest OOSC rates for all three age groups, while all of the Khmer and Mong children in all three age groups from the richest quintile were attending school. Findings related to migration

Findings related to income quintiles 1) There was a large disparity in the percentage of OOSC from the poorest households and the percentage of OOSC from the richest households, and the difference increased with age. The percentage of OOSC from the poorest households was higher than the percentage of OOSC from the richest households: 3 times higher for 5-year-old OOSC, 5.5 times higher for primary school age OOSC, and 10 times higher for lower secondary school age OOSC; 2) Children in all three age groups from the poorest quintile were more disavantaged than their peers from the richest quintile in every region (except for the 5-year-olds in the Red River Delta), and the most disadvantaged children were in the mountainous Northern Midlands, the Central Highlands and the Mekong Delta. 4.1.1.2. Findings in the 8 provinces The report shows great differences in the eight selected provinces. 1) In 2014, Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Ho Chi Minh City had the lowest OOSC rates for 5-year-olds, and An Giang and Dong Thap had the highest OOSC rates for 5-year-olds; 2) In 2014, Ho Chi Minh City and Dong Thap had the lowest OOSC rates for primary school age children, lower than the national average, and all the other provinces had OOSC rates that were higher than the national average. Gia Lai had the highest OOSC rate for children of primary school age, followed by An Giang, 3) In 2014, Gia Lai had the highest OOSC rate for children of lower secondary school age, followed by Ninh Thuan and An Giang, while HCMC had the lowest rate, lower than the national average, and all the other provinces had OOSC rates that were higher than the national average.

1) There was a difference in the OOSC rate for migrant children and the rate for non-migrant children, and the difference increased with age;

4.1.2. Summary of the main barriers and the recommended policies and measures

2) In 2014, the OOSC rates for migrant families were higher than those for non-migrant families, 1.2 times higher for the 5-year-olds, 1.6 times for those of primary school age, and 1.7 times higher for those of lower secondary school age.

Barriers

4.1.2.1. Economic barriers on the demand side and recommended policies and measures

1) Poverty has declined over the years, but it continues to be one of the main economic barriers preventing REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

161

children from attending school; 2) Child labour continues to be the second-largest economic barrier preventing children from attending school. The more the child grows, the greater the barrier; 3) The fact that young children migrate with their parents and older children migrate on their own to find jobs remains a significant barrier to children’s schooling; 4) Climate change and natural disasters may become larger barriers in the future. Recommended policies and measures 1) In the context of the implementation of the 2030 SDG Agenda, it is necessary to strengthen policy commitments and ensure that the conditions for achieving the targets to be met, in particular Sustainability Development Goal 4 on Education; 2) Enhance results in universalization of preschool education for 5-year-olds; continue current policies on tuition fee waivers; provide financial support to help cover learning expenses; provide cash assistance, rice support and housing for students in the most disadvantaged areas; and facilitate the education of all migrant children in their destination locations as per their right to education; put in place tuition free policies for pre-school for 5-year-olds and lower secondary education; 3) Promote poverty reduction through the 2016-2020 National Targeted Programme for Sustainable Poverty Reduction; and continue implementation of social insurance and social protection policies related to education and OOSC. 4) Reduce the indirect costs of education for extremely disadvantaged households where possible; 5) Ensure fair market access, employment opportunities and social protection mechanisms; 6) Strengthen measures to prevent child labour. 4.1.2.2. Socio-cultural barriers on the demand side and recommended policies and measures Barriers 1) The fact that poor learning results reduce the children’s 162

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

motivation to go to school continues to be a barrier that has increased over the years; 2) Lack of parental attention continues to be a barrier that has increased over the years; 3) Cultural norms for ethnic minority groups place females in a subordinate position to males; 4) Child marriage in some communities continues to be a reason why some girls drop out of school. Recommended policies and measures 1) Classify students at the beginning of the school year to plan for tutoring and to provide relevant learning support to students who perform poorly; 2) Create a friendly, inclusive, safe, stimulating and attractive school environment; 3) Strengthen mother-tongue-based bilingual education; provide teachers’ assistants who are from local ethnic minority groups; and take measures to improve ethnic minority students’ command of Vietnamese; 4) Better coordinate between school, family and the community to motivate parents to pay more attention to their children’s education; 5) Continue to enforce the Ordinance on Population; eradicate the concept that men are worth more than women; and ensure equal rights and fair assessment for women; 6) Continue to implement the project Eradicate Underage and Consanguineous Marriage in Ethnic Minority Areas (2015 to 2025); 7) Implement the education and training sector’s 20162020 Action Plan on Gender Equality. 4.1.2.3. Barriers and recommended policies and measures on the supply side Barriers 1) The school system at all levels, especially in mountainous, remote and isolated areas, has not yet met the requirements in terms of quantity and quality; 2) Many schools are difficult to access, and they lack of support services for children with disabilities;

3) The distance to school is far and a safe means of transportation is lacking; 4) There is still a lack of preschool teachers; 5) The competency of teachers still needs to be improved; 6) Policies and mechanisms related to teachers need to be improved; 7) Limitations and difficulties in management still exist; 8) Vulnerable groups of students have little access to fullday schooling; 9) Violence and discrimination at schools needs to be addressed; 10) The general education curriculum is overloaded; 11) A number of ethnic minority students still face a language barrier; 12) Financial bottlenecks remain. Recommended policies and measures 1) Effectively implement the 2016-2020 National Target Programme for Sustainable Poverty Reduction as well as social insurance policies and social protection policies related to education and OOSC, and strengthen measures to prevent child labour; 2) Continue to effectively implement the universalisation of education and current support policies for the most disadvantaged students; facilitate the schooling of all migrant children in line with their right to education; and reduce indirect educational costs for extremely poor households; 3) Expand the network of satellite schools so that there are kindergartens and primary schools near the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes, especially in the mountainous and remote areas; strengthen resources to support fullday schooling at disadvantaged schools, especially for ethnic minority children, and ensure a friendly, inclusive, safe, exciting and attractive school environment; 4) Continue to improve the ability of ethnic minority students to speak Vietnamese by scaling up mothertongue-based bilingual education appropriately and effectively in ethnic minority areas;

5) Continue to prioritise investment for ethnic minority students to reduce difficulties and create learning opportunities for all children, and replicate the good practices and examples of learning, thus motivating people in general and children in particular to study; 6) Strengthen the capacities of local ethnic minority teachers and teachers who know the languages of the ethnic minorities in the region where they serve, and train teachers how to offer inclusive education for children with disabilities; 7) Strengthen the management of semi-boarding ethnic minority schools in the most remote and mountainous areas; 8) Continue to implement policies that enable children with disabilities to attend school in accordance with the 2010 Law on People with Disabilities and the 20122020 project to support people with disabilities; and build new inclusive education resource centres that have appropriate facilities for children with disabilities of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary school age; 9) Ensure better coordination between schools, families and society in monitoring OOSC and enabling/ motivating them to attend school; 10) Thoroughly eliminate male chauvinism (the idea that men are more valuable than women), and ensure that all are treated equally and fairly; 11) Promote the review, amendment, supplementation and implementation of incentive policies for teachers; 12) Focus resources on the effective implementation of the General Education Curriculum under the National Assembly Resolution; 13) Continue implementation of the Education Development Strategy for 2011-2020, focusing on restructuring education management, increasing investment resources and renovating the financing of education; have policies for free tuition for pre-school education for 5 year old children and lower secondary education. 14) Improve the monitoring and evaluation of OOSC targets, and improve education statistics in order to collect adequate, accurate and timely data on OOSC including children who have dropped out of school; REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

163

15) Integrate climate change responses into the planning and budgeting process, and develop a report that evaluates the results of policy implementation in the education and training sector; 16) Promote and monitor the inclusion of OOSC in education planning and budgeting, integrate this into the Socioeconomic Development Plan from the central to the local level, and implement Sustainable Development Goal No. 4 related to education;

17) Priority should be given to integrating resources for the successful implementation of the Plan to Implement the Sustainable Development Goals for Education and Training by 2025 as well as the vision for 2030 (issued in conjunction with MOETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Decision 2161/QD-BGDDT, 26 June 2017), which focuses on raising the enrollment rate of school age populations and reducing the number of OOSC.

4.2. Data sources used for the development of reports, and recommendations for the improvement of such data sources in the future As stated in the methodological section, the quantitative study section of this report is based on data sources from the 2009 Population and Housing Census and the 2014 Intercensal Population and Housing Survey. The consolidated data on OOSC from these two sources met the needs of this study, enabled an analysis of OOSC and provided reasonable findings. Both the census and the survey are complementary to the statistical data of the education and training sector which provide information on the schooling of the population in general and OOSC in

particular. However, as suggested by some experts at UNICEF and UNESCO, the questions in these two surveys about an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school attendance may need to be standardised in accordance with the standard questions used in the MICS survey. To do this, it is recommended that the GSO invite several ministries, including MOET, to participate in the design phase of the questionnaire used for the two surveys to ensure that future data collection will be useful for an in-depth analysis of the education and training sector.

4.3. Conclusion Viet Nam has relatively adequate educational policies and policies which remove economic barriers that have helped to improve the standard of living, and social protection policies that have helped families to access basic social services like education. Education policies have clearly had an impact to reduce the number of OOSC. However, there are still children who are out of school, especially in mountainous, remote and ethnic minority areas. Limited resources were one of the reasons why some major objectives of policies that were intended to boost the enrolment of children in difficult circumstances were not achieved. The level of support those policies provided was insufficient, and it was therefore not possible to get all of those children to attend school. In addition, there have been many challenges, difficulties and inadequacies in the implementation of support policies. Often poor people did not know about the availability of social protection programmes, and very often there was no conditionality regarding school attendance built into social welfare programmes. Moreover, not all social protection programmes targeted the poorest groups (e.g. retirees), and in such families education was often perceived as having a 164

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

lower value than economic survival. Poor and ethnic minority households did not earn as much as other households in the same area. Therefore, their access to education depended on macroeconomic regulation and the implementation of support policies by government agencies. Viet Nam has made remarkable achievements in education, and the number of OOSC has declined by almost 50 per cent according to the population data for 2009 and 2014. However, as suggested by this report, additional efforts need to be made in terms of policies and system building in order to bring benefits to a significant group of children who remain disadvantaged in education and whose right to education has not been realised. Only when all Vietnamese citizens have access to a high quality education and are well-equipped with skills, will Viet Nam have fully implemented equity in education as stipulated in the Agenda for Sustainable Development. Then the country will have a quality workforce that can generate the resources required to meet the needs of an aging population. The right to a high quality education is a basic right, and education is an impetus for socio-economic development. All people have the right to a good

quality education regardless of their ethnicity, gender, place of residence, social status or economic standing.

ÂŠ UNICEF Viet Nam\2017\Colorista Hoang Hiep

The fact that children remain out-of-school presents a challenge to the education sector and the socio-economic development of Viet Nam. This challenge has become even greater as Viet Nam has encountered difficulties in macroeconomic management,

even though it has become a low-middle-income country. As the commitments to the 2030 Global Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals are implemented, one of which stipulates that the education system should ensure that no children are left behind, it is expected that the Report on the Study of Out-ofschool Children will inform the effort to address these challenges in Viet Nam.

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

165

REFERENCES 2011 Survey on Agriculture and Rural Development, General Statistics Office. Education in Viet Nam Requires Fundamental and Comprehensive Reform, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Ethnic Prejudices Hindering Development, The Communist Review (2014). Evaluation report on the results of the national target programmes from 2011 to 2015 and orientation in designing the national target programmes from 2016 to 2020, (507/BC-CP, 13 October 2015). Global Out-of-school Children Initiative: Operational manual, UNICEF, UIS (2015). http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/oosci-operationalmanual.pdf http://tuyengiao.vn/Home/giaoduc/64717/Nha-giao-va-can-bo-quan-ly-giao-duc-thuc-trang-va-giai-phap http://nld.com.vn/bao-luc-hoc-duong.html http://www.24h.com.vn/giao-duc-du-hoc/bao-luc-hoc-duong-nguyen-nhan-quan-trong-la-giao-duc-tu-nha-truong-c216a831000.html http://www.vjol.info/index.php/sphcm/article/viewFile/19168/16880 https://www.vnu.edu.vn/ttsk/?C1654/N14938/Gia%CC%81o-du%CC%A3c-Vie%CC%A3t-Nam-truo%CC%81c-do%CC%80i-ho%CC%89ido%CC%89i-mo%CC%81i-can-ba%CC%89n-va%CC%80-toa%CC%80n-die%CC%A3n.htm http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/PrintStory.aspx?distribution=30349&print=true http://www.unicef.org/vietnam/vi/MICS_VIET_NAM_2014_(310815).pdf http://www.tongcucthuyloi.gov.vn/Tin-tuc-Su-kien/Tin-tuc-su-kien-tong-hop/catid/12/item/2670/xam-nhap-man-vung-dong-bang-song-cuulong--2015-https://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61659.html

Intercensal Population and Housing Survey 2014, General Statistics Office. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey: Survey on and assessment of children’s and women’s goals, 2014, UNICEF (2015). Out-of-school Children Initiative, UNICEF, UIS (2010). Regulating the retail price of electricity: 42,000 VND/household/month, (Decision 28/2014/QD-TTg, 7 April 2014). Report on Access to Social Protection of Migrant Workers, ActionAid, 2014. http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/policy_brief_vietnamese_ version_final.pdf Salinisation in the Mekong Delta (2015-2016), Drought on the Central Coast and in the Central Highlands and Recovery Solutions. General Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Seminar on the implementation of the 2016-2020 National Target Programme on Sustainable Poverty Reduction, Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs. http://www.molisa.gov.vn/vi/Pages/chitiettin.aspx?IDNews=25513 Situation Analysis of Children in Kon Tum, Kon Tum People’s Committee & UNICEF (2014). Situation Analysis of Children in Lao Cai, Lao Cai People’s Committee & UNICEF (2015). Situation Analysis of Children in Ninh Thuan, Ninh Thuan People’s Committee & UNICEF (2011). Social Assessment of Ethnicity and Development in Viet Nam: A summary report, Washington DC, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank, pg.24, World Bank (2009). Social Welfare in Our Country: Theory and practice, Communist Magazine (2012) luan/2012/15184/An-sinh-xa-hoi-o-nuoc-ta-Mot-so-van-de-ly.aspx

http://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/Home/Thong-tin-ly-

Statistical Yearbook, 2015, General Statistics Office. Teachers and Education Managers: Current situation and solutions. Propaganda Journal. Dao Nguyen Phuc (2014). Urban Poverty Survey in Hanoi and HCMC, 2012. Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey, 2014, General Statistics Office. Viet Nam: High quality education for all, report no. 56085-VN, Volumes 1, 2& 3: Human Development Department East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank (2011). 166

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

167

Migrant

Ethnicity

7.6

5.9

94.1

Other

Yes

2.2

Thai

2.5

2.3

Tay

Mong

82.3

Kinh

1.3

68.6

Rural

Khmer

31.4

Urban

1.8

47.6

Female

Muong

52.4

Male

Urban/Rural

Gender

8.7

Viet Nam

Age

9.5

5.5

7.2

2.6

1.3

1.5

2.1

1.8

83.5

67.1

32.9

48.1

51.9

1.6

95.3

4.7

7.6

2.5

1.4

1.5

2.3

2.2

82.6

67.8

32.2

48.2

51.8

1.6

96.0

4.0

7.9

2.7

1.5

1.6

2.2

2.0

82.2

69.4

30.6

48.3

51.7

1.6

96.5

3.5

8.2

2.7

1.5

2.3

1.8

82.0

69.6

30.4

48.1

51.9

1.6

Annex 1: Distribution of children by age in 2014

ANNEXES

96.5

3.5

8.2

2.6

1.7

1.4

2.1

1.9

82.1

70.2

29.8

48.0

52.0

1.6

96.6

3.4

7.6

2.2

1.4

1.5

1.9

1.7

83.7

68.8

31.2

49.0

51.0

1.6

96.8

3.2

8.5

2.5

1.4

2.1

1.7

82.2

70.8

29.2

48.5

51.5

1.4

97.1

2.9

7.7

2.2

1.5

1.4

2.0

83.2

72.1

27.9

48.6

51.4

1.5

97.3

2.7

8.3

2.3

1.5

1.4

2.0

1.8

82.8

71.4

28.6

48.5

51.5

1.6

Viet Nam

97.3

2.7

8.4

2.4

1.5

1.6

1.9

1.8

82.6

72.1

27.9

49.2

50.8

1.4

97.1

2.9

8.9

2.2

1.3

1.6

2.0

2.1

81.9

73.7

26.3

48.4

51.6

1.4

96.1

3.9

8.1

2.0

1.4

1.6

1.9

2.0

83.1

71.6

28.4

48.3

51.7

1.6

94.8

5.2

8.8

1.9

1.5

2.0

1.9

82.3

71.7

28.3

48.4

51.6

1.6

91.8

8.2

5.6

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.7

2.0

87.0

66.1

33.9

51.8

48.2

71.1

17+

92.8

7.2

6.3

1.4

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

85.7

67.2

32.8

50.7

49.3

100.0

General

76,991,781

5,982,445

5,667,204

1,243,804

1,212,443

1,353,742

1,641,533

1,807,961

77,566,671

60,776,301

29,717,057

45,909,019

44,584,339

90,493,358

Total (number of people)

Unit: %

168

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Urban/Rural (%)

Gender (%)

Age (number of people)

1,434,487

48.1

32.9

67.1

Female

Urban

Rural

69.2

30.8

48.3

71.6

28.4

48.7

51.3

5,410,739

Total 51.7

1,294,264

51.9

1,473,682

Male

1,345,469

7,188,988

1,297,323

11 - 14

1,480,606

1,407,601

1,449,236

1,411,361

1,486,304

1,480,606

6 - 10

Viet Nam

Annex 2: Distribution of schooling age by age group

62.5

37.5

48.0

52.0

1,235,949

64.7

35.3

48.2

51.8

5,932,391

1,212,853

1,177,385

1,154,120

1,160,099

1,227,934

6 - 10

Kinh

67.8

32.2

48.5

51.5

4,474,800

1,069,118

1,219,758

1,119,249

1,066,675

11 - 14

85.8

14.2

51.0

49.0

26,633

86.6

13.4

49.7

50.3

139,168

25,328

27,426

25,878

27,583

32,952

6 - 10

Tay

88.5

11.5

49.4

50.6

98,317

22,870

26,419

26,345

22,683

11 - 14

94.6

5.4

48.3

51.7

31,758

93.6

6.4

47.5

52.5

155,525

27,879

30,579

32,761

30,643

33,662

6 - 10

Thai

93.4

6.6

49.8

50.2

108,616

24,466

28,883

27,568

27,699

11 - 14

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

169

Migrant

8 provinces (%)

Region (%)

1.8

2.6

81.9

5.5

94.5

An Giang

Other

Yes

0.8

Kon Tum

Dong Thap

0.6

Ninh Thuan

8.4

0.9

Dien Bien

HCMC

1.0

Lao Cai

2.0

19.1

Region 6 Mekong River Delta

Gia Lai

17.4

Region 5 Southeast

20.1

Region 3 North Central and Central Coastal Areas

7.2

22.2

Region 2 Red River Delta

Region 4 Central Highlands

13.9

Region 1 Mountainous Northern Midlands

96.2

3.8

82.6

2.5

1.9

7.7

2.1

0.7

0.9

19,6

15.9

7.5

21.5

21.4

14.1

6 - 10

Viet Nam

97.1

2.9

82.9

2.4

2.0

7.l2

2.2

0.8

0.9

20.2

15.6

8.4

22.5

19.8

13.5

11 - 14

93.8

6.2

82.5

3.0

2.2

9.7

1.3

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

21.2

19.8

5.3

20.9

26.3

6.5

95.7

4.3

83.4

2.9

2.3

8.9

1.3

0.3

0.6

0.1

0.2

21.8

18.2

5.3

22.8

25.6

6.4

6 - 10

Kinh

96.8

3.2

83.9

2.7

2.4

8.3

1.3

0.4

0.7

0.1

0.2

22.5

17.8

6.1

24.0

23.5

6.1

11 - 14

96.1

3.9

92.4

0.0

0.9

0.4

0.0

6.3

0.0

3.1

8.5

3.3

81.8

98.0

2.0

91.4

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.8

0.3

0.0

7.4

0.1

2.1

8.2

2.0

2.4

85.1

6 - 10

Tay

99.3

0.7

90.5

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.1

8.9

0.0

2.5

8.5

2.0

85.0

11 - 14

98.3

1.7

89.8

0.0

0.2

0.0

9.7

0.1

0.2

0.0

1.3

30.7

0.0

67.8

99.0

1.0

88.8

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.0

10.9

0.0

0.1

1.6

32.2

0.1

66.0

6 - 10

Thai

99.3

0.7

87.7

0.0

0.3

0.0

12.0

0.0

2.4

32.5

0.0

64.9

11 - 14

170

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Urban/Rural (%)

Gender (%)

Age (number of people)

20,179

47.7 6.1 93.9

Female

Urban

Rural

94.9

5.1

48.9

94.3

5.7

48.6

51.4

78,546

Total 51.1

20,321

52.3

20,956

Male

18,807

107,630

18,462

11 - 14

22,298

21,762

21,144

21,901

22,643

22,298

6 - 10

Muong

77.7

22.3

46.7

53.3

19,346

Annex 2: Distribution of schooling age by age group (continued)

79.6

20.4

48.8

51.2

105,987

19,619

24,005

20,414

21,813

20,136

6 - 10

Khmer

81.3

18.7

51.1

48.9

79,301

18,835

22,134

20,150

18,183

11 - 14

97.7

2.3

49.7

50.3

37,847

97.1

2.9

48.6

51.4

181,033

31,964

37,052

37,816

37,741

36,460

6 - 10

Mong

97.5

2.5

49.1

50.9

126,188

30,555

33,218

29,407

33,007

11 - 14

89.1

10.9

48.7

51.3

106,774

88.7

11.3

48.8

51.2

567,254

110,448

117,860

114,849

111,581

112,517

6 - 10

Other

87.8

12.2

49.1

50.9

444,971

108,099

122,314

103,944

110,615

11 - 14

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

171

Migrant

8 provinces (%)

Region (%)

0.0 0.0 98.2 2.9 97.1

An Giang

Other

Yes

0.3

Kon Tum

Dong Thap

0.0

Ninh Thuan

0.7

0.0

Dien Bien

HCMC

0.5

Lao Cai

0.3

Region 6 Mekong River Delta

Gia Lai

1.0

Region 5 Southeast

27.0

Region 3 North Central and Central Coastal Areas 4.1

5.9

Region 2 Red River Delta

Region 4 Central Highlands

61.8

Region 1 Mountainous Northern Midland

98.8

1.2

98.7

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.0

0.2

0.1

1.0

4.8

25.6

6.4

62.2

6 - 10

Muong

98.8

1.2

98.4

0.0

0.4

0.6

0.0

0.2

0.0

1.7

6.1

30.7

5.9

55.7

11 - 14

97.9

2.1

93.1

5.1

0.0

1.7

0.0

93.7

6.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

98.1

1.9

91.8

7.2

0.0

1.0

0.0

95.0

4.5

0.1

0.3

0.0

6 - 10

Khmer

98.2

1.8

93.8

6.1

0.0

0.2

0.0

96.4

3.3

0.2

0.0

11 - 14

98.8

1.2

67.0

0.0

0.3

0.1

19.4

13.1

0.1

0.0

3.4

4.2

0.0

92.3

98.2

1.8

67.9

0.0

0.8

0.2

0.1

18.0

13.1

0.0

5.3

3.6

0.0

91.0

6 - 10

Mong

98.0

2.0

68.1

0.0

1.2

0.2

0.1

17.8

12.6

0.0

5.6

3.8

0.1

90.4

11 - 14

97.7

2.3

69.3

0.7

0.0

4.1

12.3

6.4

2.5

1.0

3.6

2.9

9.6

34.2

18.9

2.1

32.3

98.4

1.6

70.5

0.6

0.0

4.5

12.4

5.7

2.7

0.7

2.9

2.5

9.2

34.8

18.6

2.3

32.6

6 - 10

Other

98.4

1.6

69.6

0.7

0.0

4.8

12.6

5.5

2.8

0.8

3.2

2.5

9.9

35.8

17.2

2.3

32.3

11 - 14

172

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Migrant

Ethnicity

Urban/Rural (%)

Gender (%)

Age (number of people)

1,449,236

1,434,487

1,407,601

1,411,361

1,486,304

6 - 10

Viet Nam

1,294,264

1,473,682

1,345,469

1,297,323

11 - 14

7.2

5.5

94.5

Other

Yes

2.1

Thai

2.6

1.8

Tay

Mong

83.5

Kinh

1.3

67.1

Rural

Khmer

32.9

Urban

1.5

48.1

Female

Muong

51.9

Male

96.2

3.8

7.9

2.5

1.5

2.2

1.9

82.5

69.2

30.8

48.3

51.7

97.1

2.9

8.2

2.3

1.5

2.0

1.8

82.7

71.6

28.4

48.7

51.3

1,480,606 7,188,988 5,410,739

Total

1,480,606

Annex 3: Population distribution by province

98.1

1.9

26.9

34.6

0.0

0.8

0.3

11.7

25.6

82.2

17.8

46.9

53.1

14,326

5 0

96.8

3.2

24.9

36.3

0.0

0.2

0.1

15.8

22.7

84.2

15.8

48.5

51.5

65,188

13,703

12,953

12,736

12,781

13,015

6 - 10

Lao Cai

98.0

2.0

29.0

32.2

0.0

0.3

0.0

17.6

20.9

85.7

14.3

48.0

52.0

49,455

11,551

12,525

13,053

12,325

11 - 14

96.8

3.2

8.0

53.5

0.0

22.5

0.0

15.9

89.1

10.9

49.6

50.4

13,700

5 0

97.0

3.0

6.7

52.7

0.0

0.3

27.5

0.1

12.6

90.0

10.0

47.6

52.4

61,778

11,441

13,420

12,659

11,496

12,762

6 - 10

Dien Bien

98.7

1.3

8.4

50.5

0.0

0.1

29.3

0.3

11.5

91.0

9.0

48.0

52.0

44,582

10,746

12,288

9,795

11,753

11 - 14

96.0

4.0

28.1

0.5

0.0

71.3

63.6

36.4

43.8

56.2

9,541

5 0

97.0

3.0

28.5

0.3

0.0

71.2

65.9

34.1

48.6

51.4

53,649

10,839

11,213

10,656

9,971

10,970

6 - 10

Ninh Thuan

97.7

2.3

28.4

0.2

0.0

71.3

67.7

32.3

46.4

53.6

43,057

11,737

11,661

10,324

9,334

11 - 14

97.8

2.2

59.2

0.3

0.0

0.5

0.9

38.5

72.1

27.9

48.2

51.8

11,607

98.3

1.7

61.9

0.6

0.0

1.3

0.5

0.8

34.9

71.6

28.4

49.6

50.4

52,307

9,327

10,823

10,658

11,036

10,464

6 - 10

Kon Tum

98.7

1.3

59.1

0.5

0.0

1.1

0.7

0.6

38.0

70.3

29.7

48.7

51.3

41,193

10,255

11,792

9,249

9,897

11 - 14

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

173

Migrant

Ethnicity

Urban/Rural (%)

Gender (%)

Age (number of people)

29,332

Total

0.2

Thai

0.4 44.8 5.0 95.0

Mong

Other

Yes

0.0

0.8

Tay

Khmer

53.6

Kinh

0.2

73.8

Rural

Muong

48.3 26.2

Female

Urban

51.7

Male

9 0

29,332

5 0

96.7

3.3

47.2

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.1

0.7

50.8

74.7

25.3

50.0

149,198

28,986

31,326

31,322

26,768

30,796

6 - 10

Gia Lai

97.0

3.0

47.7

1.3

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.3

50.4

75.6

24.4

49.7

50.3

117,224

27,561

33,896

27,070

28,697

11 - 14

Annex 3: Population distribution by province (continued)

81.7

18.3

3.6

0.0

0.3

0.1

0.0

96.1

22.1

77.9

50.5

49.5

124,536

5 0

87.1

12.9

4.7

0.0

0.2

0.0

95.2

21.0

79.0

47.9

52.1

552,459

117,097

112,589

103,154

106,340

113,279

6 - 10

Tp. HCM

88.5

11.5

5.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

94.4

19.0

81.0

47.2

52.8

392,210

97,177

104,445

93,591

96,997

11 - 14

97.4

2.6

0.0

100.0

78.6

21.4

49.4

50.6

27,259

5 0

97.4

2.6

0.0

0.1

99.9

82.2

17.8

48.6

51.4

133,712

26,748

28,644

27,996

24,504

25,820

6 - 10

Đồng Tháp

98.3

1.7

0.0

100.0

83.8

16.2

46.9

53.1

105,691

24,845

30,474

24,653

25,720

11 - 14

95.0

5.0

1.9

0.0

2.6

0.0

95.5

69.8

30.2

46.6

53.4

38,358

96.3

3.7

1.7

0.0

4.2

0.0

94.1

70.9

29.1

49.5

50.5

183,132

33,668

38,380

37,483

34,105

39,495

6 - 10

An Giang

97.9

2.1

2.4

0.0

3.7

0.0

93.9

72.2

27.8

51.5

48.5

129,579

30,573

35,974

33,333

29,699

11 - 14

Annex 4: Population (age 5) Unit: person Total Age

Male

Female

1,480,606

768,515

712,091

Urban

486,753

249,726

237,027

Rural

993,853

518,789

475,064

Kinh

1,235,949

643,294

592,655

Tay

26,633

13,052

13,581

Thai

31,758

16,423

15,335

Muong

22,298

11,655

10,643

Khmer

19,346

10,320

9,026

Mong

37,847

19,029

18,818

Other

106,774

54,742

52,032

Yes

81,613

42,517

39,096

1,398,993

725,998

672,995

Urban/Rural

Ethnicity

Migrant

174

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

Annex 5: Population (age 6-10) Unit: person Total

Male

Female

1,486,304

769,772

716,532

1,411,361

730,350

681,012

1,407,601

729,986

677,614

1,434,487

746,326

688,161

1,449,236

739,762

709,473

Total

7,188,988

3,716,196

3,472,792

Urban

2,217,429

1,144,228

1,073,202

Rural

4,971,559

2,571,969

2,399,591

Kinh

5,932,391

3,072,020

2,860,371

Tay

139,168

70,057

69,111

Thai

155,525

81,641

73,884

Muong

107,630

55,037

52,593

Khmer

105,987

54,267

51,720

Mong

181,033

92,986

88,047

Other

567,254

290,188

277,066

Yes

276,006

140,991

135,015

6,912,982

3,575,205

3,337,778

Age

Urban/Rural

Ethnicity

Migrant

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

175

Annex 6: Population (age 11-14) Unit: person Total

Age

Male

Female

1,297,323

667,985

629,339

1,345,469

691,569

653,900

1,473,682

759,645

714,037

1,294,264

658,111

636,154

Total

5,410,739

2,777,310

2,633,429

Urban

1,536,753

786,099

750,654

Rural

3,873,986

1,991,211

1,882,775

Kinh

4,474,800

2,303,172

2,171,628

Tay

98,317

49,792

48,525

Thai

108,616

54,489

54,127

Muong

78,546

40,384

38,161

Khmer

79,301

38,746

40,555

Mong

126,188

64,168

62,020

Other

444,971

226,559

218,412

Yes

156,804

77,327

79,477

5,253,935

2,699,983

2,553,952

Urban/Rural

Ethnicity

Migrant

176

REPORT ON OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN Viet Nam country study 2016

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

Địa chỉ: 49 Đại Cồ Việt, Hà Nội Tel: +84.4. 8695712 E-mail: bogddt@moet.edu.vn. Web: http://www.moet.gov.vn

UNICEF VIET NAM Add: Green One UN House, 304 Kim Ma, Ba Dinh, Ha Noi Tel: (84 24) 3.850.0100 Fax: (84 24) 3.726.5520 Email: hanoi.registry@unicef.org Web: www.unicef.org/vietnam Follow us: • www.facebook.com/unicefvietnam • www.youtube.com/unicefvietnam

Địa chỉ: 81A Trần Quốc Toản Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội Tel: +84.4. 3.942.5706 - 11 Fax: +84.4. 3.942.5705 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING Web: www.unicef.org/vietnam

Add: 35 Dai Co Viet, Ha Noi Tel: (84 24) 3.869.5144 • Fax: www.facebook.com/unicefvietnam (84 24) 3.869.4085 Email: bogddt@moet.gov.vn • www.youtube.com/unicefvietnam Web: https://moet.gov.vn