ALL
TẤT CẢ
CHILDREN
TRẺ EMIN
ĐƯỢC
SCHOOL
ĐẾN BY
TRƯỜNG
2015 VÀO 2015
Global
Sáng kiến
Initiative
Toàn cầu
on về
Out-of-School
Trẻ em ngoài nhà
Children
trường
Việt
Out-of-school
children:STUDY
Viet nam country study
VIET NAM COUNTRY
Ha Noi, December
December,2013
2013
2
Trẻ em ngoài nhà trường - Nghiên cứu của Việt Nam
MINISTRY
EDUCATION
MINISTRY
OFOF
EDUCATION
AND
TRAINING
AND TRAINING
Nam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Report “Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam’s Study” aims to inform the education management
and planning, and policy advocacy for achieving equity in education for all children, with focus on
disadvantaged children. The report also aims to inform the policy research and planning by the relevant
ministries, local authorities and research agencies of the Government of Viet Nam, and to satisfy the
requirements for information by the international organizations and other users in the efforts to reduce
the number of out-of-school children in Viet Nam. UNICEF Viet Nam’s Country Office and the UNICEF
Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the global working
teams have supported financially and technically for the preparation of the initial draft of this report.
The analysis and structure of the Report follow the guidance of Conceptual Framework and
Methodology under Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children as designed by UNICEF and UNESCO.
The only data source of the report is from the Population and Housing Census 2009.
International team in charge of report writing includes: Mr. Muhammad Quamrul Hasan, independent
consultant who delivered all analysis on important quantitative data and an author of Chapter 2; and
Ms. Elaine Furniss, independent consultant who synthesized and systematized information for the
report and the author of the remaining chapters.
The finalization of the report was led by the Ministry of Education and Training’s Department of
Planning and Finance, starting in October, 2012, in coordination with UNICEF Viet Nam, with the
technical assistance by Mr. Nguyen Phong, UNICEF consultant, and with the valuable comments
and suggestions by the relevant departments under MOET, the central agencies such as the General
Statistics Office, the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, the Ethnic Council of the National
Assembly, and particularly the enthusiastic support of provincial Department of Education and Training,
District Bureau of Education and Training, district/commune People’s Committees and relevant
departments and some primary and upper and lower secondary schools in the 6 provinces of Dien Bien,
Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh city, Dong Thap and An Giang. The agencies and institutions have
helped to review the data, provide actual information on the situation of out-of-school children in the
localities, and share experiences in the implementation of the support policies, as well as comment on
other contents and the report’s format. In addition, the information stated in the report that relate to
out-of school children and children at risk of drop-out have been further verified through interviews
with parents and children in above-mentioned 6 provinces. During the finalization of the report, data
analyzed in Chapter 2 of the report have been re-calculated using the MOET’s age calculation method to
make the Census data compatible and comparable to routine data collected by the education sector.
From UNICEF Viet Nam, the Education Section provided comprehensive support to the whole process
from report drafting stage, finalization and printing of the report. The report has received precious
comments from the UNICEF’s Regional Office in East Asia – Pacific and UNESCO Institute for Statistics in
Canada. Various partners from Education Sector Group have provided valuable comments such as the
Belgian Technical Corporation, Belgium Embassy in Ha Noi, UNESCO Viet Nam, UNESCO’s Regional Office
in Bangkok.
The Ministry of Education and Training and UNICEF Viet Nam would like to extend our sincere thanks to
organizations and individuals engaged in the drafting and finalization of the Report.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................................3
LIST OF ABBREVIATION.......................................................................................................................10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................17
1.1. Some geographic and socio-economic features of Viet Nam ............................................................... 18
1.2. Global initiative on Out-of-School Children and 5 dimensions of exclusion .................................... 20
1.2.1. Global initiative on Out-of-School Children......................................................................................... 20
1.2.2. Five Dimensions of Exclusion.................................................................................................................... 20
1.3. Report methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER II PROFILES OF Out-of-school CHILDREN..........................................................................25
2.1. Data overview and analysis considerations................................................................................................... 25
2.2 Characteristics of School Aged Children.......................................................................................................... 27
2.3. Dimension 1: Out-of-school children aged 5................................................................................................. 28
2.4. Dimension 2: Out-of-school children of primary school age................................................................... 31
2.4.1. School Attendance of Primary School Age Children ....................................................................... 31
2.4.2. OOSC of primary school age...................................................................................................................... 35
2.5. Dimension 3: Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age................................................. 38
2.5.1. School Attendance of Lower Secondary Age Children.................................................................... 38
2.5.2. Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age................................................................... 43
2.6. Dimension 4 and 5: Children at risk of dropping out................................................................................. 47
2.6.1. Drop-out children aged 5-17..................................................................................................................... 47
2.6.2. Educational attainment of dropout children aged 5-17.................................................................. 51
2.6.3. Over-age........................................................................................................................................................... 53
2.7. Analysis of Selected Provinces............................................................................................................................ 55
2.7.1. Some features of the population............................................................................................................. 56
2.7.2. School attendance status........................................................................................................................... 57
2.7.3. Out-of-school children................................................................................................................................. 67
2.7.4. Dropouts and over-age............................................................................................................................... 70
2.8. Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................................. 78
CHAPTER III BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS......................................................................................81
3.1 Economic barriers concerning the demand side of education. .............................................................. 81
4
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
3.1.1. Poverty is the major economic barrier to children school attendance. .................................... 81
3.1.2. Child working for family is the second economic barrier to school attendance. The barrier
increases as age increases. .................................................................................................................................... 82
3.1.3 Migration for employment.......................................................................................................................... 82
3.1.4 Climate change and disasters.................................................................................................................... 83
3.2 Socio-cultural barriers from the demand side, concerning children and their parents ................. 83
3.2.1 Children do not want to go to school..................................................................................................... 83
3.2.2 Children with disabilities ............................................................................................................................. 84
3.2.3 Lack of parental care and attention to children’s learning.............................................................. 84
3.2.4 Poor learning results ..................................................................................................................................... 85
3.2.5 Children in unregistered households...................................................................................................... 85
3.2.6 The cultural norms in some ethnic minority communities place women and girls in subordinate positions to men ............................................................................................................................................. 85
3.2.7 Early marriage is a reason for young girls to drop out in some communities ......................... 85
3.2.8 The cultural stereotypes that define ethnic minority people as deficient and not like the Kinh
majority, or that one ethnic minority group is superior than others .................................................... 86
3.3 Barriers and bottlenecks in supply side............................................................................................................ 86
3.3.1. School Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................... 86
3.3.2. Teachers............................................................................................................................................................. 90
3.3.3. School management ................................................................................................................................... 91
3.4 System analysis.......................................................................................................................................................... 92
3.4.1. Curriculum requirements are difficult to achieve ............................................................................. 92
3.4.2 Education is not delivered in mother tongue language ................................................................ 93
3.4.3. Gaps in data and information for analyses on ethnic minority groups or other vulnerable
groups .......................................................................................................................................................................... 93
3.5. Governance, capacity and financing mechanism........................................................................................ 94
3.5.1. Bottlenecks related to Governance and capacity.............................................................................. 94
3.5.2. Financial bottlenecks.................................................................................................................................... 94
3.6. Barriers and bottlenecks analysis...................................................................................................................... 95
CHAPTER IV POLICIES RELATED TO Out-of-school CHILDREN.........................................................99
4.1. Current policies which currently address out-of-school children (OOSC) issues............................. 99
4.1.1. Education policies......................................................................................................................................... 99
4.1.2. National targeted programmes on education.................................................................................... 103
4.1.3. Decentralisation and education management................................................................................... 104
4.1.4. Policies to eliminate economic barriers and improve living standards..................................... 104
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
5
4.2. Social insurance and protection related to education and out-of-school children ....................... 106
4.2.5. Capacity Gaps in Social Protection ......................................................................................................... 108
4.2.6. Overarching analysis and implications for education...................................................................... 108
5.1. Recommendations related to the children and parents:.......................................................................... 111
CHAPTER V................................................................................................................................................................................ 111
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................................ 111
5.2. Recommendations related to teachers:........................................................................................................... 112
5.3. Recommendations related to the schools: .................................................................................................... 112
5.4. Recommendations related to management:................................................................................................ 113
5.4.1. Education planning and policy development..................................................................................... 113
5.4.2. Implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 113
5.4.3. Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 114
5.5. Recommendations related to policies............................................................................................................. 114
5.6. Recommendations related to the education system................................................................................. 115
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................117
Annex 1: Poverty reduction programmes in Viet Nam Targetting Education................................................. 120
Annex 2: Additional tables ................................................................................................................................................. 126
6
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Population of children by school age group............................................................................................ 27
Table 2.2 Population Distribution of School Age Children by age, gender and others................................ 28
Table 2.3 School Attendance Status of Children Aged 5.......................................................................................... 29
Table 2.4 Primary Net Attendance Rate (NAR)............................................................................................................. 32
Table 2.5 Primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR) with GPI..................................................................... 33
Table 2.6 Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Primary School Age............................................................ 36
Table 2.7 Lower Secondary Net Attendance Rate...................................................................................................... 39
Table 2.8 Lower Secondary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR) with GPI.................................................. 40
Table 2.9 Lower Secondary Age Children Attending Primary Grades................................................................. 42
Table 2.10: Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Lower Secondary School Age..................................... 44
Table 2.11a: Number of Children out-of-school, by age group and sex............................................................. 46
Table 2.11b: Classification of OOSCs .............................................................................................................................. 47
Table 2.12a: Attendance status by age and other characteristics of children aged 5-17 ............................ 48
Table 2.12b: Percentage of Dropout Children.............................................................................................................. 49
Table 2.13: Dropout at Primary School Age.................................................................................................................. 50
Table 2.14: Dropout at Lower Secondary Age.............................................................................................................. 51
Table 2.15: Educational Attainment of Out-of-school Children (OOSC) Aged 5 - 17..................................... 52
Table 2.16: Percentage of Attendance in Primary and Lower Secondary Grades by Age............................ 54
Table 2.17: Over-age and Under-age by grade............................................................................................................ 55
Table 2.18: Provincial Population Distribution............................................................................................................. 56
Table 2.19 a: Attendance Rate of Children Aged 5 by Province............................................................................. 58
Table 2.19b: Attendance Rate of Children Aged 5 by Province............................................................................. 59
Table 2.20: Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by Province............................ 60
Table 2.21: Primary ANAR by Province............................................................................................................................ 63
Table 2.22: Lower Secondary ANAR and Primary Attendance by Province....................................................... 65
Table 2.23: Primary OOSC Rate by Province.................................................................................................................. 67
Table 2.24: Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province.............................................................................................. 69
Table 2.25a: Attendance Status of Primary School Age Children by Province (1)........................................... 72
Table 2.25b: Attendance Status of Primary School Age Children by Province (2).......................................... 73
Table 2.26a: Attendance Status of Lower Secondary School Age Children by Province (1)....................... 75
Table 2.26b: Attendance Status of Lower Secondary School Age Children by Province (2)....................... 76
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
7
Table 2.27: Over-Age in Primary Grades by Province................................................................................................ 77
Table 2.28: Over-Age in Lower Secondary Grades by Province............................................................................. 77
Table 3.1: School Basic Infrastructure in school year of 2009-2010..................................................................... 89
Table 4.1: Distribution of social welfare......................................................................................................................... 107
Table 2.1: Child population by age.................................................................................................................................. 126
Table 2.2a: Population Distribution of School Age Groups by Ethnic Background (1)................................. 127
Table 2.2b: Population Distribution of School Age Groups by Ethnic Background (2)................................. 129
Table 2.3: opulation distribution by province (1)........................................................................................................ 131
Table 2.3b: Population distribution by province (2)................................................................................................... 132
Table 2.4: Population of children aged 5....................................................................................................................... 133
Table 2.5: Population of children aged 6-10................................................................................................................. 134
Table 2.6: Population of children aged 11-14............................................................................................................... 135
8
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Structure of Viet Nam’s National Education System.............................................................................. 19
Figure 1.2: Five dimensions of exclusion....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.1: Percentage of out-of-school children aged 5......................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.2: Comparison of out-of-school children aged 5 in Viet Nam with other countries..................... 31
Figure 2.3: Primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR).................................................................................... 34
Figure 2.4: Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Primary School Age......................................................... 37
Figure 2.5: Comparison of OOSC at primary education in Viet Nam and other countries........................... 37
Figure 2.6: Lower Secondary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR)................................................................. 41
Figure 2.7: Lower Secondary Age Children Attending Primary Grades.............................................................. 43
Figure 2.8: Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Lower Secondary School Age..................................... 45
Figure 2.9: Comparison of OOSC at lower secondary education in Viet Nam and other countries......... 46
Figure 2.10: Percentage of Dropout Children by Age............................................................................................... 50
Figure 2.11: OOSC Aged 5 - 17 by grade completed ................................................................................................ 53
Figure 2.12: Over-Age in Primary and Lower Secondary Grades.......................................................................... 55
Figure 2.13: Distribution of Population (5-14 year-olds) by Province ................................................................. 57
Figure 2.14: Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by Province.......................... 61
Figure 2.15: Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by Ethnicity.......................... 61
Figure 2.16: Percentage of Children Aged 5 Attending Pre-Primary or Primary School (Migrant)........... 62
Figure 2.17: Primary ANAR by Province and Ethnicity.............................................................................................. 64
Figure 2.18: Lower Secondary ANAR by Province (Ethnicity)................................................................................. 66
Figure 2.19: Lower Secondary Attending Primary Grades by Province (Ethnicity)......................................... 66
Figure 2.20: Primary OOSC Rate by Province (Ethnicity).......................................................................................... 68
Figure 2.21: Primary OOSC Rate by Province and Migration.................................................................................. 68
Figure 2.22: Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province and Ethnicity................................................................. 70
Figure 2.23: Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province (Migrant)......................................................................... 70
Figure 2.24: Over-Age in Lower Secondary Grades by Province........................................................................... 77
Figure 3.1: Education expenditure per capita during the last 12 months by type of
expenditure, KSMS 2002-2010.......................................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 4.1: The difference between ethnic minorities and Kinh .......................................................................... 105
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
5DE
5 Dimensions of Exclusion
ADB
Asia Development Bank
ANAR
Adjusted Net Attendance Rate
BOET
Buerau of Education and Training
DOET
Department of Education and Training
MOET
Ministry of Education and Training
MOLISA
Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
CMF
Conceptual and Methodological Framework on Out-of-school Children
CPFC
Committee for Population, Families and Children
CRC
Convention on the Rights of the Child
CWD
Children with disability
DPC
District People’s Committee
ĐTGĐ
Survey on the Family in Viet Nam of Viet Nam
FDS
Full day schooling
IEC
Information, Education and Communication
ISCED
International Standards on Classification of Education
VHLSS
Survey on Household Living Standards of Viet Nam
NAR
Net Attendance Rate
NTP
National Targeted Program
ODA
Official Development Aid
OOSC, TENNT
Out-of-school children
PCFP
Provincial child friendly program
PPC
Provincial People’s Committee
SAVY
Survey Assessment of Vietnamese Youth
SAPs
Social assistance programs
SEDP
Socio Economic Development Plan
DOET
Department of Education and Training
GSO
General Statistics Office
HDS
Half day schooling
TĐTDS
Population and Housing Census
TĐTNNNT
Survey on Agriculture and Rural Areas
UIS
UNESCO Institute for Survey
VND
Vietnamese dong
10
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report “Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam’s Study” looks at the situation of out-of- school children
(including children who have never attended school or dropped out” between the age of 5 and 14 years
old); the children attending 5 years preschool, primary and lower secondary school at risk of dropping
out, meaning those children at risk of becoming out-of-school children (OOSC) in the future. It analyzes
barriers and bottlenecks restricting children’s schooling opportunity; then, proposes recommendations
for the reduction of OOSCs, to ensure equity in education and right to education of all Vietnamese
children. The report provide a national analysis with more in-depth OOSC profile for 8 provinces including
Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Gia Lai, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang.
The report was initiated within the framework of “Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children” following
the guidance of the Out-of-School Children Conceptual and Methodological Framework (CMF)” initiated
by UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics1. The finalization of the report was led by Ministry of
Education and Training (MOET) of Viet Nam, based on comments from relevant departments under
the MOET, the National Assembly’s Ethnic Council and with the strong engagement and support from
Provincial Departments of Education and Training, some District Bureau of Education and Training,
Commune/District People’s Committees and relevant stakeholders and selected primary schools and
lower secondary schools of 6 provinces of Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong
Thap and An Giang. Additionally, valuable feedback from UNICEF Viet Nam, UNICEF Regional Office for
East Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UNESCO Viet Nam, UNESCO Regional Office and
development partners such as Development Cooperation Agency, Belgian Embassy.
This report utilizes the data from the Population and Housing Census 2009 as the single source of data.
Out-of-school children in this report are analyzed by different characteristics, including age, gender,
ethnicity, urban/rural residence, disability and migration. In this report, age of children was counted as
of 2008, in alignment with the method of age calculation by the education sector, meaning 2008 minus
their year of birth. For example, 5-year children in this report were those children who were born in
2003, and they reached 5 years old as of 2008. Therefore, the data in the report is comparable with the
relevant data collected by the education sector for the academic year 2008-2009. The term “disability” in
this report is interpreted as the inability to perform one out of four functions of vision, hearing, mobility
(walking) and memorizing/concentration. A person is defined as “Disabled” if s/he is unable to perform
one of the above functions, as “Partially Disabled” if s/he performs one of the above functions with
difficulty or high difficulty, and “Having no disability” if he/she performs all of the four functions without
difficulty. The concept of “migration” is interpreted as the relocation from one district to another (either
within or outside a province) within a period of 5 years by the time of the Census on 1st April, 2009.
Main findings of the report are as follows:
• There are 14.3 million children aged between 5 and 14 years as of 2008, of which 1.5 million are
aged 5, 6.6 million aged 6 – 10, and 6.2 million aged 11 – 14.
• The percentage of children aged 5 currently attending preschool or primary school are 87.81%. The
percentage of out-of-school children aged 5 is 12.19%, equivalent to 175,848 children.
• The percentage of children aged 6-10 currently attending primary or secondary school is 96.03%.
The percentage of out-of-school children aged 6-10 is 3.97%, equivalent to 262,648 children.
• The percentage of children aged 11-14 currently attending school is 88.83%, including 82.93%
attending lower secondary school and 5.9% attending primary school. The percentage of
out-of-school children aged 11-14 is 11.17%, equivalent to 688,849 children.
• Total number of out-of-school children aged 5-14 is 1,127,345 children.
1
UNICEF & UIS (2011) Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children Conceptual and Methodological Framework (CMF) March 2011.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
11
• The percentage of children who attended but subsequently dropped out-of-school increases
dramatically as age increases. At 14, almost 16% of the age group population has dropped
out-of-school. At 17 which is the end year of upper secondary school, the drop out figure increases
to more than 39%.
• The percentage of never-attended-school children is relatively high and especially high among
some ethnic minority groups. The average figure of never-attended-school children aged between
5 and 17 is 2.57% in Viet Nam. In Mong ethnic group, this figure is highest, at 23.02%. In other
words, almost one quarter of all school aged Mong children have never attended any form of
schooling.
• Viet Nam’s over-age attendance at both primary and lower secondary schools is 6% on average.
However, further disaggregation to the provincial level shows high rates in some provinces,
for example, in Gia Lai and Dien Bien where children were over-age for the grades they were
attending.
• The percentage of out-of-school children in urban areas is higher than in rural areas. The difference
increases as age increases. OOSC rate disparity between rural and urban areas is not remarkable at
the age of 5 but almost twice at the primary and lower secondary age.
• Gender disparity is small or non-existent in primary school age, except in Mong ethnic group and
in the group of children with disabilities. It starts to show once children reach secondary school
age, especially among ethnic minority groups where boys out-of-school and boy drop-out rates
are higher than those of girls, except in Mong ethnic group, children with disabilities and migrant
children. This may indicate the quality issue which involves for example the relevance of education
in terms of skills development and gender responsiveness from an employment perspective.
Gender disparity in most ethnic minorities happens more often that boys are more disadvantaged
than girls, except for Mong group where an opposite trend is observed. Mong girls have
significantly less opportunity to attend school than boys, especially at lower secondary level. ANAR
GPI of girls is 0.85% at primary level and only 0.56% at lower secondary level. The lower secondary
net attendance rate among Mong girls is low, at only 24.36%, equivalent to only one out of every
four lower secondary age Mong girls attending secondary school and half of Mong boys of same
age group attending secondary school. OOSC rates among Mong girls of primary and lower
secondary school age are 1.5 and 2 times higher than those among the boys respectively.
Gender disparity among children with disabilities takes place at both primary and lower secondary
age. The ANAR GPI is at 1.05 for children with disabilities at primary level, and at 1.73 for children
with disabilities and 1.12 for children with partial disabilities at lower secondary level. With these
indexes higher than gender parity range of 1.03, boys with disabilities have less opportunities to
school than girls with disabilities at both primary and lower secondary age.
Gender disparity among migrant children takes place at lower secondary age with GPI of migrant
groups at 0.95, lower than the gender parity range of 0.97. This means migrant girls at lower
secondary age is more disadvantaged than their peer boys at the same school age.
Gender disparity is also observed among children at secondary school age attending primary
schools. In each disaggregation either by ethnicity or other criteria, the rate of boys at secondary
school age attending primary schools is always higher than that among girls. This shows an
obvious trend that boys progress more slowly than girls during the transition from primary to
secondary level.
• There are some differences among migrant and non-migrant groups. Migrant groups consistently
perform worse than non-migrant groups and the difference also increases as age increases.
Migrant families have a higher rate of OOSC aged 5 than that of non-migrant families, specifically
at 1.3 times at the age of 5, 1.8 times at primary school age and 2.4 times at lower secondary age.
12
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
• Children with disabilities show clearer disadvantages in education with very low enrolment and a
very high out-of-school rate. OOSC rate at primary level and lower secondary level is about 25% for
children with partial disabilities and over 90% for children with disabilities.
• The report shows great disparities among 8 selected provinces. Population of ethnic groups
may play an important role, but this is not always the case. An Giang has the least percentage
in minority ethnic groups but its performance is often at the poorer end of the list. To give an
example of the provincial differences: in the better performing province of Ho Chi Minh City,
the out-of-school rate among children aged 5 is 13.66%, among children aged 6 – 10 is 2.35%,
and among children aged 11 – 14 is 9.92%. In the worse performing province of Dien Bien, these
figures are 22.3%, 15.75%, and 24.78% respectively. Apart from the out-of-school rate, there are
also differences in the rate of over-age attendance. The average over-age attendance at both
primary and lower secondary grades is nearly 6%. However, a further disaggregation to provincial
level shows quite high rate of over-age attendance, for example, in Gia Lai (16.41% at primary
grades and 12.66% at lower secondary grades) and Dien Bien (15.92% at primary grades and
21.73% at lower secondary grades). Four provinces of Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum and An Giang
have higher over-age attendance rates than the national average. Ho Chi Minh city has the lowest
over-age attendance rate of all 8 provinces, at 2.10% for primary grades and 3.86% for lower
secondary grades.
Excluded children in Viet Nam (never enrolled, dropped out or at risk) involves poor children, children
living in remote areas, ethnic minority children, children with disabilities, working children, migrant
children. In addition, there are smaller numbers of children affected/infected by HIV, orphans, street
children, trafficked children and children in other special circumstances. These children are potentially at
the risk of dropout or a number of them already dropped out.
There are a number of barriers and bottlenecks that are given as reasons for the profiles developed
above. Demand side economic and socio-cultural barriers are those concern children and family.
Demand side economic barriers are associated with poverty which restricts their affordability of
educational costs. Demand side socio-cultural barriers to education are those which lessen family
demand for children’s school attendance. They are found in the family and community and in the
traditions kept by families and within communities. In Viet Nam the big issues with regard to demand
side socio-cultural barriers are lack of awareness on the long-term educational value and lack of
genuine family and community participation. Other demand side barriers are discussed in detail in this
report.
Supply side barriers concern bottlenecks related to infrastructure and resources, teachers, and the
learning environment, which affects students enrolment and attendance. A recent study suggests that
learning achievement of ethnic minority students’ are often more affected by school and teacher factors
than the above mentioned demand side factors. A number of stakeholders said that there remain issues
in terms of curriculum and child centered approaches. Recent important developments in assessing
children’s learning achievements in literacy and numeracy have provided very useful insights beyond
grade attainment in the education system in Viet Nam. However, intense study, heavy school workload
and lack of entertainment facilities are seen as the sources of pressures on the children, and as a result
a proportion of ethnic minority and underperforming children have failed to keep pace with and are at
risk of dropping out-of-school.
Governance, the process in which decisions are made and implemented, influences education
outcomes in Viet Nam. In a system seen by some commentators as having constraints in leadership
capacity and accountability, it is those principals who are actively managing their schools and involving
parents and communities where real changes are being made. The lack of appropriate decision-making
at lower levels of management in the education sector affects learning outcomes of students. However,
the development of a two tiered society where those who can pay receive quality education for their
children, while those who cannot receive the barest of education provision, does little to uphold the
principle of equity for all.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
13
There have been a number of useful innovations to move education forward, especially for those who
are disadvantaged, ethnic minority children such as tuition reduction or exemption policy. However,
challenges in the implementation, the underlying economic constraints in families and the fact that
not all cash assistance are taken up by those who are poor leave gaps in education provision to the
disadvantaged children. Examples are provided in this report.
There is also the notion that many useful ideas have come via development cooperation and have not
been expanded to operate across the country to support those who lack access to a quality education.
Innovative programs such as provision of boarding, semi-boarding schools, access to mother tongue
based programmes, use of ethnic minority teaching assistants and the introduction of full day schooling
are all appropriate and necessary to ensure the remaining 8% of Viet Nam’s children aged 5-14 have
access to education. However such innovations will need to be taken over by government funding and
extended throughout the country.
Due to the stark disparity between Kinh and other vulnerable ethnic minority groups in Viet Nam, it
remains a long way to achieve positive imaging of minorities and other disadvantaged children in text
books and learning, and in the media in general breaking down in country cultural barriers.
Viet Nam has a number of social protection programmes including social insurance and social welfare
schemes, the latter including targeted programs and special schemes for war veterans and invalids
among others. Poor people are covered by many social welfare policies, however the quality of these
services remain low especially in poor areas. Migrants in urban areas also have only limited access.
More recently a number of agencies and researchers have put forward the notion of a family-based
package of assistance, integrating and expanding existing programmes, to serve as a foundation on
which additional benefits can be built, depending on household characteristics such as numbers of
household members working or number and ages of children with an aim to benefit the bottom 15% of
households in terms of wealth and assuming nationwide implementation. UNICEF also makes the point
that social workers and other care workers are needed at local levels to ensure that needy families get
access to welfare services.
There is much to applaud the development in education provision in Viet Nam in the past thirty or
so years and enrolment and completion have risen dramatically. Viet Nam has also increased funding
levels for education in terms of percentage from GDP beyond the levels of most countries in the East
Asia and Pacific region though the budget scale remains limited and has not fully met the demand
for educational development. However, given the situation of out-of-school children as analyzed in
the report, much remains to be done to address the multi-faceted challenges and barriers to ensure
the right to education of all Vietnamese children. A number of recommendations are made in the
conclusion of this report, to lessen the number of out-of-school children and to decrease the risk of
school drop out.
14
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
15
16
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Report “Out-of-school Children: Viet Nam’s Study” is part of the regional initiative undertaken by
UNICEF Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific. The initial drafting of the report was undertaken
by the international team of experts. The finalization was led by the national Ministry of Education and
Training with assistance from UNICEF Viet Nam and the national consultant.
The report aims to highlight some concerned issues related to inequity in education in Viet Nam
through analyzing the situation both in terms of quantity and characteristics of out-of-school children
aged 5-14 years, who have never attended school or have attended but dropped out; analyzing children
who attend 5 year pre-school, primary, and lower-secondary school children but are at risk of drop-out;
analyzing the barriers and bottlenecks that prevent and restrict children from attending school. The
report helps to enhance the awareness on OOSC, to improve education management and planning and
to strengthen the policy advocacy to reduce the number of OOSC, realizing the right to education of the
children in general and disadvantaged children in particular.
This report utilizes the data from Viet Nam Population and Housing Census 2009. The analysis of
the barriers and the recommendations is also based on findings from the field consultations with
representatives of educational managers, parents, children and local authorities and communities2 in
6 provinces of Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang during the
period from December, 2012 to March 2013.
The analysis follows the model of the Five Dimensions of Exclusion as part of Out-of-School Children
Conceptual and Methodological Framework for the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children (OOSC)
launched by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
The report includes 5 chapters. Chapter I gives an overview of the Report, the geographical, and
socio-economic features of Viet Nam; the structure, management and financing of the education
system; the Global Initiative on Out-of-school children and the 5 dimensions of exclusion model; and
the methodology of the study report. Chapter II analyses the statistical profile of out-of-school children
of pre-primary, primary and lower secondary age, as informed by the CMF developed by UNICEF and
UNESCO. Chapter III studies the barriers or bottlenecks that cause the child exclusion from education,
including no or limited access to school, drop out and at risk of dropout. The analysis in this chapter
is based on the results of the quantitative and qualitative research on education in Viet Nam in recent
years, as well as the field surveys in the 6 above mentioned provinces. Chapter IV reviews and analyzes
the policies related to OOSC and the shortcomings of those policies. Finally, Chapter V provides
recommendations to address OOSC issues.
2 In Dien Bien: DOET of Dien Bien, BOET of Tuan Giao district, Phinh Sang Primary School, Mun Chung Lower Secondary School
In Ninh Thuan: DOET of Ninh Thuan, BOET of Thuan Nam district, Gia Primary School, Van Ly Lower Secondary School
In Kon Tum: DOET of Kon Tum, BOET of Dak Glei district, Dak Long Primary School, Dak Long Semi-boarding Lower Secondary School
In Ho Chi Minh City: DOET of HCMC, BOET of Binh Tan district, Binh Tri Dong Primary School, Binh Tri Dong A Lower Secondary School
In Dong Thap: DOET of Dong Thap, BOET of Hong Ngu district, Thuong Thoi Hau A Primary School, Thuong Phuoc 2 Lower Secondary School
In An Giang: DOET of An Giang, BOET of An Phu district, C Quoc Thai Primary School, Khanh An Lower Secondary School
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
17
1.1. Some geographic and socio-economic features of Viet Nam
Viet Nam borders the Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Tonkin, and the East Sea, as well as China, Laos, and
Cambodia. It has a 3,444 km coastline and a total area of 331,210 sq km. Viet Nam is in monsoon tropical
climate zone with a combination of plain and upland terrain and is prone to natural disasters. Each year
Viet Nam is subject to hazardous typhoons along its long coastline and major flooding particularly in
the Mekong Delta and at risk of major impact from climate change.
According to Population and Housing Census 2009, Viet Nam comprises of 54 ethnic groups, of which
Kinh (Viet) make the majority (85,7%); main ethnic minorities are Tay (1.9%), Thai (1.8%), Muong (1.5%),
Khmer (1.5%), Mong (1.2%), Nung (1.1%), and 5.3% of other groups; 25% of the population is aged 0-14
years, 69.5% 15-64 years and 5.5% of the population is aged 65 years and over.
Viet Nam’s literacy rates are high (94% of people over the age of 15 can read and write), 94% of the
population has access to clean drinking water and 75% of the population have access to improved
sanitation system.
In 2010, Viet Nam achieved middle-income country status through rapid economic growth over the
past twenty years and reduction in overall poverty rates, from 58.1 per cent in 1993 to 14.5 per cent in
2008 (GSO). Viet Nam joined the World Trade Organization in 2007, was a non-permanent member of
the United Nations Security Council during 2008-2009, and chaired the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations in 2010.
Structure, management and financing of the education system
Viet Nam’s national education system has five general levels: Early childhood education, general
education, vocational training, university education, and continuing education.
Early childhood education includes nursery schools (from 3 months to 3 years of age) and kindergartens
(ages 3–5); general education includes primary education (grades 1–5); lower secondary education
(grades 6–9), and upper secondary education (grades 10–12), with entrance and final exams. There is
also a vocational or technical training track as an alternative option to upper secondary education.
18
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Figure 1.1
Structure of Viet Nam’s National Education System
Yrs Old
24 Yrs Old
21 Yrs Old
Doctor of
Philosophy
(2-4 yrs)
Master
(1-2 yrs)
University
(1.5-6 yrs)
College
(1.5-3 yrs)
Vocational college
(1.5-3 yrs)
Secondary
professionnal
education (3 - 4 yrs)
Secondary
vocational
education (3 - 4 yrs)
18 Yrs Old
15 Yrs Old
11 Yrs Old
6 Yrs Old
5 Yrs Old
3 Yrs Old
3 months
Upper secondary
education (3 yrs)
Lower secondary education (4 yrs)
Nonformal
cation
Vocational training
short term (< 1yrs)
Primary education (5 yrs)
Preschool education (Kindergarden)
Creche
Primary education is provided through main schools that may be complemented by satellite schools.3
Nearly all (98 per cent) main primary schools offer a complete grade sequence, while 77 per cent of
satellite schools offer all grades (1–5). Some 20 per cent of primary schools in Viet Nam offers only
half day schooling (25 periods per week). Periods are only about 30-35 minutes. Viet Nam has one of
the lowest primary education instructional times in the world, with less than 700 hours of mandated
instructional time a year. In remote areas, two class primary education groups share one classroom,
alternating morning and afternoon shifts. The same happens for secondary education (using several
shifts and a system of main and satellite schools). This is changing through the adoption of full day
schooling, starting in urban areas.
Government support for education in Viet Nam has increased over the past 25 years. The share of
education in the national budget grew from 7 per cent in 1986 to roughly 20 per cent in 2008. Viet Nam
was spending about 5.3 per cent of its GDP on education in 2008. This share is high relative to the East
Asian average of about 3.5 per cent. Per pupil expenditure in 2008 was also high at around 20 and 17
per cent of GDP per capita in primary and secondary education in Viet Nam, respectively, compared
with the East Asian average of about 14 per cent for both levels.4 However, the absolute figures of Viet
Nam’s spending on education are not high.
Education management for kindergarten, primary and lower-secondary education is decentralized to
the district, and upper-secondary education to the provincial levels. The central Ministry of Education
and Training (MOET) sets curriculum; publishes textbooks; and establishes rules on teaching and
assessment. Expenses for early childhood education and general education (including primary, lower
and upper secondary schools) come mainly from the state budget. Most of Viet Nam’s schools are
government-operated schools although increasingly the private sector in education is developing.
3http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.7&view=3401
4 World Bank (2011) Viet Nam: World Bank (2011), Viet Nam - High quality education for all by 2020, # 56085-VN, Vol. 1: Overview and Policy Report.
Human Development Department East Asia and Pacific Region
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
19
Until September 1989 general education in Viet Nam was free. After that, however, only primary
education is free; fees are collected in secondary education to contribute to the financing of educational
activities.
Tuition fees exemption or reduction and lunch subsidies are offered to children in difficult
circumstances such as children with disabilities, children in ethnic minority boarding and semi-boarding
schools, children of the very small ethnic minority groups, children of deceased or seriously wounded
soldiers, children in remote areas, and children of poor households. Detail on children subject to
support is presented in Chapter 4.
1.2. Global initiative on Out-of-School Children and 5 dimensions of exclusion
1.2.1. Global initiative on Out-of-School Children
The global Initiative on Out-of-School Children is initiated by UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics
(UIS) in 2010 and expected to roll out in 23 developing countries. The initiative aims to improve the
statistics and analyses on out-of-school children by thorough examination of the factors contributed
to the educational exclusion and existing policies in order to accelerate access to education, and
to address gaps in data, analysis and policy. The objective is to offer a more systematic approach to
out-of-school children and provide guidance for specific reforms in education. Each national study will
be conducted and the results will be synthesized in the regional and global studies, and shared in a
global conference to seek for more resources for equity in education.5
1.2.2. Five Dimensions of Exclusion
Five dimensions of exclusion is short for the Model of Five Dimensions of Exclusion from Education,
which makes the conceptual and methodological framework of the Global Initiative on Out-of-School
Children.
5DE comprises of the first three dimensions that capture out-of-school children and two remaining
dimensions focus on children who are in school but at risk of dropping out. According to UNICEF and
UIS, the term “exclusion” for OOSC is interpreted as they are excluded from education while the term
for children at risk of dropping out is interpreted as being excluded in education as they have to face
discriminative practices within the school, specifically:
Pre-primary education is represented by Dimension 1, which highlights children of pre-primary school
age who are not in pre-primary or primary education
Primary education is represented by Dimension 2, which captures children of primary school age who
are not in primary or secondary education.
Lower-secondary education is represented by Dimension 3, which captures children of lower-secondary
school age who are not in primary or secondary education.
Dimension 4 and 5 focus on school children but at risk of dropping out. Understanding more about
these groups of children is key to preventing them from becoming the out-of-school children of
tomorrow (Lewin 2007). Dimension 4 covers children in primary school who are considered at risk of
dropping out, and Dimension 5 covers children in lower secondary school who are considered at risk.
The Five Dimensions are listed below in the box and displayed in the subsequent figure.
5
UNICEF & UIS (2011) Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children Conceptual and methodological framework (CMF) March 2011
20
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
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 at risk of dropping out
Dimension 5: Children who are in lower secondary school but at risk of dropping out
Not in
pre-primary
or primary
school
Pre-primary
age children
Dimension 2
Attended
Will never
but dropped
enter
out
Dimension 3
Will enter
later
Primary age children
Dimension 4
At risk of
dropping out of
primary school
Primary school students
Attended
but dropped
out
Will never
enter
Will enter
later
Out of school
Dimension 1
Five dimensions of exclusion
Lower secondary age children
Dimension 5
At risk of dropping
out of lower-secondary
school
In school
Figure 1.2:
Lower secondary school students
There are several important aspects to note regarding the 5DE. The distinct shape and color of
Dimension 1 in Figure 1 reflects the notion that while pre-primary school is important as preparation for
primary education, it is also distinct from formal programmes at primary or 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 education, placing them at risk of not entering
into primary education or, if they do enter, at risk of dropping out. Children who attend non-formal or
non-recognized pre-primary education programmes should be identified as a distinct group if the data
are available.
Each of the out-of-school Dimensions 2 and 3 is divided into three mutually exclusive categories based
on previous or future school exposure: children who attended in the past and dropped out, children
who will never enter school, and children who will enter school in the future. Some out-of-school
children of primary and lower secondary age may be in pre-primary or non-formal education and these
children should be identified separately.
Children in Dimensions 4 and 5 – those in school but at risk of exclusion from education – are grouped
by the level of education they attend, regardless of their age: primary (Dimension 4) or lower secondary
(Dimension 5). This is different from Dimensions 2 and 3, which group out-of-school children by their
age: primary (Dimension 2) or lower secondary (Dimension 3). The framework thus covers two different
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
21
types of populations: the population of out-of-school children of school-going age, and the population
of at-risk pupils of any age in primary or lower secondary school.
1.3. Report methodology
This report analyses education situation of pre-primary aged 5, primary and lower secondary children in
Viet Nam and of the children who are at primary and lower secondary education regardless of their age.
The report uses the model of 5 Dimensions of Exclusion as mentioned above. Report structure follows
the guidelines of the Global Initiative applied to national out-of-school children studies.
Following UNESCO definitions are used in the report:
- NAR: Net Attendance Rate.
- NAR at primary education is the net attendance rate at primary education which is the percentage
of children of the official primary school age group who are in primary school.
- NAR at lower secondary education is the net attendance rate at lower secondary education which
is the percentage of children of children of the official lower-secondary school age group who are
in lower secondary school.
- ANAR: Adjusted Net Attendance Rate
- ANAR at primary education is the adjusted net attendance rate at primary education, which is
the percentage of children of the official primary school age group who attend school in either
primary or secondary education.
- ANAR at lower secondary education is the adjusted net attendance rate at lower secondary
education, which is percentage of children of the official lower-secondary school age group who
attend school in either lower or upper secondary education.
- GPI: Gender Parity Index
- ANAR GPI is the gender parity index of adjusted net attendance rate. As described in CMF, values
of the GPI between 0.97 and 1.03 are usually considered 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 greater than 1.03, boys are at a
disadvantage.
- ANAR GPI at primary education is the gender parity index of adjusted net attendance rate at
primary education, which is the ratio of the number of girls to the number of boys at primary or
lower secondary school.
- ANAR GPI at lower secondary education is the gender parity index of adjusted net attendance rate
at lower secondary education, which is the ratio of the number of girls to the number of boys at
lower or upper secondary education.
22
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
23
24
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
CHAPTER II
PROFILE OF OUT-OF-SCHOOL
CHILDREN
This Chapter analyses the statistical profile of out-of-school children of pre-primary, primary and lower
secondary age. The analysis follows the Out-of-School Children Conceptual and Methodological
Framework by UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
2.1. Data overview and analysis considerations
• The 2009 Population and Housing Census enumerated all Vietnamese regularly residing in the
territory of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam at 0 hour on 1 April, 2009. Details can be obtained
from the GSO Viet Nam publications.
• The age calculated as per the 2009 Population and Housing Census is full/completed year of age as
of 1 April, 2009, i.e. reaching 365 days by 1 April, 2009 is calculated as 1 year of age. This calculation
method is different with that by the education sector, which is calculated by deducting the year
of birth from the current year. These different calculation methods resulted in the discrepancy in
the data by the GSO and the education sector. To address this issue and ensure alignment with the
schooling age calculation, age in this report is calculated based on the year of birth against 2008,
meaning age was counted by deducting the year of birth as declared in the Census from 2008. For
example, the 5 year-old children in this report are those who reported born in 2003 (2008-2003=5
years), and the 14 year-old children are those who reported born in 1994 (2008-1994). Therefore,
the data in this report will be comparable with data by the education sector for the school year of
2008-2009.
• The education question as asked in the 2009 Census is: “Are (you/name of the respondent)
attending school, drop out or never go to school?” with three response options of “attending
school” “attended but dropped out” and “never go to school”. The responses form the basis for
analyzing the school attendance in this report.
• The profiles of out-of-school children are analysed in the age groups of 5 years for pre-primary,
6-10 years for primary and 11-14 years for lower secondary. These age groups are calculated as
of 2008. That is: 5 year-old age group includes the children who were born in 2003, 6-10 year-old
age group includes the children who were born in 1998-2002, and the 11-14 year-old age group
includes the children who were born in 1994-1997.
• Viet Nam has 63 provinces and centrally-governed municipalities (hereinafter referred to as
provinces). However only 8 provinces, are analysed in detail. All other provinces are collapsed
inside “other provinces”. The eight provinces were selected on the basis of rich/poor, ethnic
diversity etc., opined by different development partners (based on previous knowledge) and the
current UNICEF programmes being undertaken in those provinces. The eight provinces are Lao
Cai, Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Gia Lai, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang.
• There are four questions in the 2009 Census on disability of major four functions: vision, hearing,
movement (walking) and cognition (learning or understanding). These questions were asked to
members of the household who are aged 5 and over. Answers were based on self-evaluation and
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
25
were classified into four categories: “No difficulty”, “Little Difficulty”, “Very difficult” and “Unable”. A
person is defined as “Disabled” if he/she has at least one of the mentioned four functions classified
into “Unable”, while considered as “Partial Disabled” if he said he has either “little and/or Very
difficult” in performing any of the four functions, and considered as “No Disability” if he/she has all
above mentioned four functions classified into “No difficulty”.
• There are five categories that describe the change of residential location in between the time of
Census and five years prior. The categories were “Same commune/ward”, “Another commune/ward
in same district/quarter”, “Another district/quarter in the same province”, “Another province” and
“Abroad”. A person was considered “Not migrated” if he/she lived in the “Same commune/ward” or
“Another commune/ward of the same district quarter”. The rest are considered “Migrated”.
“Migration” terms used in this report is interpreted as a person changes his/her residential location
from a district to another district at least once within 5 years before the Census 2009. Such
definition is appropriate with the urbanization situation in Viet Nam as people often move from
the rural area to urban area within one province or move from one less-urbanized province to a
city outside their province.
However, a data limitation is that there is no question regarding the migration purpose in the
Census 2009, which makes it unable to identify whether the migration is for job seeking in the city,
for casual seasonal work or due to natural disaster.
• As the Census 2009 does not have data on child labour, this Chapter will not analyze working
children situation.
• When analysing based on specific disaggregations, less than 50 weighted cell values were omitted
in the tables (i.e. value changed to be zero) as it is a too small sample size. All related cells will be
left blank. For example, in terms of ethnicity, Muong population in Lao Cai has only 31 children
aged 5 and all of them attend preschool. As the observed sample is smaller than 50, all analyzed
cells related to this group are left blank. Also, the rate of 100% attending preschool will not be
acknowledged for this group. However, one must be cautious when making conclusions from the
cells with weighted values of a slightly higher than 50 observations.
• There are 54 ethnic groups in Viet Nam of which Kinh is the main ethnic group and all other groups
are considered as minority groups.
26
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
2.2 Characteristics of School Aged Children
The male to female ratio is 51.5 to 49.5 as a whole in Viet Nam. At different ages this ratio varies slightly,
with the biggest deviation occurring in children below 5 at 52.1 males to 47.9 females. In primary and
lower secondary school age, as will be shown later, there is a clear gender imbalance in the population.
For every boy in the country, there are only 0.92 girls (i.e. 52 boys to 48 girls).
About a quarter of Viet Nam’s children live in urban dwellings. More than 80% has Kinh ethnic family
background. About 0.2% is children with disabilities, 1.5% is partially disabled children and the rest, over
98% of children, have no disabilities. Children from migrant families occupy about 3% of the population.
Table 2.1 presents the population of children by age and school age group. There are almost 1.5
million children (1,442,706) at pre-school age of 5; 6.6 million children at primary school age of 6
– 10 (6,613,034); and 6.2 million children at lower secondary school age of 11 – 14 (6,166,798). This
information will be used in all later calculations. Table 2.2 presents the statistics in respect to age,
gender and others.
Table 2.1:
Population of children by school age group
Unit: People
Sub-total
Age
5 year-old
5
1,442,706
6-10 year-old
6
1,286,620
7
1,325,677
8
1,442,146
9
1,285,156
10
1,273,434
11-14 year-old
11
1,428,699
12
1,484,086
13
1,613,055
14
1,640,958
1,442,706
6,613,034
6,166,798
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
27
Table 2.2
Population Distribution of School Age Children by age, gender and
others
Unit: %
5 year-old
Gender
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
11-14 year-old
Male
52.09
52.07
52.06
Female
47.91
47.93
47.94
Urban
28.83
25.28
24.39
Rural
71.17
74.72
75.61
Kinh
83.25
81.87
82.59
Tay
1.65
1.86
1.99
Thai
1.88
2.03
2.12
Muong
1.33
1.41
1.51
Khmer
1.41
1.53
1.51
Mong
2.35
2.40
1.94
Other
8.13
8.90
8.34
Disabled
0.16
0.19
0.24
Partially disabled
1.25
1.23
1.61
98.58
98.58
98.15
Yes
3.54
2.58
2.22
No
96.46
97.42
97.78
Not disabled
Migrated
6-10 year-old
2.3. Dimension 1: Out-of-school children aged 5
Dimension 1 of 5DE focuses on the OOSC aged 5, covering children at pre-primary school age but not
attending pre-primary or primary education.
In Table 2.3 statistics are displayed on school attendance at both pre-primary and primary of children
aged 5 by 2008 (born in 2003). The table also shows out-of-school rate at this age.
28
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
School Attendance Status of Children Aged 5
Currently attending (%)
Attending either
pre-primary or
primary
80.33
7.48
87.81
1,442,706
Male
12.08
0.21
12.29
80.19
7.52
87.71
751,534
Female
11.88
0.20
12.08
80.48
7.44
87.92
691,161
Urban
12.82
0.17
12.99
82.05
4.96
87.01
415,905
Rural
11.65
0.22
11.86
79.63
8.50
88.14
1,026,791
Kinh
10.84
0.18
11.03
82.02
6.95
88.97
1,201,109
Tay
3.50
0.11
3.61
88.32
8.07
96.39
23,809
Thai
5.92
0.23
6.15
77.83
16.01
93.85
27,053
Muong
3.00
0.26
3.26
84.59
12.15
96.74
19,201
Khmer
36.13
0.87
37.00
53.50
9.50
63.00
20,344
Mong
34.19
0.29
34.49
52.08
13.43
65.51
33,908
Other
17.68
0.26
17.95
74.08
7.97
82.05
117,271
Disabled
82.71
0.40
83.11
15.56
1.33
16.89
2,350
Partially
disabled
29.91
0.71
30.62
64.03
5.34
69.38
18,093
No disability
11.64
0.20
11.84
80.65
7.52
88.16
1,422,264
Yes
16.06
0.39
16.45
78.89
4.66
83.55
51,090
No
11.84
0.20
12.03
80.38
7.58
87.97
1,391,616
Attending
pre-primary
12.19
Total
0.20
Viet Nam
Attended
11.99
Children Aged 5
Never attended
Attending
primary
OOSC (%)
Total population (N)
Table 2.3
Gender
Urban/
rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
At the time of 2009 Census (1 April 2009), there are in total 1,442,706 children who were aged 5, of
whom 87.81% attend schools (80.33% at pre-primary school and 7.48% at primary school), and 12.19%
do not attend schools. The number of out-of-school children aged 5 stands at 175,848.
The ratio of OOSC is similar for boys and girls, at 12.29% and 12.08% respectively. Urban and rural ratio
of OOSC is also similar, each respectively at 12.99% and 11.86%.
There is a great disparity in OOSC rate among different ethnic groups. The lowest OOSC rate is 3.26% by
the Muong ethnic group, while the highest OOSC rate is by the Khmer group at 37%. This rate by the
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
29
Mong is also relatively high, at 34.49%. The OOSC ratios of these two groups are 3 times higher than that
by the Kinh, which means one of every 3 children aged 5 is not attending any schooling.
The OOSC rate among disabled and partial disabled children is very high, at 83.11% and 30.62%
respectively, compared to that among children with no disabilities at 11.84%. Children of migrant
families have higher OOSC rate than non-migrant families, each respectively at 16.45% and 12.03%.
Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 give graphical impressions of the relevant data for OOSC aged 5.
Figure 2.1:
Percentage of out-of-school children aged 5
83
.1
1
90
80
70
60
.0
0
50
30
.6
34
2
.4
9
37
3
5
.0
4
.8
11
16
.4
.9
17
3.
26
15
3.
61
6.
11
.0
.8
3
6
9
.9
8
.0
12
11
10
12
12
12
.1
.1
9
20
9
5
30
12
40
Whole
country
Gender
Urban/Rural
Ethnicity
No
Ye
s
ed
No sab
Di led
sa
bi
lit
y
sa
Pa
r
tia
lly
Di
Di
bl
r
he
Ot
g
on
M
er
ng
m
Kh
i
uo
Th
a
M
Ta
y
nh
Ki
n
ra
l
Ru
ba
Ur
M
al
e
Fe
m
al
e
0
Disability
Migrated
Figure 2.2 illustrates the situation of OOSC aged 5 in 6 countries within East Asia – Pacific, including
Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Timor Leste and Viet Nam. Thailand has the lowest rate
of OOSC at the age of 5 and Timor Leste has the highest rate. Viet Nam ranks second after Thailand
and has lower rate than that of Indonesia and the Philippines, two countries of better economic
development.
30
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Figure 2.2:
Comparison of out-of-school children aged 5 in Viet Nam with other
countries
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cambodia
Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Viet Nam
2.4. Dimension 2: Out-of-school children of primary school age
CMF defines that children of primary age are considered as being in school if they participate in primary
or secondary education (ISCED levels 1 and 2).
Children of primary age who do not participate in education programmes at ISCED levels 1 and 2 are
considered as being out-of-school, including those who are in pre-primary and non-formal education.
The OOSC rate at primary education is calculated as below:
Percentage of OOSC = 100 – percentage of children in primary and secondary schools.
This section presents results of analyses of the school attendance and then of the out-of-school children
of primary school age.
2.4.1. School Attendance of Primary School Age Children
School attendance of primary school age children is reflected by 2 measurements:
- The percentage of primary school age children who are attending primary education, which is the
primary Net Attendance Rate (NAR), and the
- Primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR)
The difference between NAR and ANAR lies in that ANAR also includes attendance at secondary school
(under-age attendance). Essentially therefore, primary ANAR is the rate of primary school age children
attending primary and secondary school.
Table 2.4 below presents result on primary Net Attendance Rate.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
31
Table 2.4
Primary Net Attendance Rate (NAR)
Male
NAR
(%)
Number
(person)
95.48
3,287,688
95.43
3,024,773
95.45
6,312,460
6
92.79
621,138
92.65
571,847
92.72
1,192,985
7
97.19
668,328
97.18
620,034
97.19
1,288,362
8
97.41
734,580
97.38
670,000
97.40
1,404,580
9
96.56
643,690
96.64
597,733
96.60
1,241,423
10
93.13
619,951
92.99
565,160
93.06
1,185,110
Urban
97.11
851,187
97.35
774,049
97.23
1,625,237
Rural
94.92
2,436,500
94.79
2,250,723
94.86
4,687,223
Kinh
96.88
2,735,682
97.06
2,514,252
96.97
5,249,933
Tay
97.32
61,186
97.62
58,868
97.47
120,054
Thai
93.01
64,179
92.45
60,193
92.74
124,372
Muong
95.60
46,232
95.74
42,881
95.67
89,112
Khmer
85.55
45,487
87.38
41,821
86.42
87,307
Mong
78.33
64,006
66.59
51,253
72.64
115,259
Other
88.91
270,916
89.96
255,506
89.42
526,422
Disabled
12.62
931
13.28
716
12.90
1,646
Partially disabled
75.01
34,231
76.75
27,223
75.77
61,454
No disability
95.93
3,252,526
95.79
2,996,834
95.86
6,249,360
Yes
92.94
83,681
92.01
74,370
92.50
158,051
No
95.54
3,204,006
95.52
2,950,403
95.53
6,154,409
Total
Age
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
Total
Number
(person)
NAR (%)
Urban/rural
Female
NAR (%)
Number
(person)
Table 2.5 below presents result on primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR). Figure 2.4 gives a
graphical impression of the primary ANAR.
32
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Table 2.5
Primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR) with GPI
Male
ANAR
(%)
Total
Female
Number
(person)
ANAR
(%)
Total
Number
(person)
ANAR
(%)
Number
(person)
ANAR
GPI
96.04
3,307,169
96.01
3,043,217
96.03
6,350,386
1.00
6
92.79
621,138
92.65
571,847
92.72
1,192,985
1.00
7
97.19
668,328
97.18
620,034
97.19
1,288,362
1.00
8
97.41
734,580
97.38
670,000
97.40
1,404,580
1.00
9
96.74
644,918
96.80
598,730
96.77
1,243,648
1.00
10
95.87
638,205
95.86
582,607
95.87
1,220,811
1.00
Urban
97.48
854,423
97.73
777,056
97.60
1,631,479
1.00
Rural
95.55
2,452,746
95.44
2,266,161
95.50
4,718,907
1.00
Kinh
97.39
2,749,943
97.59
2,528,011
97.48
5,277,954
1.00
Tay
98.08
61,664
98.38
59,327
98.23
120,991
1.00
Thai
94.77
65,397
94.30
61,394
94.54
126,791
1.00
Muong
97.22
47,014
97.64
43,733
97.42
90,748
1.00
Khmer
85.78
45,608
87.64
41,943
86.66
87,550
1.02
Mong
79.42
64,898
67.22
51,739
73.50
116,637
0.85
Other
89.48
272,647
90.51
257,069
89.98
529,716
1.01
Disabled
12.62
931
13.28
716
12.90
1,646
1.05
Partially
disabled
75.41
34,416
77.18
27,377
76.19
61,793
1.02
No disability
96.50
3,271,823
96.37
3,015,124
96.44
6,286,947
1.00
Yes
93.22
83,931
92.26
74,574
92.77
158,505
0.99
No
96.12
3,223,238
96.11
2,968,643
96.11
6,191,881
1.00
Age
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
Table 2.5 also presents the Gender Parity Index (GPI), which is calculated by dividing female statistics by
male statistics. In this case therefore, ANAR GPI is the result of female ANAR divided by male ANAR.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
33
92
.7
7
96
.1
1
96
.4
4
73
.5
0
80
76
.1
9
86
.6
6
90
89
.9
8
97
.4
8
98
.2
94 3
.5
4
97
.4
2
97
.6
0
95
.5
0
96
.0
4
96
.0
1
Primary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR)
92
.7
2
97
.1
97 9
.4
0
96
.7
7
95
.8
7
100
96
.0
3
Figure 2.3:
70
60
50
40
30
12
.9
0
20
10
No
Ye
s
Pa
r
tia Disa
lly bl
D e
No isa d
Di ble
sa d
bi
lit
y
nh
Ta
y
Th
M ai
uo
ng
Kh
m
e
M r
on
g
Ot
he
r
Ki
n
10
ra
l
9
ba
8
Ru
7
Ur
6
M
a
Fe le
m
al
e
0
Whole
country
Age
Gender Urban/Rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
At the time of Census on 1/4/2009, Viet Nam has 6,350,386 children who are at the primary school
age of 6 – 10 counted as of 2008 (born during 1998-2002) and are attending primary or secondary
education, counting for 96.03% of the total group population.
Attendance rate versus age in this age group shapes like a dome, with age 6 and 10 the lowest at
92.72% and 95.87% respectively and age 8 highest at 97.4%. It can be understood that attendance rate
of year 6 is low because this is the net attendance rate by level not by grade. Therefore, many children
aged 6 who are still in pre-primary school are not calculated, while over-age attendance by children
aged 7-10 at primary education are calculated in the primary net attendance rate. The low attendance
rate by the children aged 10 is due to dropouts in the final grade which will be discussed in the Section
2.6 below.
Looking at the primary NAR and primary ANAR at national level, there is literally no difference in
attendance between boys and girls with NAR and ANAR among girls not much lower than boys (NAR:
95.43% for girls over 95.48% for boys and ANAR: 96.01% for girls over 96.04% for boys). However, further
breakdown analysis shows that there is a large discrepancy between genders among Mong children
and children with disabilities.
Out of the seven ethnic groups analysed, Khmer, Mong and Other have lower than national average
ANAR at 86.66%, 73.5% and 89.98% respectively. Mong is the only group in which NAR and ANAR
among girls (at 66.59% and 67.22% respectively) lower than those among boys (78.33% and 79.42%
respectively). Above rates along with the ANAR GPI among Mong children of 0.85 (lower than the
gender parity limit of 0.97) show that Mong girls have less opportunity to school than Mong boys.
34
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Children with disabilities achieve much lower primary ANAR at 12.9%, of which the girls attendance is
higher than boys. With primary ANAR GPI at 1.05, higher than the gender parity limit of 1.03, boys with
disabilities have less opportunity to school than girls with disabilities.
Children of migrant families have a slightly lower attendance rate at 92.77%, compared to the children
of non-migrant families at 96.11%.
2.4.2. OOSC of primary school age
As presented in the Section 2.4.1, the OOSC rate of primary school age is calculated by the formula
under Section 2.4 as below:
Percentage of OOSC = 100 – primary ANAR.
At the Census on 1/4/2009, there are 262,648 primary school age children who are out-of-school in Viet
Nam, and this accounts 3.97% of the total group population. Statistics on boys and girls are similar, at
3.96% and 3.97% respectively. This ratio in the rural areas is almost twice that in the urban areas, at 4.5%
and 2.4% respectively.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
35
Table 2.6
Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Primary School Age
Male
Ratio
(%)
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
Total
Number
(persons)
Ratio
(%)
Number
(persons)
Ratio
(%)
Number
(persons)
3.96
136,309
3.99
126,339
3.97
262,648
6
7.21
48,256
7.35
45,379
7.28
93,635
7
2.81
19,304
2.82
18,012
2.81
37,316
8
2.59
19,559
2.62
18,007
2.60
37,566
9
3.26
21,735
3.20
19,773
3.23
41,508
10
4.12
27,455
4.14
25,167
4.13
52,622
Urban
2.52
22,065
2.27
18,061
2.40
40,126
Rural
4.45
114,244
4.56
108,277
4.50
222,521
Kinh
2.61
73,725
2.41
62,505
2.52
136,229
Tay
1.92
1,206
1.62
979
1.77
2,184
Thai
5.23
3,607
5.70
3,712
5.46
7,319
Muong
2.78
1,343
2.36
1,055
2.58
2,399
Khmer
14.22
7,563
12.36
5,916
13.34
13,479
Mong
20.58
16,817
32.78
25,228
26.50
42,045
Other
10.52
32,047
9.49
26,945
10.02
58,992
Disabled
87.38
6,444
86.72
4,676
87.10
11,120
Partially disabled
24.59
11,222
22.82
8,094
23.81
19,316
No disability
3.50
118,643
3.63
113,569
3.56
232,212
Yes
6.78
6,105
7.74
6,256
7.23
12,360
No
3.88
130,204
3.89
120,083
3.89
250,287
Total
Age
Female
The lowest OOSC rate is achieved by Tay group at 1.77%. Kinh and Muong also achieve rates lower than
national average at 2.52% and 2.58% respectively. The highest OOSC rate is by Mong group at 26.5%,
i.e. one out of every four Mong children at primary age do not go to school, in which, 32.78% of girl
population, equivalent to 1/3 of the girl population at primary age do not go to school. Following is the
Khmer at 13.34%.
87.1% of children with disabilities at primary age are out-of-school education. In case of partially
disabled children, this figure is reduced to 23.81%. For children with no disabilities, the out-of-school
rate is at 3.56%. The OOSC rate by the migrant children is nearly twice that by the non-migrant children,
at 7.23% compared to 3.89%
36
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Primary School Age
87
.1
0
Figure 2.4:
90
80
70
60
50
30
2
.0
Whole
country
Age
Gender Urban/Rural
89
7.
3.
No
s
lly abl
Di ed
No sa
Di ble
sa d
bi
lit
y
Pa
r
tia
Di
Ye
s
3.
56
23
10
77
5.
4
2. 6
58
52
1.
50
40
2.
3.
96
3.
99
13
10
2.
9
nh
Ta
y
T
M hai
uo
ng
Kh
m
e
M r
on
g
Ot
he
r
8
Ki
7
4.
6
Ur
ba
n
Ru
ra
l
0
M
a
Fe le
m
al
e
81
2.
60
3.
23
4.
13
28
2.
3.
10
7.
97
.3
4
20
23
.8
1
26
.5
0
40
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
Figure 2.5 provides the situation of primary OOSC (in red) of 6 countries in East Asia – Pacific, including
Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Timor Leste and Viet Nam. Indonesia has the lowest
primary OOSC while Timor Leste has the highest rate of primary OOSC. Viet Nam is at the same level
with Thailand and the Philippines, two nations with more economic development.
Figure 2.5:
Comparison of OOSC at primary education in Viet Nam and other
countries
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cambodia
Indonesia
Philippines
Primary OOSC Rate
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Viet Nam
Primary ANAR
Notes: Red color indicates OOSC rate at primary school and blue color indicates the attendance at primary
and secondary schools. Source: Furniss, E. R. & Hasan, M. Q. (2012)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
37
2.5. Dimension 3: Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age
CMF defines that children of lower secondary school age are considered as being in school if they
participate in primary or secondary education (ISCED levels 1 and 2).
Children of lower secondary school age who do not participate in any education programmes at ISCED
levels 1 and 2 are considered as being out-of-school, including those who are in primary and non-formal
education.
According to the Census 2009, there is a number of lower secondary school age children who are
attending vocational training education in Viet Nam. This number is very small (1,101 children,
accounting for 0.017% of the lower secondary age children population), and does not affect the data in
this analysis.
The OOSC rate at lower secondary age is calculated as belows:
Percentage of OOSC of lower-secondary school age = 100 – percentage of children of lower secondary
school age in primary and secondary schools.
This section presents results of analyses of the school attendance and then of the out-of-school children
of lower secondary age.
2.5.1. School Attendance of Lower Secondary Age Children
School Attendance of Lower Secondary School Age Children is reflected by 3 measurements:
- The percentage of lower secondary age children who are attending lower-secondary education,
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 attending lower-secondary and upper-secondary education (lower-secondary ANAR),
and
- The school attendance of lower secondary school age children attend primary school (over-age).
Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 below display lower secondary NAR and ANAR respectively. Figure 2.6
graphically illustrates ANAR at lower secondary education.
38
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Table 2.7
Lower Secondary Net Attendance Rate
Male
Female
Total
NAR
(%)
Number
(persons)
NAR
(%)
Number
(persons)
NAR
(%)
Number
(persons)
81.36
2,611,949
83.87
2,479,548
82.56
5,091,497
11
76.57
571,193
79.98
546,050
78.20
1,117,242
12
85.34
658,033
87.05
620,679
86.16
1,278,712
13
84.57
709,647
86.71
671,052
85.60
1,380,699
14
78.80
673,076
81.57
641,768
80.13
1,314,843
Urban
87.73
687,335
89.88
647,543
88.76
1,334,879
Rural
79.30
1,924,614
81.93
1,832,005
80.56
3,756,619
Kinh
85.32
2,264,534
88.14
2,149,922
86.67
4,414,457
Tay
85.48
53,881
89.76
53,531
87.56
107,411
Thai
73.87
50,159
72.61
45,466
73.27
95,625
Muong
80.87
39,294
85.98
38,455
83.32
77,749
Khmer
44.44
21,229
48.22
21,752
46.28
42,982
Mong
43.24
26,872
24.24
13,968
34.10
40,840
Other
58.47
155,979
63.18
156,454
60.74
312,434
3.18
265
5.52
345
4.18
610
Partially disabled
57.26
30,327
64.10
29,674
60.45
60,001
No disability
81.97
2,581,358
84.35
2,449,529
83.11
5,030,887
Yes
70.33
50,727
66.95
43,565
68.73
94,292
No
81.61
2,561,222
84.25
2,435,983
82.88
4,997,205
Total
Age
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disabled
Disability
Migrated
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
39
Table 2.8
Lower Secondary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR) with GPI
Male
Disability
Migrated
40
ANAR
GPI
Number
(persons)
ANAR
(%)
Number
(persons)
ANAR
(%)
Number
(persons)
81.69
2,622,662
84.28
2,491,654
82.93
5,114,316
1.03
11
76.57
571,193
79.98
546,050
78.20
1,117,242
1.04
12
85.34
658,033
87.05
620,679
86.16
1,278,712
1.02
13
84.62
710,086
86.78
671,567
85.65
1,381,654
1.03
14
80.00
683,350
83.04
653,358
81.46
1,336,708
1.04
Urban
88.04
689,747
90.23
650,062
89.09
1,339,809
1.02
Rural
79.65
1,932,915
82.36
1,841,592
80.95
3,774,507
1.03
Kinh
85.66
2,273,626
88.55
2,159,856
87.05
4,433,483
1.03
Tay
86.00
54,210
90.66
54,069
88.27
108,279
1.05
Thai
74.38
50,508
73.25
45,869
73.84
96,377
0.98
Muong
81.65
39,674
86.90
38,865
84.17
78,539
1.06
Khmer
44.47
21,243
48.35
21,807
46.35
43,050
1.09
Mong
43.41
26,975
24.36
14,039
34.24
41,014
0.56
Other
58.64
156,425
63.46
157,150
60.96
313,576
1.08
Disabled
3.18
265
5.52
345
4.18
610
1.73
Partially
disabled
57.53
30,468
64.47
29,847
60.77
60,315
1.12
No disability
82.31
2,591,929
84.76
2,461,462
83.49
5,053,391
1.03
Yes
70.54
50,877
67.10
43,659
68.91
94,536
0.95
No
81.95
2,571,785
84.66
2,447,995
83.25
5,019,780
1.03
Age
Ethnicity
Total
ANAR
(%)
Total
Urban/rural
Female
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
60
.9
6
70
46
.3
5
60
60
.7
7
68
.9
1
83
.2
5
83
.4
9
73
.8
4
84
.1
7
87
.0
5
88
.2
7
89
.0
9
80
.9
5
81
.6
9
84
.2
8
86
.1
6
85
.6
5
81
.4
6
80
Lower Secondary Adjusted Net Attendance Rate (ANAR)
78
.2
0
90
82
.9
3
Figure 2.6:
50
34
.2
4
40
30
20
4.
18
10
Age
Gender
Urban/Rural
Ethnicity
Disability
No
Ye
s
Ki
ra
l
ba
n
Ru
nh
Ta
y
Th
M ai
uo
ng
Kh
m
e
M r
on
g
Ot
he
r
Pa
rti Di
s
al
ly abl
Di ed
s
No abl
Di ed
sa
bi
lit
y
Whole
country
14
Ur
11 12 13
M
a
Fe le
m
al
e
0
Migrated
At the time of Census on 1/4/2009, Viet Nam has 5,114,316 children at the lower secondary school age
of 11 – 14 as of 2008 (born during 1994-1997) are attending primary or secondary education, counting
for 82.93% of the total group population.
The ANAR shows that the attendance at lower-secondary is not as good as at primary education. The
ANAR of children aged 11 is lowest because this is the net attendance rate by level not by grade.
Therefore, many children aged 11 who are still in primary school are not calculated, while over-age
attendance by children aged 12-14 at lower-secondary education are calculated in the lower-secondary
net attendance rate. ANAR of children aged 14 is lower because there are more dropouts at this age.
Overall in Viet Nam, percentages of boys and girls attending schools at official age for their grades are
considered within parity range, although the GPI is at its very border of 1.03, which means that if GPI is
over this rate, boys are at the disadvantage. The ANAR in individual ages, both 11 and 14 show gender
disparity, with obviously higher percentage of girls in secondary school. Lower attendance among boys
than that among girls might reflect the quality issue, such as the relevance of education in terms of skills
development or gender responsiveness from the employment perspective. Gender disparity in lower
secondary NAR is more obvious when it comes to minority groups. In most cases higher percentage
of girls are in grades appropriate for their age, except in Mong ethnic group where girls NAR is lower
than that among boys, at 24.36%, equivalent to one out of every four Mong girls at lower secondary
age attending lower secondary school and that is half of Mong boys at lower secondary age attending
lower secondary school. Mong’s GPI is at 0.56, a far distance to the parity range, reflecting the great
disadvantage of Mong girls.
Urban areas achieve higher ANAR than rural areas, each respectively at 89.09% and 80.95%. The biggest
differentiation however is in ethnic groups. Tay achieves 88.27%, 54 percentage point higher than the
Mong group which is merely 34.24% or three out of every ten Mong children attend lower or upper
secondary school. Khmer and Other groups are both also low at 46.35% and 60.96% respectively.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
41
Children with disabilities have much lower secondary attendance, at only 4.18% for children with
disabilities and 60.77% for children with partial disabilities. GPI of children with disabilities and children
with partial disabilities is 1.73 and 1.12 respectively, which are both higher than the parity limit of 1.01,
which means boys with disabilities have less chance to school than girls with disabilities.
The difference between migrant and non-migrant groups at lower secondary education is larger than
primary education. ANAR lower secondary of migrant children are 66.6%, against non-migrant children
at 83.25%. The attendance rate among migrant girls is lower than boys, respectively at 66.95% and
70.33%. GPI among migrant group is 0.95, lower than the parity limit of 0.97, which means girls are at a
disadvantage over boys in schooling.
Lower secondary ANAR is an important indicator of progress in education. It does not, however, include
children who are not in schools of their age but nevertheless are attending schools. Table 2.9 gives
statistics of this group of children.
Table 2.9
Lower Secondary Age Children Attending Primary Grades
Male
Disability
Migrated
GPI
Number
(persons)
Ratio
(%)
Number
(persons)
Ratio
(%)
Number
(persons)
6.54
209,968
5.20
153,664
5.90
363,632
0.79
11
17.90
133,512
14.82
101,181
16.43
234,693
0.83
12
6.19
47,732
4.68
33,376
5.47
81,108
0.76
13
2.39
20,077
1.70
13,150
2.06
33,227
0.71
14
1.01
8,647
0.76
5,956
0.89
14,604
0.75
Urban
3.61
28,295
2.89
20,837
3.27
49,132
0.80
Rural
7.49
181,673
5.94
132,827
6.74
314,500
0.79
Kinh
4.68
124,195
3.71
90,526
4.22
214,721
0.79
Tay
5.92
3,732
4.26
2,539
5.11
6,270
0.72
Thai
11.86
8,054
9.20
5,760
10.58
13,814
0.78
Muong
7.43
3,611
4.46
1,996
6.01
5,606
0.60
Khmer
15.78
7,539
14.20
6,404
15.01
13,943
0.90
Mong
28.20
17,522
20.30
11,697
24.40
29,219
0.72
Other
16.99
45,317
14.03
34,742
15.56
80,058
0.83
Disabled
4.84
403
3.85
241
4.42
644
0.80
Partially
disabled
9.64
5,105
6.61
3,060
8.23
8,165
0.69
No disability
6.49
204,460
5.18
150,362
5.86
354,823
0.80
Yes
5.64
4,071
5.07
3,301
5.37
7,372
0.90
No
6.56
205,897
5.20
150,363
5.91
356,260
0.79
Age
Ethnicity
Total
Ratio
(%)
Total
Urban/rural
Female
At the time of Census on 1/4/2009, there were in total 363,632 children of lower secondary school age
attending primary grades, which is about 5.9% of the total group population. Attendance at primary
42
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
grades reduces quickly as age increases, i.e. attendance at primary grades is highest at 11, and decreases
at 12, 13 and is lowest at 14 years of age.
The different ethnic groups continue to achieve very different performances. The over-age schooling
occurs in Mong group at 24.40%. In other words almost one fourth of Mong’s lower secondary school
age children still attend primary grades. This rate among Khmer group is 15%. The over-age schooling
occurs in Kinh group at 4.22%. The other group that has primary attendance rate lower than national
average is Tay at 5.11%.
Most strikingly, the table 2.9 shows a very clear difference between boys and girls. Higher percentage
of boys than girls remain in primary schools and this is the case in every individual group listed in the
table. This is worth consideration.
Figure 2.7 illustrates lower secondary age children attending primary grades
Lower Secondary Age Children Attending Primary Grades
24
.4
0
Figure 2.7:
25
.5
5.
86
8.
4.
42
01
6.
5.
22
4.
3.
27
5.
0.
89
06
2.
11
74
6.
20
54
6.
47
5.
5
5.
90
10
23
10
.5
8
15
15
15
.0
1
16
6
.4
3
20
Age
nh
Ki
n
ra
l
Ru
ba
Gender
Urban/Rural
Ta
y
Th
M ai
uo
ng
Kh
m
e
M r
on
g
Ot
he
r
Pa
rti Dis
a
al
ly ble
Di
d
No sab
Di led
sa
bi
lit
y
Whole
country
14
Ur
11 12 13
M
a
Fe le
m
al
e
0
Ethnicity
Disability
2.5.2. Out-of-school children of lower secondary school age
By CMF definition, out-of-school children of lower secondary school age are children who do not attend
formal schools, which include both primary and secondary schools. As presented in Section 2.5.1, the
OOSC of lower secondary school age is calculated as belows:
Percentage of OOSC of lower-secondary school age = 100 – lower-secondary ANAR - percentage of
children of lower secondary school age in primary schools.
The next table and figure display statistics on out-of-school children at the lower secondary age of 11 to
14.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
43
Table 2.10:
Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Lower Secondary School Age
Male
Ratio (%)
Total
Female
Number
(persons)
Ratio (%)
Total
Number
(persons)
Ratio (%)
Number
(persons)
11.77
377,698
10.52
311,152
11.17
688,849
11
5.53
41,237
5.20
35,526
5.37
76,763
12
8.47
65,278
8.27
58,987
8.37
124,265
13
12.99
108,989
11.52
89,185
12.29
198,175
14
18.99
162,193
16.20
127,453
17.65
289,646
Urban
8.35
65,394
6.88
49,540
7.64
114,934
Rural
12.87
312,304
11.70
261,611
12.31
573,915
Kinh
9.66
256,291
7.74
188,759
8.74
445,050
Tay
8.08
5,092
5.08
3,031
6.62
8,123
Thai
13.76
9,340
17.55
10,987
15.57
20,327
Muong
10.92
5,307
8.64
3,862
9.83
9,169
Khmer
39.74
18,984
37.46
16,896
38.63
35,880
Mong
28.40
17,648
55.34
31,886
41.36
49,534
Other
24.38
65,035
22.51
55,730
23.48
120,765
Disabled
91.97
7,652
90.63
5,673
91.40
13,325
Partially
disabled
32.84
17,391
28.91
13,385
31.01
30,776
No
disability
11.20
352,655
10.06
292,093
10.65
644,748
Yes
23.82
17,177
27.83
18,109
25.72
35,286
No
11.49
360,521
10.13
293,043
10.84
653,564
Age
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
The percentage of OOSC increases dramatically as age increases. At the age of 14, 17.65% of the children
are out-of-school. As a whole in Viet Nam, 11.17% of lower secondary school age children do not attend
any formal schooling, which accounts 688,849 children in total, with more boys at 11.77% and less girls
at 10.52%. The rate increases almost exponentially with age.
There are many more out-of-school children at this age group in rural areas than in urban areas, each
respectively at 12.31% and 7.64%. Rural figure is almost double of the urban figure.
44
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Among the ethnic groups, Tay has the lowest of out-of-school rate at 6.62%. The other two groups Kinh
and Muong also achieve lower rates than national average at 8.74% and 9.83% respectively. Mong has
the highest out-of-school rate at 41.36%. In other words more than one third of its lower secondary
school age children are out-of-school. The other ethnic group in the similar situation is Khmer at
38.63%. Especially, the ratios of OOSC by Mong girls are higher than those by boys at both primary and
lower-secondary education, e.g. 1.5 times at primary (32.78% for girls over 20.58% for boys) and 2 times
at lower-secondary (55.34% for girls over 28.2% for boys). Over half of Mong girls at lower secondary
age do not attend any schools. In other words, Mong girls do not enjoy the same education equity as
boys, especially at higher grades.
At lower secondary school age, the majority of children with disabilities do not attend any schooling,
with out-of-school rate at 91.4%.
Children of migrant families are performing much more poorly, with 25.72% out-of-school rate. This
compares with children of non-migrant families at 10.84%.
Figure 2.8:
Percentage of Out-of-school Children of Lower Secondary School Age
91
.4
0
100
90
80
70
60
.6
3
41
.3
6
50
.7
.4
23
5
4
.8
5
10
.6
10
83
6.
9.
8.
62
74
12
64
7.
15
1
.3
2
7
.5
.7
10
8.
13
11
37
12
37
12
.5
7
.6
9
17
.2
7
.1
11
5.
10
11
20
25
8
30
2
31
.0
1
38
40
Age
Ethnicity
Disability
No
Ye
s
tia Disa
lly bl
D e
No isa d
Di ble
sa d
bi
lit
y
nh
Ta
y
Th
M ai
uo
ng
Kh
m
e
M r
on
g
Ot
he
r
Ki
Ru
ra
l
n
ba
M
Ur
Gender Urban/Rural
Pa
r
Whole
country
14
a
Fe le
m
al
e
0
Migrated
The last table of this section lists the number of out-of-school children in Dimension 2 and 3 as a
summary. The number of out-of-school children in Viet Nam stands at 262,648 for primary school
age, 688,849 for lower secondary school age. In total 951,497 children aged between 6 and 14 are
out-of-school.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
45
Table 2.11a:
Number of Children out-of-school, by age group and sex
Unit: people
Out-of-school children
Male
Female
Total
Dimension 2
Primary school age
136,309
126,339
262,648
Dimension 3
Lower secondary school age
377,698
311,152
688,849
514,007
437,490
951,497
Total
Figure 2.9 illustrates the situation of OOSC at lower secondary age (in green) of 6 countries in East Asia
– Pacific, including Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Timor Leste and Viet Nam. Thailand
has the lowest rate of OOSC at lower secondary age while Cambodia has the highest rate. Viet Nam has
quite similar rate to that of the Philippines and has a lower rate than Indonesia; these two countries
have a more developed economy than that of Viet Nam.
Figure 2.9:
Comparison of OOSC at lower secondary education in Viet Nam and
other countries
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cambodia
Indonesia
Out of School
Philippines
Thailand
Attending Primary
Timor-Leste
Viet Nam
ANAR
Notes: OOSC rate is in green, primary attendance rate in red and primary and secondary attendance rate is in
blue.
Source: Furniss, E.R. & Hassan, M.Q. (2012)
According to the Conceptual and Methodological Framework on Out-of-School Children, OOSC can
be divided into three groups based on the previous educational experiences, including attended but
dropped out, never attended but will attend in the future and will never enter school. The key point
is that not all OOSCs are excluded permanently from the education system. In some countries, it is
observed that a high rate of OOSCs will never go to school but in some others, majority of OOSCs will
enter school in the future. It is necessary to adopt different polices for dropouts or children who will
46
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
never go to school. Among the dropouts, some may come back to school and some cannot due to their
condition and appropriate policy response is needed.
Table 2.11b:
Typology of Out-of-School Children
Unit: %
Out-of-School Children
Dropped out 6
May go to school
in the future
Will never attend
school
Dimension 2: OOSCs at primary
age
29.5
49.9
20.7
Dimension 3: OOSCs at lower
secondary age
85.1
0.1
14.7
In Viet Nam, as can be seen from the table 2.11b, half of the OOSCs at primary age may attend school in
the future (or over-age attendance) while 3/10 of the children have dropped out and 1/5 of them will
never go to school. Among OOSCs at the lower secondary age, 85% have dropped out and 15% have
never been to school before and maybe will never enter school in the future.
Therefore, for Vietnamese OOSCs, it is important to adopt incentives to promote net attendance and
to ensure that children start their primary education at the right age. Besides, it is necessary to have
appropriate measures in place to support children who already dropped out, especially those at lower
secondary age to go back to school, for example, children who dropped out to get married, migrated
seasonally for casual work so they are not excluded permanently.
2.6. Dimension 4 and 5: Children at risk of dropping out
Dimensions 4 and 5 cover children in school who are at risk of dropping out, in other words, the
potential OOSC of tomorrow. This report focuses on those children who are at the greatest risk of
dropping out,7 including children who are attending primary and lower secondary schools aged 5-17.
One simple way is to look at the at-risk children of yesterday, that is, children who recently dropped
out-of-school. Understanding the profiles of children whose risk of dropping out was realized provides
insight into the profiles of children currently at risk.
Dropout can be defined as children who attended school last year but are not attending school in
the current year even though they are supposed to. This can be referred as single year dropout. This
however, needs school attendance data on two consecutive years.
The Population and Housing Census 2009 has no such data but the educational background of OOSC,
dropout rate and overage. Accordingly, these data will be used to analyze potential OOSC in this section.
2.6.1. Drop-out children aged 5-17
Dropout in this report can be interpreted as children who attended the school before but do not go
to school at the time of the Census 2009. The dropout rate can be calculated by dividing the number
of children who went to school before but do not go to school at the time of the Census by the total
number of children.
6
See definition in Section 2.6.1
7
CMF, 16 March, 2011, UNICEF and UNESCO,page 29. 29.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
47
Table 2.12a provides a summary on the attendance status of children aged 5-17, either they are
attending school, attended school before and dropped out or have never been to school before.
Table 2.12a:
Attendance status by age and other characteristics of children aged
5-17
Unit: %
Never been to
school
Total
Urban/Rural
Ethnicity
Disability status
Migration status
48
Attending
2.57
12.59
84.83
5
11.99
0.20
87.81
6
3.12
0.38
96.50
7
2.10
0.52
97.37
8
1.76
0.74
97.49
9
1.57
1.64
96.80
10
1.52
2.58
95.90
11
1.48
3.87
94.65
12
1.61
6.74
91.66
13
1.69
10.55
87.75
14
1.81
15.76
82.43
15
1.72
26.89
71.39
16
1.85
35.44
62.71
17
1.80
39.17
59.02
Male
2.48
13.48
84.04
Female
2.68
11.63
85.69
Urban
1.98
9.00
89.02
Rural
2.78
13.80
83.42
Kinh
1.67
11.28
87.06
Tay
0.75
12.34
86.91
Thai
3.09
18.69
78.22
Muong
0.91
17.98
81.11
Khmer
9.24
30.39
60.38
Mong
23.02
16.13
60.86
Others
6.24
19.30
74.46
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
32.20
64.29
No
2.55
11.98
85.47
Age
Gender
Attended but
dropped out
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Out of the total number of children aged 5-17, 84.83% are attending school. The attendance rate of
children aged 5-17 is especially low among Khmer ethnic minority (60.38%), Mong ethnic minority
(60.86%), children with disabilities (9.63%), children with partial disabilities (67.85%) and migrants
(64.29%). The rates of all these groups are under 70%, lower than the national average of 84.83%.
Though both Mong and Khmer ethnic minority have similar low attendance rate, the profiles of OOSCs
among these two ethnic groups differ from each other. For Khmer group, most OOSCs attended school
before and dropped out; whereas, majority of Mong OOSCs have never been to school before. Mong
ethnic group has the highest rate of children 5-17 years who have never been to school at 23.02%
among other ethnic groups.
Children with disabilities from 5 to 17 years of age have the highest rate of never going to school before
(82%) in comparison with other groups. The attendance rate of the disabled children aged 5-17 is
lowest, at 9.63% in comparison with all the remaining groups.
Table 2.12b:
Percentage of Dropout Children
Age
Dropout children
%
Number
5
0.20
2,922
6
0.38
4,880
7
0.52
6,939
8
0.74
10,708
9
1.64
21,012
10
2.58
32,874
11
3.87
55,295
12
6.74
99,984
13
10.55
170,229
14
15.77
258,656
15
26.89
483,859
16
35.44
620,373
17
39.18
692,665
Figure 2.10 shows the percentage of dropout children by age indicates clearly more children drop out as
age increases. At the age of 11, the dropout children form 3.87% of the total 11-years old population. At
the age of 17 however, 39.18%, or one third, dropout.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
49
Figure 2.10:
Percentage of Dropout Children by Age
45
39.18
40
35.44
35
30
26.89
25
20
15.77
15
10.55
10
5
0
0.38
0.52
0.74
1.64
2.58
6
7
8
9
10
3.87
11
6.74
12
13
14
15
16
17
According to table 2.12b, at the time of Census on 1/4/2009, Viet Nam has over 55.000 children at 11
years who have attended but dropped out-of-school. Among the 14-years-old, the number of dropout
children exceeds 250,000. By the time children reach 17 years old, more than a third of them are
dropouts, and the total number reaches almost 700,000.
The following two tables present dropout rates of children at primary and lower secondary school ages.
Table 2.13:
Dropout at Primary School Age
Dropped out (%)
Total
1.16
Age
Gender
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
50
6
0.38
7
0.52
8
0.74
9
1.64
10
2.58
Male
1.19
Female
1.12
Urban
0.84
Rural
1.26
Kinh
0.87
Tay
0.65
Thai
1.53
Muong
1.03
Khmer
4.60
Mong
3.57
Other
2.59
Disabled
2.57
Partially disabled
3.45
No disability
1.12
Yes
2.98
No
1.11
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
At the primary school age, the percentages of children who dropped out-of-school is 1.16%. Girls and
boys are similar in this trend. However, the rate in rural areas is higher than in urban areas; those of
Khmer and Mong are higher than those of other ethnic minority groups; that of children with disabilities
is higher than the partially disabled and the children with no disabilities; that of migrant is higher than
that of non-migrant children.
Table 2.14:
Dropout at Lower Secondary Age
Dropped out (%)
Total
9.47
Age
Gender
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
11
3.87
12
6.74
13
10.55
14
15.76
Male
Female
8.69
Urban
6.71
Rural
10.36
Kinh
7.85
Tay
6.00
Thai
13.02
Muong
8.91
Khmer
32.37
Mong
20.76
Other
18.77
Disabled
Disability
Partially disabled
Not disabled
Migrated
10.19
8.72
14.30
9.40
Yes
23.05
No
9.16
At the lower-secondary school age, the percentages of children who dropped out-of-school is 9.47%,
8 times higher than that at primary school age. The dropout rates by girls and boys are not similar as
at primary school age, but the rates are higher for boys than girls (at 10.19% and 8.69% respectively).
The rate of dropouts at lower secondary school age in rural areas (10.36%) is higher than in urban areas
(6.71%); those of Khmer (32.37%) and Mong (20.76%) are higher than those by other ethnic minority
groups (18.77%); the rates among children with disabilities (8.72%) and the partially disabled (14.30%)
are higher than that among children with no disabilities (9.40%); that of migrant children (23.05%) is
higher than that of non-migrant children (9.16%), and the differences are much larger than at primary
school age. Noticeable among ethnicity groups is the dropout rate of Khmer children at 32.37%. In
other words, close to one third of the Khmer lower secondary school age children have dropped
out-of-school. Dropout rate of Mong children is rather high, at 20.76%. Dropout rate is very high among
migrated children at 23.05%.
2.6.2. Educational attainment of dropout children aged 5-17
Educational attainment of dropout children is the highest grade these children completed before
dropping out.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
51
52
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Urban/
rural
Gender
Age
Total
1.76
1.57
1.52
1.48
1.61
1.69
1.81
1.72
1.85
1.80
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.98
2.78
Urban
Rural
2.68
2.10
7
Female
3.12
6
2.48
11.99
5
2.57
Never
attended
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.02
No
educational
attainment
0.25
0.16
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.16
0.14
0.31
0.04
0.23
1
0.47
0.29
0.38
0.46
0.64
0.67
0.57
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.45
0.39
0.34
0.20
0.33
0.04
0
0.42
2
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
0
0.57
3
Primary
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
0
0
0.82
4
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
0
0
0
0
1.50
5
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
0
0
0
0
1.57
6
1.53
1.10
1.20
1.63
3.51
3.74
3.46
2.91
1.71
0.82
0.06
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
1.42
7
9.41
1.54
0.13
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.56
9
1.40
1.07
1.13
1.48
4.04
2.14
3.50
3.61
3.95 14.67
3.96 13.66
3.53
2.27
0.96
0.07
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.31
8
Lower secondary
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
0
0
0
0
7.87
Total
0.70
0.64
0.59
0.77
3.68
2.76
1.06
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.68
10
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.25
1.74
0.83
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
11
Upper secondary
% children attended but dropped out by highest grade completed
Educational Attainment of Out-of-school Children (OOSC) Aged 5 - 17
Male
Table 2.15:
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.13
1.39
0.17
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
12
1.08
1.01
0.96
1.16
6.81
3.76
1.15
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.06
Total
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.56
0.31
0.17
0.02
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.10
Other types
of school/
college/
university
Unit: %
About 2.57% of children aged between 5 and 17 have never attended any schools. Among those who
did attend schools and also achieved some educational attainment, interestingly two peaks exist at
the final grade of primary (1.5%) and at the final grade of lower secondary (3.56%). However, there is
no peak at the final grade of upper secondary, which is most likely due to the fact that 17+ years old
children are not included here. This diagram indicates that higher proportion of children complete a
level of education and then dropout, rather than drop out in the middle.
Figure 2.11:
14
OOSC Aged 5 - 17 by grade completed
12.57
12
10
8
6
3.56
Primary
9
e
8
e
Lower secondary
0.24 0.14
0.10
e
10
Gr
ad
e
11
Gr
ad
e
12
Never
No
attended education Total drop
attainment
outs
0.68
Gr
ad
e
e
e
e
e
ad rad
ad
ad rad
Gr
G
Gr
Gr
G
5
7
4
e
3
1.31
Gr
ad
2
6
1
e
0.02
Gr
ad
0
1.57 1.42
1.50
0.82
0.23 0.42 0.57
Gr
ad
2.57
2
Gr
ad
4
Upper secondary
Other
2.6.3. Over-age
Over-age and repetition are important indicators of children at risk of dropping out. The Census has
no information on grade repetition but on over-age. The tables below present analytical results on
over-age by grade.
According UIS recommendation, the definition of “overage” should allow 2 or more years older than
the theoretical age for grade. The cells marked yellow and bold in table 2.16 represents children of the
right official age for the grade. Any cells above those marked yellow are under-age children and any
cells below are over-age students.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
53
Table 2.16:
Percentage of Attendance in Primary and Lower Secondary Grades
by Age
Age
Primary grades
Lower secondary grades
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5
6.27
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
79.20
4.39
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
10.23
77.04
2.91
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8
2.99
13.53
80.55
2.06
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
0.69
2.74
10.79
78.73
2.73
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.29
1.06
3.07
12.44
77.41
2.30
0.19
0.00
0.00
11
0.14
0.49
1.25
3.74
12.87
76.66
2.19
0.21
0.00
12
0.07
0.22
0.58
1.50
3.98
14.13
76.26
2.04
0.28
13
0.04
0.10
0.25
0.66
1.55
4.25
15.25
77.99
2.32
14
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.32
0.64
1.47
4.07
14.50
76.91
15
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.21
0.49
1.18
3.51
14.76
16
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.22
0.40
1.02
3.44
17
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.17
0.32
1.05
18
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.17
0.52
19
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.18
20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.02
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
To present the total under- and over-age students, Table 2.17 sums the corresponding percentage
statistics from Table 2.16. Figure 2.12 gives a graphical impression of the Table 2.17.
54
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Table 2.17:
Over-age and Under-age by grade
Primary
Lower Secondary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6.27
4.64
3.24
2.29
2.93
2.46
2.38
2.25
2.60
Official age for
grade
79.20
77.04
80.55
78.73
77.41
76.66
76.26
77.99
76.91
Official age for
grade +1
10.23
13.53
10.79
12.44
12.87
14.13
15.25
14.50
14.76
4.31
4.79
5.42
6.54
6.80
6.75
6.11
5.26
5.73
Underage
Overage
Figure 2.12:
Over-Age in Primary and Lower Secondary Grades
100
90
80
70
Overage
60
Official age +1
50
40
Official age for
the grade
30
Undernage
20
10
0
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Primary
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Lower secondary
The figure ranges from the lowest at 4.31% at primary grade 1 to the highest at 6.8% at primary grade 5
for overage by grade. There are some 6% of over-age students at lower secondary education (by grade),
and the highest is at grade 6. These over-age students, especially in the final grade, are those at risk of
dropping out and become the future OOSC. Appropriate and timely intervention should be taken years
ahead to reduce the risk.
2.7. Analysis of Selected Provinces
This section presents analysis of selected indicators for eight provinces based on data of the 2009
Census and the surveys in 6 provinces of Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap
and An Giang. They are presented in two different tables, four provinces in each table, for better display.
National figure is repeated in both tables for easy comparison of provincial data with national data.
Disaggregated analysis into small population groups generated small cell values, and can cause
distortion in analytical results. This report takes the following action to each of the disaggregated
groups:
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
55
a)
If the number of observations (its population) is equal to or less than 50, the group is considered
too small to be included in statistical analysis. All cells in relation to this group will be left blank.
For example, there are 31 children in Lao Cai who are Muong and aged 5. All these 31 children
attend pre-primary school. However, since the population of this group is below 50, all analytical
cells in relation to this group are blank. The fact that there is 100% attendance rate in pre-primary
education will not be recorded.
b)
If its population is greater than 50, the group will be statistically analyzed as usual. However, one
must be cautious when making generalized conclusions from groups with values of a slightly
higher than 50 observations
c)
In the analysis of children aged 5 and also the attendance status of school age children (5-17),
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 with valid answers that is accessed.
2.7.1. Some features of the population
Table PL2.3a and Table PL2.3b in Annex 2 provide population distribution of the eight selected
provinces. To simplify the tables, Table 2.18 is used to present the percentages. From Table PL2.3a and
Table PL 2.3b in Annex 2, the cell with population below 50 can be identified.
Table 2.18:
Provincial Population Distribution
Unit: %
Viet
Nam
Provincial Population
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
56
Dien
Bien
Ninh
Thuan
Kon
Tum
Gia
Lai
Tp.
HCMC
Đồng
Tháp
An
Giang
100.00
0.91
0.80
0.84
0.70
2.10
6.25
1.94
2.47
Urban
25.25
15.78
10.26
32.36
29.79
25.08
81.04
15.75
26.57
Rural
74.75
84.22
89.74
67.64
70.21
74.92
18.96
84.25
73.43
Kinh
82.32
25.96
11.86
74.83
39.40
48.51
93.08
99.85
94.30
Tay
1.90
13.78
0.23
0.02
0.68
0.75
0.04
0.00
0.00
Thai
2.05
0.35
32.47
0.02
0.59
0.11
0.01
0.00
0.01
Muong
1.45
0.14
0.07
0.02
1.06
0.33
0.03
0.00
0.01
Khmer
1.51
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.03
4.67
Mong
2.20
30.93
44.68
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other
8.58
28.84
10.69
25.10
58.27
50.06
6.66
0.12
1.00
Disabled
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.22
0.25
0.26
0.15
0.14
0.18
Partially
disabled
1.40
1.85
1.62
1.43
1.71
1.13
1.87
0.93
0.59
98.40
97.99
98.26
98.34
98.04
98.61
97.98
98.93
99.23
Yes
2.53
1.37
1.85
1.20
3.06
2.45
11.60
1.17
1.29
No
97.47
98.63
98.15
98.80
96.94
97.55
88.40
98.83
98.71
No disability
Migrated
Lao
Cai
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Figure 2.13:
Distribution of Population (5-14 year-olds) by Province
100
90
80
70
60
% population
50
% Rural
% ethnic
minority
40
30
% disabled
% migrated
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city Dong Thap An Giang
Out of the 8 selected provinces, HCMC is the most populated province. It is also the most urbanised,
with only 19% of its 5-14 year olds live in rural areas.
Dien Bien has the highest percentage of minority ethnic population. The other three provinces that
have much higher minority ethnic population than nation average are Lao Cai, Kon Tum and Gia Lai, all
above 50%.
The percentage of migrant children is relatively small, except in HCMC where 11.6% of the children are
of migrant background.
2.7.2. School attendance status
Table 2.19a and Table 2.19b present the attendance rate of children aged 5 by province. To simplify
these tables, Table 2.20 presents only the combined attendance rate, i.e. the percentage of children
who attend either pre-primary or primary school. The attendance in Viet Nam is 12.19% children aged
5 not attending any schools, 80.33% attending pre-primary schools, 7.48% attending primary schools,
and 87.81% attending either pre-primary or primary schools (i.e. a combination of 80.33% attending
pre-primary schools and 7.48% attending primary schools). The pattern repeats in each province. Table
2.25 presents only the combined attendance rate, i.e. the percentage of children who attend either
pre-primary or primary schools. All eight provinces are now in the same table, with national statistics
as the reference point. It is easily comprehensible from Table 2.19a that 11.54% of 5 years old in Lao Cai
are not attending school where as 22.30% in Dien Bien are not attending, the national average being
12.19%. This shows also that Dien Bien is not as good as Lao Cai in terms of pre-school attendance. One
out of every five children at pre-school age in Dien Bien does not go to school. For Mong children aged
5 who do not attend pre-primary school, the figure is 17.85% in Lao Cai and 35.78% in Dien Bien.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
57
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/
rural
Gender
Pre-primary
12.29
12.08
12.99
11.86
11.03
3.61
6.15
3.26
37.00
34.49
17.95
83.11
30.62
11.84
16.45
12.03
Female
Urban
Rural
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
Disabled
Partially
disabled
No
disability
Yes
No
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
12.19 80.33
Not attending
Male
Total
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
Pre-primary
or primary
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
Not attending
83.96
88.31
77.88
89.05
78.52
80.95
79.78
Pre-primary
11.57
9.83
10.99
35.20
100.00
11.99
17.35
0.00
79.63
87.90
80.27
59.12
0.00
78.88
72.21
100.00
0.00 100.00
6.57
5.83
12.67
6.02
13.05
10.14
11.54
Primary
8.80
2.27
8.74
5.69
0.00
9.13
10.45
0.00
0.00
9.47
5.86
9.45
4.93
8.43
8.91
8.68
Pre-primary
or primary
88.43
90.17
89.01
64.80
0.00
88.01
82.65
100.00
100.00
93.43
94.17
87.33
93.98
86.95
89.86
88.46
Not attending
22.12
30.14
21.92
45.70
100.00
26.85
35.78
0.00
7.05
0.00
3.20
24.56
4.12
22.07
22.51
22.30
63.65
57.47
63.73
51.86
0.00
58.55
46.98
100.00
80.06
100.00
90.75
60.44
88.25
64.15
62.93
63.51
Pre-primary
Dien Bien
14.23
12.39
14.35
2.43
0.00
14.60
17.25
0.00
12.89
0.00
6.05
15.00
7.63
13.78
14.56
14.19
Primary
Lao Cai
Pre-primary
or primary
77.88
69.86
78.08
54.30
0.00
73.15
64.22
100.00
92.95
100.00
96.80
75.44
95.88
77.93
77.49
77.70
Not attending
16.21
11.50
15.65
30.42
81.17
26.64
12.61
18.61
11.28
14.62
17.56
16.13
Ninh Thuan
74.80
86.53
75.47
58.17
18.83
59.51
80.19
71.17
82.51
76.46
73.63
75.00
Pre-primary
Viet Nam
8.99
1.97
8.88
11.41
0.00
13.85
7.20
10.22
6.21
8.92
8.82
8.87
Primary
Attendance Rate of Children Aged 5 by Province
Pre-primary
or primary
83.79
88.50
84.35
69.58
18.83
73.36
87.39
81.39
88.72
85.38
82.44
83.87
Not attending
91.23
86.58
92.85
90.82
88.82
90.89
89.56
90.20
7.12
12.32
7.05
18.80
52.68
9.40
90.36
86.22
90.48
77.11
47.32
88.19
0.00 100.00
0.00 100.00
0.00
0.00
4.76
7.01
8.01
6.93
7.68
7.32
Kon Tum
Pre-primary
Table 2.19 a:
2.52
1.46
2.46
4.09
0.00
2.42
0.00
0.00
8.77
13.42
2.40
2.17
3.17
2.18
2.76
2.48
Primary
58
92.88
87.68
92.95
81.20
47.32
90.60
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.24
92.99
91.99
93.07
92.32
92.68
Pre-primary
or primary
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
59
16.31
7.83
21.62
4.11
3.92
23.61
Female
Urban
Rural
Kinh
Tay
Thai
42.46
31.10
67.13
25.61
17.91
10.19
18.36
Other
Disabled
Partially
Disability disabled
No
disability
Yes
No
Migrated
97.90
76.39
96.08
93.79
75.91
89.40
80.78
78.06
79.35
Pre-primary
79.09
87.14
79.51
73.71
32.87
65.88
57.54
0.00 100.00
Mong
Khmer
2.10
19.72
18.11
Not attending
Male
Ethnicity Muong
Urban/
rural
Gender
Total
Primary
97.90
76.39
96.08
95.89
78.38
92.17
83.69
80.28
81.89
Pre-primary
or primary
2.54
2.67
2.58
0.68
0.00
3.02
0.00
81.64
89.81
82.09
74.39
32.87
68.90
57.54
0.00 100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.10
2.47
2.77
2.91
2.22
2.55
Not attending
13.39
15.51
13.42
24.62
76.96
17.12
45.91
15.00
0.00
13.43
13.24
13.76
13.24
14.05
13.66
Pre-primary
83.93
80.94
83.76
74.37
23.04
79.89
54.09
85.00
100.00
83.79
83.78
83.50
84.08
83.06
83.55
Primary
2.68
3.55
2.82
1.01
0.00
2.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.79
2.98
2.74
2.68
2.89
2.79
Pre-primary
or primary
86.61
84.49
86.58
75.38
23.04
82.88
54.09
85.00
100.00
86.57
86.76
86.24
86.76
85.95
86.34
Not attending
15.89
15.61
15.63
35.44
100.00
0.00
0.00
15.91
15.02
20.24
15.02
16.68
15.89
Pre-primary
78.36
84.39
78.69
62.55
0.00
100.00
100.00
78.44
79.25
74.59
79.04
77.96
78.48
5.75
0.00
5.68
2.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.65
5.73
5.17
5.95
5.36
5.64
Primary
Đong Thap
Pre-primary
or primary
84.11
84.39
84.37
64.56
70.87
70.85
68.72
72.25
68.38
70.25
32.18
33.93
22.53
34.82
22.56
43.69
70.42
58.71
70.40
50.29
0.00
61.81
56.23
0.00 100.00
22.19
21.53
25.70
20.48
24.80
22.71
Not attending
0.00 100.00
100.00
100.00
84.09
84.98
79.76
84.98
83.32
84.11
An Giang
Pre-primary
HCM city
7.04
6.47
7.05
6.02
0.00
6.01
9.84
0.00
6.94
7.61
5.58
7.27
6.81
7.04
Primary
Gia Lai
Pre-primary
or primary
77.47
65.18
77.44
56.31
0.00
67.82
66.07
100.00
77.81
78.47
74.30
79.52
75.20
77.29
Not attending
11.27
16.77
11.05
31.01
83.69
15.90
37.45
37.18
3.25
6.03
3.44
10.42
11.06
12.53
11.46
11.39
11.42
Other provinces
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
Pre-primary
Attendance Rate of Children Aged 5 by Province
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
Primary
Table 2.19b:
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
Pre-primary
or primary
60
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/
rural
Gender
87.71
87.92
87.01
88.14
88.97
96.39
93.85
96.74
63.00
65.51
82.05
16.89
69.38
88.16
83.55
87.97
Female
Urban
Rural
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
Disabled
Partially
disabled
No
disability
Yes
No
87.81
Viet
Nam
88.43
90.17
89.01
77.88
69.86
78.08
54.30
0.00
0.00
64.80
73.15
88.01
64.22
100.00
100.00
82.65
92.95
100.00
96.80
75.44
95.88
77.93
77.49
77.70
Dien
Bien
100.00
93.43
94.17
87.33
93.98
86.95
89.86
88.46
Lao Cai
83.79
88.50
84.35
69.58
18.83
73.36
87.39
81.39
88.72
85.38
82.44
83.87
Ninh
Thuan
92.88
87.68
92.95
81.20
0
90.60
100.00
100.00
81.64
89.81
82.09
74.39
32.87
68.90
57.54
97.90
76.39
96.08
95.89
78.38
92.17
83.69
80.28
81.89
Gia Lai
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.24
92.99
91.99
93.07
92.32
92.68
Kon Tum
86.61
84.49
86.58
75.38
0
82.88
54.09
85.00
100.00
86.57
86.76
86.24
86.76
85.95
86.34
HCM
city
Attending Pre-primary or Primary
Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by Province
Male
Total
Table 2.20:
84.11
84.39
84.37
64.56
0.00
100.00
100.00
84.09
84.98
79.76
84.98
83.32
84.11
Đong
Thap
77.47
65.18
77.44
56.31
0.00
67.82
66.07
100.00
77.81
78.47
74.30
79.52
75.20
77.29
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
Other
provinces
Table 2.20 shows that Kon Tum has the highest attendance rate in children aged 5 at 92.68%, whereas
An Giang has the lowest rate at 77.29%. An Giang also has the biggest gap between 5 year old boys and
girls (4 percentage points more girls in school than boys)
The disparity between urban and rural areas is the largest in Dien Bien with urban rate at 95.88% and
rural rate at only 75.44%, a difference of 20 percentage points.
Some of the ethnic minority groups achieve different attendance rates in different provinces. 82.65%
Mong children aged 5 in Lao Cai attend schools, for instance, compared with 64.22% of them in Dien
Bien. 66.07% Khmer children aged 5 in An Giang attend pre-primary schools, i.e. one out of 3 Khmer
children aged 5 in An Giang is not attending pre-primary education. The children of the “Other ethnic
groups” also achieve much higher attendance rate in Lao Cai (88.01%) than in Dien Bien (73.15%).
Figure 2.14 gives a graphical impression of attendance rate by children aged 5 by province presented in
Table 2.20. The best performing province is Kon Tum at 92.68% and the worst An Giang at only 77.29%.
Figure 2.14:
Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by
Province
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Figure 2.15:
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap An Giang
Attendance Rate of Pre-Primary or Primary of Children Aged 5 by
Ethnicity
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Kinh
Lao cai
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan
Ethnic minority
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap An Giang
Proportion ethnic minority
Notes: Dong Thap does not have this indicator as there are only 42 ethnic minority children aged 5.
Figure 2.15 presents the attendance rates of the Kinh children aged 5 in different provinces. They are
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
61
compared with the average attendance rates of all ethnic groups of children aged 5 in these provinces.
Kinh is the main ethnic group in Viet Nam and more than 80% of the Viet Nam population belongs to
it. Comparing the result of the Kinh group with the average of all ethnic minority groups also indirectly
shows the result of children from minority ethnic background. The larger the difference between the
blue, which represents average over all ethnic groups, and the red, which represents Kinh only, the
larger the deviation of minority attendance rate.
For instance, in Dien Bien, Kinh children aged 5 perform much better than the provincial average. The
minority ethnic groups therefore have much lower attendance rate. Indeed Table 2.20 shows that Mong
children living in Dien Bien achieve only 64.22% attendance rate of pre-primary or primary school while
Kinh children achieve 96.80%.
Included in Figure 2.15 is also the population distribution of minority groups, which is calculated by 100
minus Kinh population percentage. Figure 2.15 shows clearly not all provinces with high minority ethnic
population produce low attendance rate in ethnic minority children aged 5. Kon Tum for instance has
60.6% population in ethnic minority groups, yet their children perform similarly as children with Kinh
background.
Overall, children from Kinh families achieve better than average attendance rate in 5 year-old
pre-primary. However in An Giang where majority children aged 5 are of Kinh families, the attendance
rate is far below national average at 77.29%.
The population of 5 year-old children with disabilities (disabled) is too small for any analysis. In general,
the attendance rate of children with no disabilities is higher than that of the children with partial
disabilities, with the lowest discrepancy in Ho Chi Minh City, Gia Lai and Kon Tum (about 1.1 times), and
the highest discrepancy in provinces of Lao Cai and Dien Bien (about 1.4 times).
However, one must be cautious when reading and generalizing the statistics on partial disabled
children, as the number of cases of partial disabled children in each province is very small.
Figure 2.16 compares attendance rate of migrant and non-migrant children. Again in this figure the
percentage of non-migrant population is displayed as a comparison. Out of the eight provinces only
Ho Chi Minh City has a relatively high percentage of migrant population (above 10%, and non-migrant
population is below 90%). The rest of the provinces only have 2 to 4% migrant children.
Figure 2.16:
Percentage of Children Aged 5 Attending Pre-Primary or Primary
School (Migrant)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Migrated
62
Dien Bien
Ninh Thuan
Non-migrated
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Proportion non-migrated
Dong Thap An Giang
Even though most provinces have similar percentages of migrant population, attendance rates of
migrant and non-migrant children vary among different provinces. In Lao Cai the attendance rate for
migrant children aged 5 is higher than non-migrant, but in Dien Bien the situation reverses. In Ho Chi
Minh City where the percentage of migrant children exceeds 10%, the attendance rate among migrant
children is slightly lower (84.49%) than among non-migrant children (86.61%).
However, one must be cautious when reading and generalizing the statistics on migrant children, as the
number of cases of migrant children in each province (except in Ho Chi Minh City) is very small.
The next sets of tables and graphs present primary ANAR, lower secondary ANAR and primary
attendance rate of lower secondary age children in 8 provinces.
Table 2.21:
Primary ANAR by Province
Unit: %
Viet
Nam
Lao
Cai
Dien
Bien
Gia Lai
Tp.
HCMC
96.03
90.45
84.25
91.92
94.20
87.58
97.65
95.54
92.46
6
92.72
83.42
76.47
89.85
89.62
78.68
96.84
92.23
87.41
7
97.19
91.86
87.16
93.72
96.18
90.33
98.54
97.05
95.12
8
97.40
93.20
87.25
94.06
96.21
90.65
98.35
97.62
95.68
9
96.77
92.23
85.41
92.59
94.90
89.70
97.72
96.01
93.66
10
95.87
91.21
84.76
89.25
93.94
87.93
96.61
94.18
89.40
Male
96.04
92.07
87.30
90.73
93.78
86.40
97.61
95.22
91.87
Female
96.01
88.74
81.02
93.22
94.67
88.88
97.71
95.88
93.09
Urban
97.60
97.40
98.07
96.55
96.91
95.49
97.82
96.10
93.86
Rural
95.50
89.18
82.76
89.75
93.13
85.12
96.95
95.44
91.95
Kinh
97.48
98.96
98.58
95.97
98.75
98.41
97.73
95.53
92.88
Tay
98.23
97.46
98.62 100.00
98.04
97.68 100.00
Thai
94.54
95.95
96.00
Muong
97.42
94.46 100.00 100.00
Khmer
86.66
100.00
Mong
73.50
80.20
73.25
Other
89.98
91.39
83.35
80.64
91.22
77.79
97.17 100.00
85.27
Disabled
12.90
4.45
15.36
2.60
0.00
13.86
19.10
10.92
10.49
Partially
disabled
76.19
77.19
70.82
74.31
69.28
64.28
83.87
67.29
52.63
No
disability
96.44
90.75
84.58
92.29
94.89
88.03
97.97
95.82
92.84
Yes
92.77
92.02
66.83
97.74
89.96
94.75
95.15
87.93
86.13
No
96.11
90.43
84.58
91.85
94.34
87.41
97.98
95.63
92.55
Total
Age
Gender
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Migrated
Ninh
Thuan
62.43
Kon
Tum
Đong
Thap
An
Giang
96.61 100.00 100.00
100.00
99.15
100.00
94.90
100.00
93.31
67.36 100.00
85.59
86.67 100.00
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
63
Figure 2.17:
Primary ANAR by Province and Ethnicity
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Kinh
Lao cai
Dien Bien
Ninh Thuan
Ethnic minority
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap An Giang
Proportion ethnic minority
The figure 2.17 on Primary ANAR takes the same approach as the attendance rate of children aged 5
(Figure 15). The dashed line represents the percentage of minority population.
In all provinces except Dong Thap, children of Kinh families achieve higher primary ANAR than
provincial average attendance rate. The difference is most obvious in Lao Cai, Dien Bien, and Gia Lai.
Of the eight provinces selected for analysis, Lao Cai and Dien Bien are two only provinces with primary
ANAR among girls much lower than that of boys. Dien Bien has the largest gap between the Kinh
and the minority children. The Kinh’s primary ANAR is 98.58% while the average primary ANAR of all
ethnic minority groups in the province is 82.44%. The lower average is obviously a result of the low
primary ANAR among the Mong children (73.25%). In Lao Cai, the Kinh’s primary ANAR is 98.6% while
the primary ANAR of the Mong is 80.2%, i.e. one out of 5 Mong’s children of primary school age is
out-of-school. In general, Mong ethnic minority has the lowest primary ANAR among other ethnic
groups in three provinces where Mong people live, including Lao Cai, Dien Bien and Gia Lai.
The primary ANAR of children with disabilities in the whole country is only at 13%, with low rates in 3
provinces of Kon Tum (0%), Ninh Thuan (2.6%) and Lao Cai (4.45%). The primary ANAR by province of
children with no disabilities is 1.3 times higher then that of children with partial disabilities, with the
highest difference in An Giang.
64
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
65
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/rural
Gender
Age
5.91
No
5.86
No
disability
5.37
8.23
Partially
disabled
Yes
4.42
15.56
Other
Disabled
24.40
Mong
10.58
Thai
15.01
5.11
Tay
Khmer
4.22
Kinh
6.01
6.74
Rural
Muong
3.27
Urban
0.89
14
5.20
2.06
13
Female
5.47
12
6.54
16.43
11
5.90
Primary
attendance
Male
Total
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
9.59
Primary
attendance
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
ANAR
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
Primary
attendance
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
ANAR
60.89
47.66
61.03
43.06
0
46.83
38.48
100.00
77.84
91.09
96.43
56.90
91.93
53.45
67.13
63.61
65.51
62.36
50.90
60.67
8.42
Primary
attendance
8.45
6.30
8.45
7.99
0.00
16.29
50.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.97
10.08
4.97
7.57
9.19
1.33
3.52
9.29
21.53
ANAR
67.90
79.57
68.44
53.98
0.00
48.37
49.74
100.00
100.00
85.57
74.15
62.78
78.96
72.63
63.85
65.07
69.60
72.09
65.36
68.04
Primary
attendance
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
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
ANAR
Gia Lai
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
Primary
attendance
Kon Tum
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
ANAR
Ninh Thuan
HCMC
2.59
3.34
2.63
4.19
4.15
3.40
9.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.60
2.21
2.78
2.56
2.78
0.53
0.94
1.95
7.48
2.67
Primary
attendance
Dien Bien
89.60
70.40
87.77
78.99
3.71
87.36
15.89
100.00
100.00
68.16
87.61
82.62
88.52
88.32
86.56
82.27
88.19
90.69
88.68
87.40
ANAR
Lao Cai
Đong Thap
6.91
9.21
6.92
8.60
6.78
0.00
0.00
6.94
7.36
4.57
6.35
7.46
0.90
1.53
6.11
19.84
6.93
Primary
attendance
Viet Nam
73.77
57.98
74.06
47.97
2.04
96.61
27.40
73.59
71.88
83.13
76.25
71.26
67.03
76.68
78.09
72.59
73.61
ANAR
Lower Secondary ANAR and Primary Attendance by Province
An Giang
8.47
8.96
8.48
9.28
2.66
10.65
12.62
0.00
0.00
8.25
9.24
6.30
7.80
9.11
1.03
2.42
7.78
23.25
8.47
Primary
attendance
Table 2.22:
64.76
45.65
64.87
33.90
0.00
55.44
49.85
75.35
100.00
65.38
61.33
73.67
66.46
62.75
58.50
66.20
70.48
62.87
64.55
ANAR
Figure 2.18:
Lower Secondary ANAR by Province (Ethnicity)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Kinh
Dien Bien
Ninh Thuan
Ethnic minority
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap An Giang
Proportion ethnic minority
Lower Secondary ANAR represents percentage of lower secondary school age children attending lower
and upper secondary grades. The difference between ethnic groups becomes much larger in lower
secondary ANAR than in primary ANAR. The biggest gap is in Dien Bien where 96.43% of Kinh children
attend grades of their official age, compared to only 38.48% among Mong children. The figure 2.18
indicates that provinces with high minority population, Lao Cai, Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Gia Lai, all have
large gap between the Kinh and minority children.
Figure 2.19:
Lower Secondary Attending Primary Grades by Province (Ethnicity)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Kinh
Lao cai
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan
Ethnic minority
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Proportion ethnic minority
Figure 2.19 shows that in the four provinces where there are large gaps in lower secondary ANAR,
Kinh children at lower secondary age have much less percentage attending primary grades. In other
words, ethnic minority groups have much higher rate of lower secondary school age children attending
primary grades. Such statistics indicate either later start of education or slower progress in education.
The secondary ANAR of children with disabilities in the whole country is only at 4%, with low rates in
4 provinces of Ninh Thuan, An Giang, Lao Cai and Gia Lai. The lower secondary ANAR by province of
children with no disabilities is 1.4 times higher then that of children with partial disabilities, with the
highest difference in An Giang and Kon Tum, and lowest in Ho Chi Minh City.
66
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
2.7.3. Out-of-school children
The next sets of tables and graphs present out-of-school rates of primary and lower secondary school
age children.
Table 2.23:
Primary OOSC Rate by Province
Unit: %
Viet
Nam
Lao
Cai
Dien
Bien
HCMC
Đong
Thap
An
Giang
3.97
9.55
15.75
8.08
5.80
12.42
2.35
4.46
7.54
6
7.28
16.58
23.53
10.15
10.38
21.32
3.16
7.77
12.59
7
2.81
8.14
12.84
6.28
3.82
9.67
1.46
2.95
4.88
8
2.60
6.80
12.75
5.94
3.79
9.35
1.65
2.38
4.32
9
3.23
7.77
14.59
7.41
5.10
10.30
2.28
3.99
6.34
10
4.13
8.79
15.24
10.75
6.06
12.07
3.39
5.82
10.60
Male
3.96
7.93
12.70
9.27
6.22
13.60
2.39
4.78
8.13
Female
3.99
11.26
18.98
6.78
5.33
11.12
2.29
4.12
6.91
Urban
2.40
2.60
1.93
3.45
3.09
4.51
2.18
3.90
6.14
Rural
4.50
10.82
17.24
10.25
6.87
14.88
3.05
4.56
8.05
Kinh
2.52
1.04
1.42
4.03
1.25
1.59
2.27
4.47
7.12
Tay
1.77
2.54
1.38
0.00
1.96
2.32
0.00
Thai
5.46
4.05
4.00
37.57
3.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
Muong
2.58
5.54
0.00
0.00
0.85
5.10
6.69
0.00
Khmer
13.34
0.00
32.64
Mong
26.50
19.80
26.75
13.33
0.00
Other
10.02
8.61
16.65
19.36
8.78
22.21
Disabled
87.10
95.55
84.64
97.40
100.00
Partially
disabled
23.81
22.81
29.18
25.69
No
disability
3.56
9.25
15.42
Yes
7.23
7.98
No
3.89
9.57
Total
Age
Ninh
Thuan
Kon
Tum
Gia
Lai
Gender
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
0.00
0.00
14.41
2.83
0.00
14.73
86.14
80.90
89.08
89.51
30.72
35.72
16.13
32.71
47.37
7.71
5.11
11.97
2.03
4.18
7.16
33.17
2.26
10.04
5.25
4.85
12.07
13.87
15.42
8.15
5.66
12.59
2.02
4.37
7.45
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
67
Migrated
Figure 2.20:
Primary OOSC Rate by Province (Ethnicity)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Kinh
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Ethnic minority
In the four provinces with high percentage of minority population, three (Lao Cai, Dien Bien and Gia
Lai) exhibit large difference between the children from Kinh and the minority groups. Lao Cai has
1.04% of Kinh children at primary school age being out-of-school in comparison with 19.8% of Mong
peers out-of-school at the same age. In Dien Bien, such difference is more obvious with 1.42% of Kinh
at primary age being out-of-school while there is 26.75% of Mong children at the same age range is
out-of-school.
Dien Bien also displays a big difference in OOSC rate between migrant and non-migrant children
(33.17% and 15.42% respectively). Migrant children at primary school age in the province are almost
twice more likely to be out-of-school than non-migrant children.
Figure 2.21:
Primary OOSC Rate by Province and Migration
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Migrated
68
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan
Non-migrated
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Table 2.24:
Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province
Unit: %
Viet
Nam
Total
Lao Cai
Dien
Bien
Ninh
Thuan
Kon
Tum
Gia Lai
HCMC
Đong
Thap
An
Giang
11.17
17.51
24.78
23.54
15.91
22.58
9.92
19.45
26.98
11
5.37
11.03
18.18
13.11
7.69
14.39
3.85
7.57
13.89
12
8.37
14.66
22.65
18.62
12.66
18.80
7.36
15.80
21.74
13
12.29
17.81
25.90
26.88
17.16
24.57
10.86
21.79
31.38
14
17.65
25.75
32.16
33.61
25.06
32.55
17.20
32.07
40.47
Male
11.77
14.20
17.00
26.95
18.58
24.34
10.66
21.28
28.14
Female
10.52
21.02
33.46
19.79
13.00
20.70
9.12
17.40
25.74
Urban
7.64
5.74
4.76
16.07
10.37
9.51
8.70
12.30
20.03
Rural
12.31
19.72
27.20
27.14
18.44
27.31
15.16
20.75
29.43
Kinh
8.74
3.84
1.84
19.88
4.74
6.97
9.79
19.46
26.38
Tay
6.62
8.92
8.91
14.43
15.44
10.18
31.84
Thai
15.57
6.96
14.29
0.00
5.13
13.58
0.00
0.00
Muong
9.83
3.37
0.00
0.00
17.54
13.25
0.00
24.65
Khmer
38.63
0.00
74.44
72.60
37.53
Mong
41.36
33.84
38.45
Other
23.48
18.98
34.00
35.34
24.25
39.95
9.24
3.39
33.91
Disabled
91.40
95.04
70.89
100.00
90.49
98.05
92.14
91.18
97.34
Partially
disabled
31.01
36.02
42.73
38.02
42.50
48.86
16.82
43.43
56.83
No
disability
10.65
16.91
24.43
23.11
15.25
22.07
9.60
19.02
26.65
Yes
25.72
10.43
40.67
14.13
19.53
17.74
26.26
32.81
45.38
No
10.84
17.59
24.50
23.65
15.81
22.70
7.81
19.32
26.77
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
69
Age
Gender
Urban/
rural
Ethnicity
Disability
0.00
32.86
Migrated
Figure 2.22:
Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province and Ethnicity
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Kinh
Dien Bien Ninh Thuan
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Ethnic minority
Again in the four provinces with high percentage of minority population, the lower secondary OOSC
rate among Kinh children are much lower than the average over all ethnic groups , which indicates
much higher lower secondary OOSC rate among minority children. It must be noted however, Kon Tum,
a province with 60% minority population, has a narrower gap than Gia Lai, a province with 50% minority
population. A closer look at Table 2.24 shows that there is a group of Mong children in Gia Lai but not in
Kon Tum. Children from “Other” ethnic groups perform poorly in Gia Lai (at 39.95%) compared with that
of Kon Tum (24.25%). In Dien Bien, 38.45% of Mong children at lower secondary age is out-of-school,
compared with 1.84% of Kinh at the same age range. In Lao Cai, the discrepancy is 33.84% among Mong
children comparing with 3.84% among Kinh children. This again indicates the inequity in education for
Mong children. In An Giang, the lower secondary OOSC rate among Kinh children is 26.38%, highest rate
among the 8 provinces, and the rate of Khmer children being out-of-school at 37.53% which evidences
that An Giang is still a “lowland” in education among others in Mekong River Delta.
Figure 2.23:
Lower Secondary OOSC Rate by Province (Migrant)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Viet Nam
Lao cai
Migrated
Dien Bien
Ninh Thuan
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Non-migrated
It is worth noting that the lower secondary OOSC rate in Ho Chi Minh City is much higher among
migrant children (26.26%) than among non-migrant children (7.81%). This is important as the migrant
population in Ho Chi Minh City takes up to nearly 13% of children population from 5 to 14 years of age,
equivalent to nearly 112,000 children.
70
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
2.7.4. Dropouts and over-age
As aforementioned, dropout and over-age attendance are the risk factors leading to children being
out-of-school. Children dropout in this report is defined as children who attended school before and do
not go to school at the moment of the Census 2009. The next sets of tables present the attendance rate
by the criteria: never attended, attended by dropped out and currently attending.
Similar with tables before, Viet Nam average is listed as a reference point for the provinces that follow.
The children are divided into 3 groups: never attended, attended by dropped out and currently
attending.
For children of primary school age (Table 2.25a), Dien Bien has the highest percentage of children who
never attended school (12.19%). Most of these children are of Mong ethnic origin; 21.87% of the Mong
primary school age children have never attended school, which accounts to more than one fifth of
Mong primary school age children. This figure in Lao Cai is 11.36%, which means one out of every 10
Mong children at primary age has never been to school.
Migrant children of primary age in Dien Bien also have a higher than average percentage of Never
Attended children. The rate is 23.96%, almost double of that of non-migrant children of the same age
group in the province (11.97%).
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
71
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/rural
Gender
Age
96.82
98.07
96.41
98.10
98.82
96.19
98.26
87.89
76.56
91.71
14.21
79.89
97.20
93.81
96.91
Urban
Rural
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
Disabled
Partially
disabled
No disability
Yes
No
95.90
10
Female
96.80
9
96.84
97.49
97.37
7
8
96.50
6
96.83
Attending
Male
Total
Dropped
out
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
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
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
Dropped
out
Lao Cai
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
Dien Bien
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
Dropped
out
Viet Nam
Never
attended
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
Attending
92.69
97.74
93.06
79.96
2.60
81.98
100.00
100.00
62.43
100.00
96.61
90.52
97.50
94.04
91.56
89.33
92.75
94.17
94.08
93.45
92.75
Ninh Thuan
2.47
0.50
2.44
3.47
0.00
5.21
0.00
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
Dropped
out
Attendance Status of Primary School Age Children by Province (1)
Never
attended
4.84
1.77
4.51
16.58
97.40
12.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.94
6.34
1.53
3.91
5.63
5.65
3.98
3.88
4.94
5.65
4.81
Attending
95.78
91.98
96.31
73.76
0.00
93.24
99.15
99.15
99.15
99.34
94.84
97.74
96.06
95.31
93.94
94.90
96.36
96.52
96.43
95.66
Kon Tum
1.77
1.36
1.66
7.03
2.28
2.69
0.00
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
Dropped
out
Table 2.25a:
Unit: %
2.45
6.66
2.03
19.20
97.72
4.07
0.85
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
Never
attended
72
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
73
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/
rural
Gender
Age
98.82
Tay
98.26
87.89
76.56
91.71
14.21
79.89
97.20
93.81
96.91
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
Disabled
Partially
disabled
No disability
Yes
No
96.19
98.10
Kinh
Thai
98.07
96.41
Urban
Rural
96.82
95.90
10
Female
96.80
9
96.84
97.49
97.37
7
8
96.50
6
96.83
Attending
Male
Total
Dropped
out
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
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
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
Dropped
out
Gia Lai
Never
attended
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
Attending
98.28
95.83
98.28
86.43
19.10
97.61
100.00
67.36
93.31
100.00
100.00
98.07
97.40
98.14
98.04
97.96
96.64
97.79
98.47
98.68
98.08
98.00
. HCMC
0.89
2.79
1.05
4.04
8.22
1.41
0.00
14.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
1.55
1.00
1.09
1.11
2.76
1.58
0.74
0.51
0.37
1.10
Dropped
out
Viet Nam
Never
attended
0.84
1.38
0.67
9.53
72.68
0.99
0.00
18.47
6.69
0.00
0.00
0.87
1.05
0.87
0.87
0.93
0.60
0.64
0.79
0.81
1.55
0.90
Attending
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
Đong Thap
1.83
4.35
1.84
4.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.86
1.92
1.55
1.61
2.09
4.57
2.85
1.12
0.67
0.44
1.86
Dropped
out
Attendance Status of Primary School Age Children by Province (2)
Never
attended
1.79
7.03
1.61
24.26
89.08
0.00
0.00
1.86
1.84
1.94
1.73
1.97
1.23
1.14
1.12
2.03
3.90
1.85
Attending
93.64
89.85
93.92
62.09
10.49
86.07
88.28
100.00
100.00
93.93
93.24
94.52
94.17
93.04
89.42
93.72
95.84
95.42
92.73
93.58
An Giang
3.11
2.23
3.10
4.03
0.00
8.23
4.26
0.00
0.00
2.98
3.38
2.32
2.76
3.41
8.19
4.08
1.62
1.35
0.87
3.10
Dropped
out
Table 2.25b:
Unit: %
3.25
7.92
2.98
33.88
89.51
5.70
7.47
0.00
0.00
3.08
3.38
3.15
3.07
3.55
2.39
2.20
2.54
3.23
6.40
3.32
Never
attended
Among these provinces, the lower secondary dropout rate is generally much higher than that at primary
level, especially at the final grade. In Ninh Thuan, nearly 28% of students aged 14, or at the final grade
age, drop out. This figure in Gia Lai is 27.3%, in Dong Thap as 29.8% and An Giang as 37%. Lao Cai and
Dien Bien have nearly 20% of children aged 14 who drop out from lower secondary schools.
The difference shows most clearly in ethnic minority children and children from migrant families and
from rural areas. Among the lower secondary school age children (Table 2.26a, 2.26b), An Giang has
the lowest attendance rate (73.06%). This low attendance rate is due the high dropout rate (24.14%).
The dropout rate is high among all ethnic groups including the main Kinh group (for example Kinh at
23.84%, Khmer at 29.92% and others at 29.38%). The dropout rate is also high among migrant children
at 37.45%. In other words, one in three lower secondary school age migrant children attended but
dropped out-of-school. In Dong Thap, 19.19% of rural children at lower secondary age drop out, which
nearly doubles the percentage in urban areas. In Ho Chi Minh City, nearly 24.69% of migrant children of
lower secondary school age drop out.
In Dien Bien, 15.67% of Mong children at lower secondary age and 19.32% of other ethnic minority
children drop out, comparing with 1.58% drop out rate among Kinh children. In Lao Cai, 22.4% Mong
children at lower secondary age drop out in comparison with 3.18% among Kinh children. In particular,
22.78% of Mong children at lower secondary age in Dien Bien and 11.4% of Mong children at the same
age in Lao Cai have never attended school before. Dien Bien shows an obvious gender disparity with
18.3% of girls at lower secondary age never attending school before. In comparison, this figure among
its peers of the opposite sex is only 6%. 20.3% of rural children at lower secondary age in Ninh Thuan
drop out when compared with 13.4% among urban children. In Kon Tum, 18% of migrant children at
lower secondary age drop out. In Gia Lai, the dropout rate among rural children at lower secondary age
is 20.9% while this figure in urban area is 7.36%.
74
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
75
91.31
93.40
84.46
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Migrated
Disability
89.20
No
89.38
No
disability
74.50
69.83
Partially
disabled
Yes
8.82
Disabled
76.56
87.73
Rural
Other
92.41
Urban
58.67
89.51
Female
Mong
88.28
Male
61.39
82.43
14
Khmer
87.75
13
90.19
91.66
12
Muong
94.65
11
Ethnicity
Urban/
rural
Gender
Age
88.87
Attending
Total
Dropped
out
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
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
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
Dropped
out
Lao Cai
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
Dien Bien
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
Dropped
out
Viet Nam
Never
attended
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
Attending
76.40
87.11
76.92
63.29
0.00
64.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
85.57
80.19
72.90
84.04
80.21
73.16
66.43
73.16
81.45
87.00
76.52
Ninh Thuan
18.17
11.86
18.19
14.21
8.56
20.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.43
17.24
20.32
13.49
15.02
20.91
27.98
21.03
13.44
8.08
18.10
Dropped
out
Attendance Status of Lower Secondary School Age Children by Province (1)
Never
attended
5.43
1.03
4.89
22.50
91.44
14.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.57
6.78
2.47
4.77
5.93
5.59
5.80
5.11
4.92
5.38
Attending
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
Kon Tum
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
Dropped
out
Table 2.26a:
Unit: %
1.83
1.53
1.24
22.85
83.24
2.99
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.33
2.29
0.79
1.54
2.07
1.74
1.96
2.11
1.44
1.82
Never
attended
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
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
No
76.56
92.41
Urban
Other
89.51
Female
58.67
88.28
Male
Mong
82.43
14
61.39
87.75
13
Khmer
91.66
12
90.19
94.65
11
Muong
88.87
Attending
Total
Dropped out
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
Never
attended
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
Attending
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
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
Dropped out
Gia Lai
Never
attended
5.33
1.98
4.76
28.13
88.56
10.50
4.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.59
6.39
2.12
5.31
5.20
5.16
5.50
5.02
5.33
5.25
Attending
92.25
73.93
90.46
83.44
13.18
90.76
25.56
100.00
100.00
68.16
90.30
85.05
91.34
90.97
89.40
82.99
89.20
92.70
96.15
90.15
HCMC
7.04
24.69
9.10
8.12
5.18
8.52
66.92
0.00
0.00
31.84
8.94
13.60
8.01
8.44
9.64
16.06
9.92
6.55
3.32
9.07
Dropped out
Viet Nam
Never
attended
0.71
1.38
0.44
8.44
81.64
0.72
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.77
1.35
0.65
0.59
0.96
0.96
0.88
0.75
0.52
0.78
Attending
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
Đong Thap
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
Dropped out
Attendance Status of Lower Secondary School Age Children by Province (2)
Never
attended
1.51
4.45
1.17
17.72
85.44
0.00
0.00
1.54
1.54
1.51
1.35
1.71
2.19
1.41
1.36
1.17
1.54
Attending
73.26
55.02
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
An Giang
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
Dropped out
Table 2.26b:
Unit: %
2.75
7.54
2.48
30.22
82.85
4.53
8.61
0.00
0.00
2.50
2.99
2.27
2.41
3.18
3.39
2.90
2.61
2.31
2.80
Never
attended
76
Table 2.27 and Table 2.28 present the over-age situation in the provinces.
Table 2.27:
Over-Age in Primary Grades by Province
Viet
Nam
Lao
Cai
Dien
Bien
Ninh
Thuan
Kon
Tum
Gia Lai
HCMC
Dong
Thap
An
Giang
Underage (%)
3.93
6.52
7.95
3.89
1.41
0.93
1.07
1.56
1.90
Official age for
the grade (%)
78.61
66.08
57.02
70.59
72.26
61.44
91.15
78.32
71.23
Official age +1
(%)
11.94
17.94
19.11
15.79
16.47
21.22
5.68
14.35
18.56
5.52
9.46
15.92
9.73
9.86
16.41
2.10
5.77
8.31
6,779,518
61,697
54,591
56,510
50,052
146,658
428,996
130,245
166,082
Dong
Thap
An
Giang
Overage (%)
Total number
of children
(person)
Table 2.28:
Over-Age in Lower Secondary Grades by Province
Viet
Nam
Lao
Cai
Dien
Bien
Ninh
Thuan
Kon
Tum
Gia
Lai
HCMC
Underage (%)
2.42
5.02
5.74
1.55
0.99
0.50
0.59
0.61
1.01
Official age for
the grade (%)
76.96
62.56
50.38
68.37
65.50
65.18
85.82
78.89
72.82
Official age +1
(%)
14.66
20.37
22.15
20.44
20.34
21.66
9.72
15.42
18.57
5.97
12.05
21.73
9.63
13.16
12.66
3.86
5.09
7.60
Total number of
5,519,553 45,318 35,161
children (person)
40,280
Overage (%)
Figure 2.24:
34,330 86,492 322,306 94,023 106,242
Over-Age in Lower Secondary Grades by Province
25
20
15
10
5
0
Viet Nam
Primary
Lao cai
Dien Bien
Ninh Thuan Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
Lower secondary
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
77
In Viet Nam on average, over-age is at around 6% for both primary grades and lower secondary grades.
By disaggregating the statistics into provinces, however, one sees the existence of much high over-age
figures, for instance, in Gia Lai (16.41% in primary grades and 12.66% in lower secondary grades) and
Dien Bien (15.92% in primary grades and 21.73% in lower secondary grades). Four provinces of Lao
Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, and An Giang have the over-age attendance rates higher than the national
average. Ho Chi Minh City has the lowest rate among 8 provinces at 2.10% in primary and 3.86% in
lower secondary.
Of course the severity of over-age depends not just on the percentage of over-aged children, but also
on how many years older these over-aged children are. The study’s field work reveals that over-age at
school is one of the factors that discourage students to stay at school, make them drop out and become
out-of-school children. Further disaggregation will be needed if the true over-age situation is to be
revealed.
2.8. Summary of Findings
This section reports on the key findings on OOSC aged 5 to 14, based on data collected through the Viet
Nam Population and Housing Census 2009.
• There are about 14.3 million children aged between 5 and 14 years, of which 1.5 million are aged 5,
6.6 million aged 6 – 10, and 6.2 million aged 11 – 14.
• The percentage of children aged 5 currently attending preschool or primary school are 87.81%. The
percentage of out-of-school children aged 5 is 12.19%, equivalent to 175,848 children.
• The percentage of children aged 6-10 currently attending primary or secondary school is 96.3%.
The percentage of out-of-school children aged 6-10 is 3.97%, equivalent to 262,648 children.
• The percentage of children aged 11-14 currently attending school is 88.83%, including 82.93%
attending lower secondary school and 5.9% attending primary school. The percentage of
out-of-school children aged 11-14 is 11.17%, equivalent to 688,849 children.
• Total number of out-of-school children aged 5-14 is 1,127,345 children.
• The percentage of children who attended but subsequently dropped out-of-school increases
dramatically as age increases. At 14, almost 16% of the age group population has dropped
out-of-schools. At 17 the number increases to more than 39%.
• The percentage of never-attended-school children is high and especially high in some ethnic
minority groups. The average figure of children aged between 5 and 17 never attending school is
2.57% in Viet Nam. In Mong ethnic group, this figure is 23.02%. In other words, almost one quarter
of all school aged Mong children have never attended any form of schooling.
• Viet Nam’s over-age attendance at both primary and lower secondary schools is 6% on average.
However, a further breakdown to provincial level shows that over-age attendance in some
provinces is very high, for example, in Gia Lai and Dien Bien.
• The percentage of out-of-school children in rural areas is higher than in urban areas. The difference
increases as age increases. OOSC rate disparity between rural and urban areas is not remarkable at
the age of 5 but almost twice at the primary and lower secondary age.
• Gender disparity in school attendance among primary age children is small or non-existent,
except in Mong ethnic group and in the group of children with disabilities. It starts to show once
children reach secondary school age, especially in ethnic minority groups where there more boys
out-of-school and more boy dropouts than girls, except in Mong, children with disabilities and
78
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
migrant children. This may indicate the quality issue such as the relevance of education in terms of
skill development and gender sensitivity from an employment perspective.
Gender disparity in ethnic minorities happens more often that boys are more disadvantaged than
girls, except for Mong group where an opposite trend shows that Mong girls have significantly
less opportunity to attend school than boys, especially at lower secondary schools, ANAR GPI of
girls is 0.85% at primary level and only 0.56% at lower secondary level. The lower secondary net
attendance rate among Mong girls is low, at only 24.36%. This means only one out of every four
Mong girls at lower secondary age attends lower secondary school while this percentage for Mong
boys is 50%. OOSC rates among Mong girls of primary and lower secondary school age are 1.5 and
2 times higher than those among the boys respectively.
Gender disparity among children with disabilities takes place at both primary and lower secondary
age. Given the GPI at primary level as 1.05 for children with disabilities and GPI at lower secondary
school as 1.73 and 1.12 for children with disabilities and children with partial disabilities higher
than the gender equality limit of 1.03, boys with disabilities have less opportunities to school than
girls with disabilities at both primary and lower secondary age.
Gender disparity among migrant children takes place at lower secondary age with GPI of migrant
groups is 0.95, lower than the gender equality limit. This means migrant girls at lower secondary
age is more disadvantaged than their peer boys of the same school age.
Gender disparity also takes place among children at secondary school age attending primary
schools. In each disaggregation, by ethnicity or other criteria, the rate of boys at secondary school
age attending primary schools is always higher than that among girls. This obviously shows that
boys progress more slowly than girls during the transition from primary to secondary level.
• There are some differences among migrant and non-migrant groups. Migrant groups consistently
perform worse than non-migrant groups and the difference also increases as age increases.
Migrant families have a higher rate of OOSC aged 5 than that of non-migrant families, specifically
at 1.3 times at the age of 5, 1.8 times at the primary school age and 2.4 times at the lower
secondary age.
• Children with disabilities show clearer disadvantages in education with very low enrolment and
a very high OOSC rate. OOSC rate at primary level and lower secondary level is about 25% for
partially disabled children and up to 90% for disabled children.
• The report shows great disparity among 8 selected provinces. Population of ethnic groups
may play an important role, but this is not always the case. An Giang has the least percentage
in minority ethnic groups but its performance is often at the poorer end of the list. To give an
example of the provincial differences: in the better performing province of Ho Chi Minh City,
the out-of-school rate among children aged 5 is 13.66%, among children aged 6 – 10 is 2.35%,
and among children aged 11 – 14 is 9.92%. In the worse performing province of Dien Bien, these
figures are 26.3%, 15.75%, and 24.78% respectively. Apart from the OOSC rate, the rate of over-age
attendance also shows much disparity. The average over-age attendance at both primary and
lower secondary grades is nearly 6%. However, a breakdown to provincial level shows that the
number of over-age attendance is quite high, for example, in Gia Lai (16.41% at primary grades
and 12.66% at lower secondary grades) and Dien Bien (15.92% at primary grades and 21.73%
at lower secondary grades). Four provinces of Lao Cai, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum and An Giang have
higher over-age attendance rates than the national rate. Ho Chi Minh city has the lowest rate of all
8 provinces, at 2.10% at primary grades and 3.86% at lower secondary grades.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
79
80
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
CHAPTER III
BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS
This Chapter studies the barriers or bottlenecks that cause the child exclusion from education. The
analyses are based on the results of recent quantitative and qualitative research on education in
Viet Nam, as well as the field surveys in 6 provinces: Đien Biên, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh
City, Đong Thap và An Giang (hereinafter referred to as the 6 surveyed provinces). The barriers and
bottlenecks may be derived from the demand side concerning children and their parents and supply
side of education, which also involves other stakeholders such as the communities with different
cultural norms and practices and the agencies governing the socio-economic development at all levels.
3.1 Economic barriers concerning the demand side of education.
There are economic barriers which lessen children’s school attendance. They are found in poverty,
economic costs related to education or opportunity cost of child labour, migration or the interruption of
family work due to climate change.
Big issue: Affordability
3.1.1. Poverty is the major economic barrier to children school attendance.
Poverty is associated with the unstable income of the children and families so they are not always
payable for the education cost. The first and second Survey Assessment of Vietnamese Youth (SAVY)
conducted in 2003 and 2008 respectively show that one of the dropout reasons addressed by the
adolescents and youth is “no money for school fees”.
Similarly, according to the Survey on Living Standards 2002-2010 by GSO conducted every two years,
the major reason addressed by communes with primary dropout was “difficult circumstance/expensive
cost”. The 2010 survey results reveals that among 20% of population with lowest income, the rate of
population at 15 years of age and above who never attend schools is 7.8%, while this number only
accounts for 1.3% among 20% of population with highest income - that was 6 times lower. Apparently,
poverty is a barrier to children school attendance.
The results for the surveys in 6 provinces also rank poverty as the biggest barrier preventing children
from attending school. One of the reasons behind the higher OOSC rates of children aged 5 and
lower-secondary school age children than the OOSC rate of primary is the fact that a number of families
fail to afford the education costs at these two levels of education, while primary education is free.
As quoted by London (2011), “solving inequalities in early childhood education means eliminating the
close relation between income and education, and solving the relation between parents’ education
qualifications and their children’s study. More than 80% of well-off family households let their children
attend early childhood education; similarly, 83% of mothers who finished high school let their children
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
81
attend early childhood education. On the other hand, less than 50% of mothers who did not finish high
school let their children attend early childhood education.” 8
The Poverty-related barrier becomes more serious in ethnic minority population as their poverty rate is
higher than Kinh population.
3.1.2. Child working for family is the second economic barrier to school attendance. The barrier
increases as age increases.
According to the Survey on the Family in Viet Nam 2006, the number of families with children aged 7-14
engaging in self-employed trade and production accounts for 25.8%. The ratio of child labour is high in
the families where the income is low, families who live in the rural areas or have low parents’ education
attainment. The Northwest has the lowest level of income and the highest level of poverty, thus has
the highest percentage of child work for the family’s income (excluding wage labour) at 54.7% among
children aged 7-14. For children aged 7-14 who frequently involved in self-employed labour of the
household, this practice significantly affects the timing spent for education and their learning outcomes.
According to Living Standards Survey in Viet Nam 2010, “must work for family” is cited as the reason
which causes higher rate of dropout or never school attendance. This reason is stated in about 10% of
communes where the children dropped out or never attend school. But this figure increases to 25% at
lower secondary education level. The SAVY 2 reveals that among adolescents and youth aged 14-25, this
barrier increases and is equivalent to poverty barrier.
The surveys in 6 provinces shows that children who have to work to support the parents often feel
exhausted, perform poorly in schools, get bored and dropping out. Children who follow their parents for
seasonal wage labour also experience disruption in their schooling. When returning to their home town,
they are then falling behind in school, resulting in permanent discontinuation from school.
The current Situation analysis of children in Dien Bien province sees child labour as ‘frequently
associated with temporary dropout from school during peak agricultural seasons, as well as being
one of the main causes of permanent discontinuation from school. Working children are less likely to
benefit from extra classes offered outside regular school hours. Children who find it difficult to catch up
often feel inferior and may permanently stop education by themselves. When care is needed for family
members, girls are more frequently pressed by parents to drop school.9
Dropping out-of-school due to child labour in Lao Cai
“…As we know, in this commune or others nearby, children only complete primary education and then they leave school.
They usually follow other friends to do different kinds of work. They want to help their parents with their supplementary
incomes. They follow each other to sell peddled wares to customers. Many children don’t also want to go to school
because they like to sell wares to earn moneys for their own spending and family incomes. Even some parents think
that their children’s early work for living is better than their study, etc. The educational qualification of children at high
mountainous areas is certainly lower than that in delta areas because many children don’t know how to write even when
completing their primary education…”
Group focus discussion with commune officials at Lao Chai commune, Lao Cai province10
3.1.3 Migration for employment
The result of Survey of Urban Poverty conducted in Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh city in 2009 reveals
that 2.3% children at the range of 10-14 years old dropped out to work and earn their living. For the
poorest families, every 6 children in 100 children aged 10-14 dropped out and worked. Every 15/100
migrated children aged 10-14 have to stay home and work for their living. The tuition fee exemption
8 J.D London (2011), Education in Vietnam: historical roots, recent trends In J.D London (2011) Education in Vietnam An update in Vietnam and
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies p.34
9
Dien Bien Provincial People’s Committee & UNICEF (2010) Situation analysis of children in Dien Bien Province
10 ILSSA, RCFLG& ILO (2009) Child labour in 8 provinces/cities of Viet Nam. Hanoi
82
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
and reduction policy is not applied to poor migrant people. Migrant children found it difficult to enter
public-run school. The percentage of migrant children from poor family studying at private school is
high (36%). This rate shows that the lack of permanent residential certificate is a barrier for children if
they want to learn at public-run school. Educational cost is a burden for the poor in general, particularly
for migrant families because they have to pay for additional school contribution apart from tuition.
The Situation Analysis of Children in An Giang shows that migration affects the life of children, including
dropout. Short-term migration in rural families for seasonal work leads to the non-attendance of their
children. Dropout rate among the children from the families who live in temporary and mobile settings
and work as transporters or as vendors on river is higher than among those from other families in the
province.
The results from the surveys in 6 provinces show that children who have to go with the families
crossing the border for wage work or to work in industrial zones have to stop education temporarily
or permanently. In addition, unstable employment and accommodation of the migrant families also
adversely affect the school attendance of their children.
3.1.4 Climate change and disasters
Viet Nam is considered among one of the more vulnerable countries with regard to climate change,
ranking 13th most vulnerable country globally in a recent study.11 As well, droughts, floods, landslip,
salination of soils make rural life difficult in many parts of Viet Nam. In An Giang for example, the
Situation Analysis on Children makes the point that ‘children of migrant households generally, and in
households affected by flooding in particular, are especially prone to loss of schooling opportunities.12
The survey results from 6 provinces show that in Ninh Thuan the damages by natural disasters have
adversely affected the schooling of the children. The extreme weather patterns and natural disasters
resulting from climate change also have impact on educational and family economic conditions,
therefore delaying children from going back to school after the disasters.
3.2 Socio-cultural barriers from the demand side, concerning children and their parents
Big issue: Recognition of long-term value of education
There are several socio-cultural barriers which prevent children from attending school and maintaining
their effective study, leading to children staying out-of-school. These barriers are: children who do not
want to attend school, the lack of parents’ care, no permanent residential certificate, the cultural norms
that place women and girls in a subordinate position to males, and the social bias towards the ethnic
minorities.
3.2.1 Children do not want to go to school
According to Survey on Living Standards 2002-2010, this is one among three major causes of primary or
lower secondary dropout, including “economic difficulty /too expensive cost”, “children unable to learn/
do not want to go to school”, and “lack of parents’ care on children education”.
In the first and second Survey Assessment of Vietnamese Youth (SAVY), “do not want to learn any longer”
is cited as the third highest reason by adolescents and youth, after the reasons of “no money for tuition
fees” or “must work for family”.
The surveys in the 6 provinces reveal many reasons for children not wanting to go to school such as:
11 http://maplecroft.com/about/news/ccvi.html
12 An Giang People’s Committee & UNICEF. Situation analysis of children in An Giang.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
83
low levels of recognition of the value of education by the children and parents, thinking that attending
school makes no difference; poor results at school; over-age, thus feeling ashamed with peers; class
repetition; wanting to play than go to school. In addition, several other reasons concern more the
education system (the supply side) such as: lack of stimulating learning environment, bullying, violence,
language barrier so children do not understand and perform poorly, failure of teachers and managers
to care for the underperforming students who are at risk of dropping out, poor quality of inclusive
education for children with disabilities. These reasons will be further discussed in the following sections
of this report.
3.2.2 Children with disabilities
Disability is a specific form of exclusion. MOLISA (2008) estimates the number of children with
disabilities aged 0-18 is 662,000 (equivalent to 2.4% of the total children at this age).13 75% children
with partial disabilities and 90% of children with disabilities at the age of primary and lower secondary
schooling in Viet Nam are not attending school.
The barriers to able-bodied children are aggravated in the case of children with disabilities. Moreover,
the special facilities to facilitate access of children with disabilities to school are yet to be established or
fully complied, for instance: poor physical facilities, constraints and challenges with inclusive education,
inconsistency in the definitions of children with disabilities among different sectors and the constraints
in cross-sectoral collaboration, motivational issues of teachers.
3.2.3 Lack of parental care and attention to children’s learning
This is one of major causes for dropout. According to Survey on Living Standards 2002-2010, nearly 60%
communes with primary drop out and 52-56% of communes with lower secondary dropout associate
the issue with lack of parental care and attention. This percentage is particularly high in mountainous
and remote communes. Worryingly, this percentage is increasing year by year.
According to Survey on the Family in Viet Nam 2006, only 27.8% mothers and 10.7% fathers spend more
than 3 hours per day for children under 15. Particularly, though learning environment and parental
attention for children are very important, a relatively high percentage (21.5%) of fathers and (6.8%)
of mothers do not have time and attention for their children’s education, with worse situation in the
urban areas (22.8%) than in rural areas (17.2%). This rate is at 35% among parents with lower education
attainment compared to 11% among parents with higher educational attainment than university degree.
Survey on the Family in Viet Nam in 2006 shows that 14.4% of adolescents aged 15-17 thought that they
are doing well in education but the parents do not take it seriously. This ratio is higher among the ethnic
minority adolescents (25.9%) and in the Northwest (30.2%), probably due to poverty. The percentage of
children from better-off families who are given gifts, monetary bonus or travel opportunity as incentives
for their learning is twice to five times higher than in the poorer families.
Lack of parental care means low levels of recognition of the value of education. At the same time, the
opportunity cost of child work to support the family increases the rate of dropout, particularly when the
children are at age when their labor is economically valuable.
One of the reasons for the lack of parent’s care for child education is that they are not fully aware of
the value of education. People living in poverty may not recognize the root causes of their poverty
which is reinforced by lack of education. Other causes for lack of parents’ care for child education is
that the parents are too busy with earning for their lives. According to Survey on Family 2006, in Viet
Nam, two-generation families consisting of parents and children account for the majority of 63.4%.
These families do not have support from the grandparents when both parents are at work and thus the
amount of time and care for their children is less. The surveys in the 6 provinces also confirm similar
results. However, the issues of inadequate awareness of the value of education needs further research
given that other relevant data is not available for analysis in this report.
13 UNICEF (2010) Situation analysis of children in Viet Nam. Hà Nội: UNICEF p.24
84
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
According to the survey results in Dien Bien, Kon Tum and Ninh Thuan, some families do not register the
birth of their children, which affects the accuracy of age reporting and school attendance at the official
age later on in their lives. As stated by some teachers, only until mobilizing the children school did
they know about the lack of birth certificate then they started supporting these families to obtain birth
certificates which is required for school enrollment.
3.2.4 Poor learning results
Poor learning results can mean that children lose confidence and drop out eventually. According to
survey results in the 6 provinces, children who have learning difficulties reveal that they could not
catch up with the lessons, especially when the curricula are heavy and the amount of school work is
paramount. Some students also report that they receive no supplementary follow-up classes to help
them catch up with the lessons. As stated by the Principle of Truong Van Ly Lower Secondary school,
Thuan Nam district of Ninh Thuan province, students with poor results at primary schools, especially
ethnic minority students will face difficulties in catching up at 6th grade which is at the beginning of
lower secondary school since the teaching and learning methods are completely new to them, which
may contribute to dropout.
This is especially a concern for ethnic minority students and other poor students who do not often have
the back up of parental support for homework or encouragement for learning, and may also fail to have
responsive teachers or poorer teachers’ quality compared to urban counterparts from richer wealth
quintiles. Language barrier is another reason for poor lerning results of ethnic minority students.
3.2.5 Children in unregistered households
Children in unregistered households do not have full access to basic social services including education.
Urban Poverty Studies in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city 2009 (UPS 2009) shows that migrant population
without official permanent residential certificate has lower educational attainment compared
to non-migrants. The percentage of migrant children attending public-run school is lower than
non-migrant population (64.6% compared to 82.4%). The Survey on Living Standards conducted
in 2006, 2008 and 2010 show similar trends. UPS 2009 points out the rate of migrant children who
benefited from reduction or exemption of tuition fees, contributions for infrastructure and other costs is
lower than that of non-migrant children (21% compared to 27%). Noticeably, only 97.3% children aged
10-14 (at lower secondary school age) are literate. This indicates that some percentage of children at this
age either do not attend school or have not completed primary education.
3.2.6 The cultural norms in some ethnic minority communities place women and girls in
subordinate positions to men
This exacerbates gender inequities and is one of the reasons for early dropouts and early marriage
among ethnic minority girls. In ethnic minority communities, traditional kinship systems can put social
and economic requirements on the teenagers.14
The surveys in 6 provinces also confirm the fact that in ethnic minority families with many children, the
mothers are often illiterate and the daughters have low education attainment or dropped out and got
married early.
3.2.7 Early marriage is a reason for young girls to drop out in some communities
According to the Survey on the Family in Viet Nam in 2006, early marriage still exists. There are 0.1% girls
under the legal age of 18 and 0.2% boys under the legal age of 20 who got married. This rate is higher in
rural areas than in urban areas (0.3% compared to 0.2%).
According to MICS4 (2011), 0.7% women 15-49 was married or have de facto marriage before age of 15
and 12.3% women 20-49 was married or have de facto marriage before age of 18.
14 Ninh Thuan People’s Committee & UNICEF. Situation analysis of children in Ninh Thuan.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
85
Highest rate of early marriage is observed in the Northwest, followed by Northeast and the Central
Highlands, which are regions with high poverty rates and large population of ethnic minorities. Early
marriage occurs more in poorer households and people with low education attainment. The surveys
conducted in the 6 provinces also reflect this situation.
Early marriage leads to childbirth at an early age, then demotivating school attendance. According to
SAVY 2, 1.3% of women aged 16 and 4.8% of women aged 17 give birth to their first child.
Ninh Thuan’s Situation Analysis of Children (2011) provides an example of cultural practices in Raglay
ethnic minority communities in the province, a Southeastern coastal province of Viet Nam where
the girls are under pressure to get married early. The tradition is that when married the boys will stay
with their spouses’ home so the girls’ families will have additional labour and increases livelihood and
income.
However, it should also be noted that early marriage is one of the reasons for the rise in number
of out-of-school children but mostly at the age of post-lower secondary education. The cases of
out-of-school children at lower grades are isolated cases and not significant.
3.2.8 The cultural stereotypes that define ethnic minority people as deficient and not like the Kinh
majority, or that one ethnic minority group is superior than others
The World Bank’s Country Social Assessment on Ethnicity and Development in Viet Nam provides
examples of how settlement programs have been implemented to allow Kinh peoples to move into
traditional minority areas ‘to teach minority people how to develop’. Viewing minority people as lacking
credit worthiness in accessing larger loans has been another example of cultural stereotyping. There
is also a danger that the provision of ‘one size fits all’ social development programs may contribute to
the misapprehension that minorities need to become more like the Kinh majority to overcome their
‘backwardness’.
The surveys in 6 provinces show that in Ninh Thuan the Raglay do not “look up to” the Cham’s teachers
but expect teachers to be from their group or the Kinh majority. Some education management staff
perceived a lack of role models of successful ethnic minority students and people in order to eliminate
the stereotypes and encourage ethnic minority children in their learning.
3.3 Barriers and bottlenecks in supply side
These are bottlenecks in the supply of education that influence school enrolment and attendance.
They relate to infrastructure and resources, teachers, textbooks, school management. It is important to
note one of the findings in the World Bank’s report on High Quality Education for All, Vol 2 that ethnic
minority students’ achievement appears to be more affected by ‘school and teacher features’ than
household features (p130).
Big issue: Relevance, inclusiveness, lack of child-centred approaches
3.3.1. School Infrastructure
Barriers in school infrastructure concern the quantity and quality of schools, classrooms; poor physical
facilities which serve inclusive education for children with disabilities; distance to school and lack
of means of transportation; and lack of clean water and sanitation facilities. These barriers have a
remarkable impact on the schooling opportunity and schooling commitment at least to the end of each
level, as well as on the learning environment, and thus increases the challenges related to out-of-school
children.
86
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Lack of schools and low school quality in remote and mountainous areas
According to 2011 Survey on Agricultural and Rural Development, by 2011 Viet Nam has 99.5%
communes with primary schools; 92.9% communes with lower secondary schools; 96.3% communes
with kindergartens/pre-primary schools. This means there remain a certain number of communes
which have no pre-primary, primary and lower secondary schools. There are still 51 communes in the
country without primary schools, of which 15 communes are in the Northern Midland and Mountainous
areas, 17 in the North Central and Coastal and 10 in the Central Highland. Provinces with some 3%
of communes without primary schools include Cao Bang, Bac Kan, Gia Lai and Quang Nam. For
many schools in the remote and mountainous areas, there are not enough satellite sites and quality
classrooms. According to 2011 Survey on Agriculture and Rural Areas, the percentages of concrete and
semi-concrete schools in 2011 are: 73% and 26% respectively; these rates in lower secondary schools
are 85% and 14.2% and in upper secondary schools which are 92.6% and 7.0%. Some provinces such
as Tuyen Quang, Binh Thuan, Tay Ninh, Tra Vinh, Vinh Long and Hau Giang have less than 50% primary
schools with concrete constructions. Especially, some provinces such as Tuyen Quang, Son La, Dien Bien
and Hau Giang, still have more than 5% non-concrete schools.
There is a lack of schools and especially classrooms for early childhood education. With only one
kindergarten in each commune and the inappropriate location of the kindergarten network due to
geographical characteristics, the system fails to meet the needs of the people, which have had impacts
on the school attendance of children aged 5, particularly in ethnic minorities and remote areas in Viet
Nam. Kindergartens are very poor in terms of infrastructure. The combination of kindergartens with
primary schools is quite common in some provinces.
Many provinces, including the 6 surveyed ones, are still in shortage of classrooms for full-day schooling.
The implementation of Project on establishment of national standard schools in the period of
2010-2020 has had slow progress.
There are a limited number of places for children to attend boarding school at district level. The Dien
Bien Situation Analysis includes these comments from local people in Thanh Xuong Commune: “Some
applications to go to full boarding school are accepted, but some are not because the kids are too weak
in learning. The results from primary school are considered as part of admission to secondary boarding
school… The pupils who are weak already from the beginning of school can never go. Last year, two
kids were accepted from this commune and this year only one. The number of kids who are admitted
is very small. When they are not accepted into full boarding school, some go back enrolling in other
schools in their local area, and some don’t and give up school.”15
15 Dien Bien Provincial People’s Committee & UNICEF (2010) Situation analysis of children in Dien Bien Province
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
87
The lack of learning materials, textbooks and poor teaching and learning conditions is common in some
provinces, limiting the effective application of new teaching methods.
In general, schools in Viet Nam are yet to have infrastructure facilities to facilitate learning ò children
with disabilities such as: elevators, wheelchair roads with handles for safety reason, etc. This is also one
of the major causes for the difficulties while implementing inclusive education policy.
In general, schools in Viet Nam are not equipped with facilities to meets the needs of the children
with disabilities, such as lift, path for wheelchairs etc… This is one of the reasons for the challenges in
implementation of inclusive education in Viet Nam.
Distance to school and lack of means of transportation
According to 2010 Survey on Living Standards, the average distance to the nearest primary school is
2.5km; to the lower secondary school is 2.8km. In remote and mountainous areas, this distance is longer.
For example, in the Northwest the distance to primary and lower secondary school is 4.7km and 5.3km
respectively; in Central Highlands this distance is 3.3km and 3.6km respectively.
According to the Surveys on Living Standards during 2002-2010, distance to school is cited by key
commune officials as the second group of causes leading to dropout, after the first group of causes of
“difficult circumstance/too expensive educational cost”, “lack of parents’ care to child education “and
“children without learning capacity/do not want to go to school”. On average, there are about 10-15%
communes in the country where primary and lower secondary students drop out due to great distance
to school. In the northern uplands and Central Highlands, this is experienced in more than 20%.
Distance to school also takes on new meaning with geographic barriers such as mountains and rivers,
especially during the rainy season.
Baulch et al (2009) using Surveys on Living Standards during 1993-1998 and 2006, found that ethnic
minority children in northern uplands were more likely to drop out in the transition from the satellite
village school to the main school (grades 2 or 3) as opposed to the transition between primary and
lower-secondary, or lower-secondary and upper secondary school as found in other areas.16
According to the surveys in 6 provinces, certain lower secondary students were enrolled, but then
dropped out due to the distance to school of over 10km, while there was no a bicycle or bus tickets
were not affordable. Long distance to school is also the challenge for teachers and managers who find
teaching in remote satellite schools constraining due to limited teaching learning facilities though main
schools in remote areas are suffering from the same situation. Teachers have to travel long distance to
school every day without any additional allowances. The monitoring and oversight by school principals
for satellite schools is also limited due to challenges in transport, affecting the quality of supervision and
support for teachers and students.
According to Surveys on Living Standards during the period 2002-1010, bicycle is the most common
means of transportation to school for primary students (accounted for 58%) and about 40% of children
walk to school. In the Northwest, up to 80% children walk to school. Long distance to school for lower
secondary and especially primary children, lack of means of transportation, challenging road conditions
in remote, mountainous and island areas (2011 Survey on Agriculture and Rural Development), all help
to explain the high number of children who are not attending and who drop out in primary and lower
secondary education.
Lack of clean water and sanitation facilities
The below table on school basic infrastructure in school year of 2009-2010 shows a big shortage in
clean water and sanitation facilities in all regions, except for Red River Region. This is a serious problem
given the very important roles of clean water and sanitation in school. In Viet Nam, more than 80% of
the diseases are water-born, such as diarrhea, typhoid, parasites and hepatitis. The water is polluted by
16 Baulch, B . Nguyen Thi Minh Hoa, Nguyen Thi Thu Phuong & Pham Thai Hung (2009). Ethnic minority poverty in Viet Nam, World Bank. Ha Noi
88
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
micro-organisms, which adversely affect the health of the people, especially the elderly and children.17 A
number of studies point to the central importance of access to water and sanitation and the availability
of separate sanitation facilities for girls and boys, especially during puberty and with consideration for
children with disabitities (Oxfam, 2011). Safe water for drinking at school and at home is important for
students as it provides protection from water borne diseases, such as diarrhea.
The Situation Analysis of UNICEF in 2010 shows very poor sanitation in school in the rural areas. Most
schools do not have hand-washing for students. This proves that the privacy and child-friendliness with
gender appropriateness are not paid due attention when the school is built.18
The surveys in 6 provinces show that except for Ho Chi Minh City, there is very poor water and sanitation
in school, especially in Dien Bien and Kon Tum, which have affected the learning environment in general
and the boarding activities of students and teachers in particular.
Table 3.1:
School Basic Infrastructure in school year of 2009-2010
Schools
with
electricity
(%)
Schools
with
hygienic
water (%)
Average
number of
latrines per
school
Average
number
of student
per latrine
Primary
Nation-wide
64.7
61.9
1.4
322
Red River Delta
78.1
74.7
1.7
303
Northern midlands and mountainous
areas
46.1
56.0
1.2
269
North Central and Central coastal areas
66.8
51.0
1.0
406
Central Highlands
65.0
49.2
0.8
596
South East
61.2
65.0
2.4
293
Mekong River Delta
69.1
72.2
1.6
282
Nation-wide
63.4
55.8
1.2
425
Red River Delta
75.6
70.4
1.5
304
Northern midlands and mountainous
areas
57.2
44.6
1.0
315
North Central and Central coastal areas
49.0
42.1
0.8
642
Central Highlands
66.9
50.2
1.1
563
South East
51.6
59.2
2.1
462
Mekong River Delta
83.0
75.2
1.4
464
Lower secondary level
Source: MOET
17 Ministry of Health and UNICEF (2010). Study on the correlation between household environmental sanitation, household water supply, mothers’
hygiene behavior for children under 5 and the status of child nutrition in Viet Nam, Hanoi: UNICEF
18
UNICEF (2010). An analysis of the situation of children in Viet Nam, Hanoi: UNICEF
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
89
3.3.2. Teachers
Lack of teachers
The surveys in 6 provinces show common shortage of pre-primary teachers for the full-day schooling
in remote areas in some provinces. Shortage of teachers is experienced in primary school as well, and
many satellite schools do not have teachers specialized in primary education. At lower secondary
education, while there is no shortage in terms of total number, but shortage and redundancy is
experience in the different subjects.
The lack of ethnic minority teachers especially from local ethnic groups is quite common in ethnic
minority areas. Training for village-based teachers has not addressed this issues, and in particular, there
is the quality issue.
Teachers’ quality
A number of teachers are not very motivated in their work and lack of professional competence, which
result in limited teaching quality and failing to stimulate students, especially in rural, remote and ethnic
minority areas. The renovation in teaching methods has not been effectively implemented, having no
impacts on the students’ performance. Capacity for inclusive education is limited. Teachers training is of
low quality
It still occurs that teachers who have certificates with recognized standards but their actual capacity is
limited. There is a big difference in teachers’ quality in the remote versus urban areas.
Policies for teachers
Appropriate salary and working conditions are crucial as incentives for teachers and education
managers to be motivated to serve in remote isolated areas, where living and teaching conditions are
not adequately provided.
However, the incentives for teachers and education managers do not keep up with real life needs and
it has negatively affected their enthusiasm and motivation. According to the surveys in 6 provinces,
in remote isolated areas, the follow-up to encourage students to return to school require huge efforts
and travel costs on the part of the teachers. Nevertheless, there is no support for this effort. There were
limited policy provisions for teachers serving in multi-grade classes and classes with children with
disabilities. Teachers are often not willing to teach in classes with students with disabilities because this
requires further investment and effort with limited incentives. There are no policies on management
of boarding facilities in boarding or semi-boarding schools, thus no post allowances for cooks, health
care workers, guards and managers; no allowances for homeroom teachers and managers who assume
additional responsibilities to look after students in boarding facilities. While there are policies for
investments in boarding facilities, many provinces fail to provide resources. Kindergarten teachers have
a very hard workload with many young children in multi-grade classes but they do not receive the same
treatment as primary teachers teaching multi-grade classes. It is difficult to implement rotation schemes
for teachers, especially in provinces where there are high number of extremely difficult communes (for
example, out of 97 communes/districts, Kon Tum has 51 communes with extreme difficulty subject to
Program 135).
Ho Chi Minh City is in shortage of pre-primary teachers. The regulations require 2 teachers for 30
children, but in reality 2 teachers have to take care of 45 children. Similar situations are found in primary
and lower-secondary education, where teachers have to take classes with 60 students as the school
population increases rapidly. Teachers have to work longer hours such as marking students’ papers,
which limits their attention to individual children, especially those with learning difficulties. Working
longer hours without additional allowances have had impacts on their level of enthusiasm and quality.
90
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
3.3.3. School management
Some shortcomings in terms of school management have had negative impacts on the quality of
teaching and learning, academic results of students, dropouts and school enrollment.
Pursuit of exaggerated achievements (in response to pressure to report success)
The pursuit of exaggerated achievements in grade transition and graduation rate or ranking is still
common in many provinces. Several primary schools in extremely disadvantaged communes in ethnic
minority areas report high rates of grade transition and completion at over 90%, even though teachers
assess that only 50% ethnic minority students meet the competency standards (group discussion
with teachers at Gia Primary School, Phuoc Ha commune [an extremely disadvantaged commune in
ethnic minority area], Thuan Nam district, Ninh Thuan province). Grade transition does not only fail to
solve knowledge gaps but also makes students fall behind even more behind at higher grades. When
entering grade 6 which is the first grade of lower secondary level, with different teaching and learning
methods and heavier curriculum load, these students are often faced with many challenges in learning
which demotivate them and put them under high risk of dropping out. At the same time, schools where
these students are attending have to strengthen investments with additional classes and follow up to
help them survive grade 6 without dropping out.
Challenges in education management
The high rates of out-of-school children might be correlated with poor management practices. The
focus is mainly on those who are enrolled and currently attending, and thus gaps remain in tracking
school age-group population, especially disadvantaged children such as children with disabilities. In
remote areas where children follow parents to the fields up on the mountain, the follow-up to ensure
enrollment is faced with lots of constraints. School management at far away satellite schools is also very
challenging. Many areas are prone to floods, which interrupts education and affects the supervision
and oversight. The rapid increase in migrant population in big cities is presenting challenges in ensuring
adequate classrooms for all children, especially migrant children with difficult circumstances.
The guidance in inclusive education has been not effectively implemented due to the lack of data
needed for management, inconsistencies in definitions of disabilities across sectors, and poor
cross-sectoral coordination. This has been the case when a child needs some certification on his/her
disability.
Autonomy and empowerment for school principals remains at face value. At the same time, school
principals in many locations have limited capacity. There remains poor and ineffective coordination
among schools and the local party and authorities in accelerating enrollment for children.
Decentralized education management has faced with many challenges. Budget allocation for education
is managed very differently in different localities. In general, the education sector does not have
full control of total education budget and therefore they are unable to take charge in delivering the
education mandate. Besides, education expenditure is mostly for salaries with limited investments for
other education activities. Provinces still face shortage of educational managers, while the sector does
not have full authority in personnel recruitment in the context of decentralized management.
Limited access to full day schooling of the vulnerable students
Full day schooling is being scaled up throughout the country and this is a good opportunity for
vulnerable students in Viet Nam. The schools utilize the additional timing to strengthen math and
Vietnamese; to teach subjects which otherwise have limited timing in half-day schooling model such as
music, arts, foreign language and information technology as well as to provide extra-classes for students
with low performance. Parents may be requested to pay tuition for the extra education, administrative
management costs and lunches for the children. However, there are differences among schools and
regions. The World Bank’s High Quality Education for All Report states that:
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
91
As full day schooling is based on cost-recovery, its development concentrated primarily in urban and more affluent areas
of the country. Rural and disadvantaged areas where school infrastructure is constrained and families cannot pay for the
teachers’ additional costs lag behind.
As a result of the above policy, the share of primary education students in full day schooling (at least 30 periods per
week) has increased over time from 43% in 2003/04 to 59% in 2008/09, which is substantial. However, the incidence of
the full day schooling is half the average in the poorest districts, and 31% in rural areas as well as 32% for ethnic minority
students. Poorest districts have had a somewhat faster increase than the average given the initial very low levels but the
gap remains significant. Variations in full day schooling are also very significant within districts and communes, and
evident even within schools.19
In Ho Chi Minh City, due to the pressure resulting from increase of migration population, some schools
have had to reduce the scale of full-day schooling to ensure sufficient classrooms for all children in the
catchment area, regardless residential status. As a result of shortage of classrooms, the school has failed
to meet the demand for full-day schooling of all children. Therefore, children of better-off families or
families with residential certificates usually have more opportunities for full-day schooling. This has
prevented the participation of vulnerable children groups, those who usually have learning difficulties
and need more support and care from their teachers.
Discrimination, bullying and violence
According to second SAVY, there are 22% students saying that sometimes teachers punish students
by threatening or scolding…Violent actions in terms of physical or verbal forms by the teachers to the
students were somehow seen as educational methods in the past. In current modern society, such
behaviors are not accepted in educational environment. These are seen as behaviors violating the child
rights and Viet Nam’s Education Law.
Focus group discussions with teachers and students in the surveys in 6 provinces reveal that
discrimination against the children with disabilities still happen sometimes. Many teachers believe that
the learning environment is still restrictive making students feel afraid of their teachers and they do not
dare to query even if they did not understand the lessons.
3.4 System analysis
Some systemic issues have posed challenges to policies, management and technical work at the marco
level to ensure the provision of quality education to all children.
3.4.1. Curriculum requirements are difficult to achieve
Children find the curriculum with difficult contents to absorb and with heavy workload. It is even more
challenging for children with language barriers. The field survey in 6 provinces showed that due to high
load, both teachers and students have to race to complete the curriculum. Several teachers reported
that they do not have enough time to pay attention to individual students, especially lower performers
so as to provide appropriate support. It is already an overload to keep up with the curriculum. Teachers
move on without having assured students to really understand what they taught. Good teachers are
those who know how to link the known world of the children with the new knowledge and the context
in schools. Inexperienced teachers often apply unspecific teaching methods, fail to teach the concepts
in the students’ language and do not check the comprehension of the students. Teaching methods have
not been fundamentally reformed and do not bring much impact to learning performance. In addition,
there is lack of entertainment and physical activities to stimulate learning of the students. In some
locations, teaching quality has been poor, which discourage children, especially ethnic minority children
and resulting in dropping out.
Some provinces still fail to develop local contents for the curriculum as required by MOET, and teachers
19 World Bank (2011). Viet Nam: High Quality Education for All Report No. 56085-VN Volume 2: Analytical Report. Human Development Department
East Asia and Pacific Region p. 82
92
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
do not have adequate professional knowledge and fail to incorporate the local cultural values and make
the contents more relevant to the ethnic minority children. This situation also adds to the problems and
results in high risks of dropping out.
Timing for extra class and high cost cause the education to become a burden for children and their
parents. The fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current curriculum is noted in current
writing. As J.D. London writes: ‘Today Viet Nam’s leaders frequently speak of their intent to develop a
‘knowledge economy’. This stands in stark contrast with the current thrust of prevailing pedagogy and
practice, where the emphasis is still on rote memorization and attempts to innovate are actively or
structurally discouraged.’20
3.4.2 Education is not delivered in mother tongue language
Language is a barrier to learning for ethnic minority children, affecting comprehension of the ethnic
minority students and their academic results, therefore reducing their confidence in communication
and learning. Many believe that this is the biggest challenge for ethnic minority, followed by teaching
and learning quality and distance to school. Ethnic minority teachers account for only 8% in the country
and this number is deficient in the places where they are much needed. (World Bank, 2009).
Kinh teachers do not sufficiently learn the ethnic language of the students. This is really a challenge
to the students at the first grades in primary education, particularly the children who do not attend
pre-primary school at 5 years in order to prepare for Kinh language. The lack of bilingual educational
access for ethnic minority children means they start learning by the language that they never
understand. If the teacher does not know ethnic language either, the educational bridge will be
unavailable. The hard lessons, students not understanding or partially understanding the lesson, no
one supporting them to learn at home will lead to knowledge missing. Some children can complete the
first or second grades before dropout. Those who survive have to face with this persistent barrier in the
following years.
Surveys in Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum and Dien Bien show that children with language barrier are facing with
challenges in their comprehension. In interviews, many children have challenges in expression and are
afraid of the Vietnamese language subject. Even, some students at lower secondary schools are still
facing with language barrier.
3.4.3. Gaps in data and information for analyses on ethnic minority groups or other vulnerable
groups
Specific data disaggregation needs of some ethnic groups is missed in data analyses, which is similar
for children with disabilities, migrant children and children affected by HIV/AIDS whose barriers are
multidimensional. In addition, the lack of a common definition among relevant Government agencies
on some statistical indicators such as the definition of disability is also a barrier in collection, analyses
and dissemination of out-of-school children data.
Surveys in the 6 provinces show that there remain gaps in data collection and analyses at different levels
of the education system. Reports usually lack data disaggregated by specific groups of disadvantaged
children so as to reflect the disparity in their access to education. Such data is needed for targeted
management and technical interventions to ensure children’s access to education and to improve
education quality. Certain information on specific categories of children is being collected and recorded
separately, yet this has not been integrated in routine data collection for management and planning
purposes.
20 J.D London (2011). Education in Viet Nam: Historical Welfare Regimes and Education in Viet Nam In J.D London (2011) Education in Viet NamViet
Nam Update Series Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies p.32
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
93
3.5. Governance, capacity and financing mechanism
3.5.1. Bottlenecks related to Governance and capacity
The recent World Bank Report on High Level Quality Education for All (2011) suggests that the
education system ‘remains weak in leadership capacity and accountability mechanisms.’21 The report
goes on to say that test scores are much higher in schools where principals are more actively engaged
in observing teachers. Where parents are actively involved and making contributions in the school, their
children are more likely to do better, and the school can benefit from extra help and resources. This is
particularly true for children of vulnerable populations. The judgment is made that: ‘the traditional lack
of interaction between principals and teachers, and the current weak role and lack of capacity of parent
teacher associations in Viet Nam indicate the country’s immediate need to improve school governance
through greater principal and community involvement.’22
At meetings with MOET and development partners in Hanoi, the consensus was that there is often a
bottleneck in the administration of education at district and commune levels. Lower level managers do
not proactively take action for change which results in lack of decision-making where it is most urgent...
at school and classroom levels. This is perhaps related to the concept that even with a decentralised
system, instructions still need to come from central level. This leaves little room for innovation and
change at grassroots levels. The Parent Teacher Associations often experience similar situation. In ethnic
minority communities the limited interaction between ethnic minority parents and Kinh teachers in
their daily lives has been noted. In a sociological survey in Dak Nong province in 2005, researchers
noted the following:
‘Except for two teachers of a provincial boarding school who lived in the school campus in Gia Nghia, all the Viet teachers
who talked to us had their homes by a road near a major intersection; some kept a small convenience shop. This is
also true for most of the Viet and other non-local teachers including the Tay and the Nung who recently settled in the
region. Apart from their salaries, teachers and their families also receive income from other activities. In terms of both
geographical location and livelihood, Viet teachers have little if any connection with the M’Nong. That is perhaps the
reason any trip to a M’Nong village is often highlighted in their narrative as an extraordinary record of their dedication:
they would have to go out their way to reach their critical masses. M’Nong parents, likewise hardly come into contact with
their children’s teachers.23
3.5.2. Financial bottlenecks
Education’s share in the state budget reached 20 per cent in 2008, by far the greatest budget item is
for personnel costs. According to the surveys in 6 provinces, mountainous province like Dien Bien has
higher number of teachers due to scattering population and low number of children per class, resulting
in high amount of salaries and allowances, while budget allocation is on the basis of population head
and is stabilized for 3 year period. The budget allocation on this basis is not appropriate in areas with
low density.
Spending for teaching and learning materials and equipment for innovation of curriculum has been
insufficient. To deal with this, some costs are shifted to households.
The state has permitted the development of private schools at pre-primary and secondary levels, called
non-public or people-founded schools, while shifting much of the responsibility for the financing of
education to households. Fees for education increase as students progress through the grades, and for
those enrolled in non-public or semi-public schools, fees can be several times higher than for students
in public schools. However it is the system of contributions for school upkeep and renovations that
21 World Bank (2011). Viet Nam: High Quality Education for All Report No. 56085-VN Volume 1: Human Development Department East Asia and Pacific
Region p. 16
22 World Bank (2011). Viet Nam: High Quality Education for All Report No. 56085-VN Volume 1: Human Development Department East Asia and Pacific
Region p. 16
23 Chi, Truong Huyen ‘They think we don’t value schooling’ Paradoxes of Education in the multiethnic central highlands of Viet Nam” in Jonathon D.
London (Ed) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam Update Series, Singapore: London, Jonathon D.(Ed) (2011) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam Update Series,
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies p.32
94
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
make education expensive for poor people even when they are in receipt of fee exemptions. In addition
the informal economy provided by extra tutoring puts increased burdens on households. The value
of education for improved economic conditions and the competitive nature of public examinations
make private tuition a necessity, albeit an expensive one, for most Vietnamese secondary students. The
introduction of full day schooling is also a way in which the state can push the financing of education
to households. Schools can introduce full day schooling if parents will pay. For ethnic minorities and
other poor students, the national targeted programmes of the state such as the Programme for Poverty
Reduction and Programme 135 provide assistance for the construction of schools and exemption of
school fees for income poor and ethnic minority children. As well there are conditional cash grants to
assist in sending children to pre-school (70,000VND per month) and semi boarding school (140,000VND
per month). Recently, other policies for grants have been introduced such as lunch subsidy, rice subsidy,
special allowances for children coming from very small ethnic minority groups, semi-boarding students.
However a number of commentators and managers agree that despite these state contributions, the
costs of sending a child to school are still exorbitant for many parents. In addition, the implementation
of support policies is often delayed with complicated procedures, which destroys the timeliness and
erases the trust by the people. The following graph explains the ratios of household costs for education
over the past few years:
Figure 3.1:
Education expenditure per capita during the last 12 months by type
of expenditure, KSMS 2002-2010
Unit price: %
100 %
90 %
14.4
80 %
19.9
70 %
8.9
50 %
10.7
30 %
10.8
7.3
7.7
10.4
10.7
24.9
22.2
14.9
12.4
11.9
5.1
Other expensess
Extra class
7.7
6.3
4.2
5.6
4.8
6.6
Textbook
6.2
7.8
7.0
8.7
6.3
Study tools
Uniform
Contribution to shool fund
School fees
20 %
10 %
19.0
15.7
8.1
60 %
40 %
12.0
27.8
30.6
28.7
29.0
36.0
2006
2008
2010
0%
2002
2004
Source: GSO, Survey on Living Standards 2002-2010
This means that many children just cannot attend school because of economic constraints and the need
to support their family’s livelihood.
3.6. Barriers and bottlenecks analysis
The major barriers to out-of-school children related to the demand side include poverty, children having
to work, migrate, lack of parents’ awareness on long-term value of education, lack of parent’s care to
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
95
child education. The barriers related to the supply side include: lack of physical facilities, especially at
pre-primary level, distance to schools, shortage of teachers, teachers’ capacity and policies, curriculum
and language barrier, school management and financing. Poor performance in school, not wanting to
go to school and finally dropping out might be due to the barriers related to the children themselves,
the families and also to those related to the supply side or both.
Recent studies suggest that direct and clear interaction between qualified teachers and good managers
at school are the precious assets that can make a change for disadvantaged children in Viet Nam.
When education costs become duties of the families, this means quality education is not for the poor
children. For this inequality, there is no difference between boys and girls. However, it is likely that
children are to find employment as alternative solutions when education becomes too expensive.
The disparity in educational attainment between the Kinh and other ethnic groups, between rural and
urban areas and remote communities shows the inequalities in educational opportunity in Viet Nam,
amidst the increasing wealth disparity and gaps in socio-economic development among the regions. To
close the gaps and inequalities in education is not the responsibility of the education sector alone but
requires efforts at the macro level to reduce social inequalities.
A possible solution is to understand the social and cultural characteristics of ethnic minority children in
remote areas who have dropped out as well as to have relevant curricular which are appropriate with
their cultural and social background instead of forcing them to change to be more like the Kinh group.
The gaps between Kinh and other vulnerable ethnic groups and disadvantaged children will continue
to grow. Ways of imaging minorities and other disadvantaged children positively and powerfully in text
books and learning, and in the media in general will go a long way to breaking down in country cultural
barriers.
96
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
97
98
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
CHAPTER IV
POLICIES RELATED TO
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
This chapter analyzes policies relevant to many issues of out-of-school children and links them with
the exclusion from education in order to reflect the shortcomings in the policies and to inform more
effective interventions.
Policies aiming to remove the barriers and bottlenecks related to out-of-school children and the 5
dimensions of exclusion efforts of the education sector and beyond and must be placed within the
broader framework of poverty reduction. The policies include two types:
• The first type of policies includes education policies that directly address the issues of out-of-school
children, and
• The second type of policies includes social protection and insurance policies related to education
and out-of-school children.
4.1. Current policies which currently address out-of-school children (OOSC) issues
4.1.1. Education policies
Viet Nam has quite sufficient education policies to maximize enrollment of children aged 5-14 to go
to school, in which priorities are given to vulnerable children and children from disadvantaged areas.
These have a contribution to reduction of out-of-school children. Policies here are understood in broad
term covering laws and sub law documents.
The assurance of equity in access to pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education is stated in the
Constitution and relevant laws of Viet Nam.
The 1992 Constitution of Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, revised in 2001, Article 36 clearly states that the
State gives priority investment to education and encourages different sources of investments for
education. Priority is reserved for education development in the mountainous, ethnic minority areas
and in regions with special difficulties. The 2013 Constitution which was recently approved by the
National Assembly continues to affirm this position.
Law on Education of Viet Nam (2005) outlines regulations for the development of a child-friendly learning
environment, in which the education approaches are to stimulate interests and enjoyments in learning
for the students. The Law regulates the students who are entitled to preferential priority treatments
in care and access to education including: children at pre-schools, primary schools, the poor, ethnic
minority children, children from families living in extreme difficult socio-economic areas and children
subject to priority policies, children with disabilities and other beneficiaries of social welfare.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
99
Law on Protection, Care and Education of Children 2004 highlights the regulation on non-discrimination
and respect of the best interest of children; assurance of education rights of the children in general and
of children in special circumstances in particular.
Law on Gender Equality 2006 ensures equal treatment and prevents gender-based discrimination,
including the discrimination against girls.
The Law on Legal Assistance 2006 regulates for free legal assistance to children in special circumstances.
The Law on Persons with Disabilities 2010 regulates that the state shall facilitate learning opportunities for
people with disabilities that are appropriate with their capabilities and needs.
Education policies to maximize enrollment of children aged 5-14. In particular since 2010 the policies
have made great impacts on the enrollment of children aged 5-14. These policies are not only focusing
on the most advantaged children, but they also support teachers through salary and other incentives
and professional development, as well as help to develop and upgrade school facilities.
Firstly, government education policies aim to enroll children by constructing schools and/or satellite
sites which are close enough to the children’s home and providing free primary education. At the same
time the government provides adequate number of teachers; keeps school fees at affordable levels by
providing scholarships and fee reductions for those who could not afford the education costs, alongside
with health and nutrition services; enhances the quality of school resources, including teacher quality
through in-service training and standardized certification and provides full-day schooling at both
early childhood education and general education. The policies have worked well and brought about
remarkable results.
The section below summarizes some key policies:
Decision No. 62/2005/QD-TTg dated 24 March 2005, on support policies for the universal lower secondary
education regulates the exemption and reduction of tuition fees and contribution fees and provision
of textbooks and learning materials for disadvantaged children such as ethnic minorities, children from
poor families, children with disabilities and orphans.
Decision No. 82/2006/QD-TTg dated 14 April 2006 by the Prime Minister on the adjustment of
Government scholarship levels for ethnic minority students and pupils studying at boarding ethnic
secondary schools and pre-University schools.
Decree No. 134/2006/ND-CP dated 14th November 2006 by the Government regulates the mechanism
of nominations for teachers training programmes at Universities, Colleges and Vocational Schools in the
national education system.
Decision No. 152/2007/QĐ-TTg dated 14th September 2007 by the Prime Minister on priority
scholarships to students and pupils.
Decision No. 157/2007/QĐ-TTg dated 27th September 2007 by the Prime Minister on micro credit policy
for students and pupils.
Decision 85/2010/QĐ - TTg dated 21st December 2010 by the Prime Minister, regulating provisions of
support for primary and lower secondary students at ethnic minority semi-boarding schools.
Decision 1640/QD-TTg dated 21st September 2011 approved the scheme “Strengthening and
Developing ethnic minority boarding school system” in 2011-2015 period.
Decision 2123/QĐ-TTg dated 22nd November 2010 by the Prime Minister, approving the Scheme of
Educational Development for very small ethnic minorities of 2011-2015 period”, aiming at children
from very small ethnic minority group and living in poor households, attending pre-school education
at public-run kindergartens, who receive support at 30% of common minimum salary/child/month;
100
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
pupils from poor households learning at village/hamlet schools receive support at 40% of common
minimum salary/pupil/month; pupils from poor households learning at ethnic minority primary and
lower secondary semi-boarding schools receive support at 60% of common minimum salary/pupil/
month; pupils from poor families learning at district-level ethnic minority primary and lower secondary
boarding schools receive support at 100% of minimum salary/pupil/month; pupils from poor families
learning at provincial-level ethnic minority primary and lower secondary boarding schools and
inter-grade lower and upper secondary ethnic minority schools receive scholarship at 100% of common
minimum salary/pupil/month; pupils and students from poor families learning at pre-University schools,
faculties, Universities, Colleges, vocational schools receive scholarship at 100% of common minimum
salary/student/month; duration of support is for 12 months/year.
Decree 61/2006/ND-CP dated 20th June 2006 by the Government on policies for teachers and
management staff at specialized schools, areas with extremely difficult socio-economic situation.
Decree 49/2010/ND-CP dated 14th May 2010 by the Government which stipulates exemption of
school fees, subsidy for educational costs and mechanism for collection and utilization of school fees at
mainstream educational institutions in the education system from 2010-2011 school year to 2014-2015
school year.
The Decree has been revised, addressing several shortcomings, and including further provisions
regarding children of poor families, children in ethnic minority areas and mountainous areas attending
school. Such revision is reflected in Decree No. 74/2013/ND-CP on exemption and reduction of school
fees covering the following groups of beneficiaries:
“Children who study at pre-schools, primary and secondary schools who live in poor households as
defined by the government, ethnic minority students who study at vocation training schools and
universities and who come from poor households as defined by the government, students from very
small ethnic minority groups in extremely difficult areas”
Decision No. 239/QD-TTg dated 9th February 2010 of the Prime Minister approving the Scheme of
Universal 5 year Pre-school for 2010-2015 period. The beneficiaries of this Decision include 5-year old
children attending kindergartens whose parents are residing in border, mountainous, island communes,
and communes with extremely difficult socio-economic conditions; orphans who lost both fathers and
mothers, homeless children, children with disabilities under economic hardship whose parents are
considered poor households under the State regulation.
Decision No. 60/2011/QD-TTg dated 26th October 2011 by the Prime Minister stipulating policies for
development of early childhood education for 2011-2015 period. The beneficiaries of these policies
are: kindergarten children at 5 years of age benefit from supporting policies as regulated in Decision
No. 239/QD-TTG; Ethnic minority kindergarten children benefit from preferential policies as regulated
in Decision No. 2123/QD-TTg; kindergarten children at 3-4 years of age whose parents are residing
at border, mountainous, island communes, and communes with extremely difficult socio-economic
conditions; orphans who lost both fathers and mothers, homeless children, children with disabilities
living under economic hardship receive cash assistance of 120,0000 Dong/month from state budget for
meals at school. The support is provided in actual study duration, but no more than 9 months/year.
Decision No. 12/2013/QD-TTg dated 24th January 2013 by the Prime Minister stipulating policies
to support upper secondary school students living in areas with extremely difficult socio-economic
situations. The beneficiaries of these policies are ethnic minority students of secondary schools, Kinh
people of poor households living in communes, hamlets with extremely difficult circumstances, who
remain on boarding at school due to distance from to school or difficult geographic access. Level of
support for meals and boarding is 50% of general minimum salary/9 months/pupil.
Decision 36/2013/TTg dated 18th June 2013 by the Prime Minister stipulating rice subsidy policy for
students at schools in extremely difficult socio-economic regions. The beneficiaries of this policy include
primary and lower secondary students studying at ethnic minority semi-boarding schools; students
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
101
on boarding at primary and secondary semi-boarding schools in extremely difficult socio-economic
areas; ethnic minority students whose parents or guardians have permanent residential registration in
extremely difficult socio-economic areas, who do not benefit from boarding policy and whose houses
are far away from school without capacity for transportation back and forth within a day, who are
learning at upper secondary schools and multi-level schools. They shall receive 15kg of rice/month/for 9
months/pupil.
Decision No. 66/2013/QD-TTg by the Prime Minister, stipulating policies to support educational
expenses for ethnic minority students learning at universities.
Education Development Strategy for 2011-2020 period issued with Decision No. 711/QD-TTg dated 13th
June 2012 by the Prime Minister, setting the objective for early childhood education for 5 year old
children in 2015 and 2020, which includes the objective to reduce malnutrition at kindergartens; the
objectives for primary and lower and upper secondary enrollment at official schooling age, enrollment
of children with disabilities; the objective to renovate textbook and curriculum to be lighter but more
stimulating and relevant to ethnic minority pupils.
Scheme for Assistance to People with Disabilities for 2012-2020 period approved following Decision
No. 1019/QD-TTG dated 5th August 2012 by the Prime Minister, setting objectives related to enrollment
of children with disabilities who are able to learn; development of curriculum and learning materials;
professional training for management staff involved in inclusive education for children with disabilities;
capacity development for teachers delivering inclusive education for children with disabilities; learning
materials for students with disabilities; sign language materials for primary and secondary education
levels.
The Prime Minister Directive No. 02/CT-TTg dated 22nd January 2013 on implementation of Conclusion
No. 51 of the Central Community Party Executive Committee, related to human resource planning in
education, effective universal early childhood education for children at 5 years of age, strengthening the
results of universal primary and lower secondary school; addressing the maintenance of deteriorated
and temporary schools in remote areas, mountainous areas, ethnic minority areas and areas with
extremely difficult socio-economic conditions; implementation of incentive policies for teachers and
education managers, especially those in remote, ethnic minority areas and areas with extremely difficult
socio-economic conditions.
The results of these policies, especially tuition exemption and subsidy for learning materials and lunch
at school have helped children 5-14 years in most extreme circumstances to maintain schooling and
reduce the risk of dropout.
The field survey in 6 provinces shows that tuition exemption and cash support policy for primary and
secondary students whose families reside in border communes, upland, remote and islands areas as
well as in communes with difficult socio economic conditions have helped reduce the risk of drop out
for many children at Thuong Thoi Hau A primary school (near Cambodia border), Hong Ngu district,
Dong Thap province and Gia primary school, Phuoc Ha commune (which is a very difficult commune),
Thuan Nam district, Ninh Thuan province.
However, besides the positive impact of these policies, there remain many constraints and problems
that need to be addressed.
Firstly, some targets are difficult to achieve: Some objectives of the Project on Universalization of early
childhood education were actually not achieved, such as the 2010 target of 100% children aged 5
attending public schools in difficult areas or the 2012 target of 90% children in ethnic minority and
difficult areas attending full-day schooling. At present, certain communes in upland and ethnic minority
areas are still without a kindergarten. By 2012 the provision of lunch was not fully carried out, especially
in difficult areas. There is shortage of infrastructure and facilities of pre-schools, along with the quality
issue. The 2015 target on nutrition is difficult to achieve.
102
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Secondly, the support levels are low: The current support levels are not good enough to attract children
to school, especially lower secondary students when the economic difficulties or immediate economic
benefits have a stronger influence on their schooling. The lunch subsidy is low, with no provision for
kitchen utensils, cooks and dining space. Therefore, it is difficult to prepare lunch for the children, and
as a result children go home for lunch and few come back for the afternoon classes. The alternative
provision of milk instead of meals to children aged 5 has created complexities, especially in multi-grade
classes where children aged 3-4 do not receive the milk. Incentive policies for teachers teaching in
remote, extreme difficult areas are not attractive enough for their dedication.
Thirdly, modes of support needs further considerations, for example, support in kind or by cash,
supports to be delivered to household or managed by the schools, so as to overcome the shortcoming
in administration and maximize impact of policy support (Key implications include possibility of parents
misusing the cash support. while some households do not need the provision of learning materials and
text books as arranged by the schools, because they already have these items).
Fourthly, challenges remain in the implementation of support policies. Delay in disbursements
(subsidies for tuition reduction or exemption) and complicated procedures make the policies less
responsive to immediate difficulty of the families for which the support is needed. Many agencies are in
charge of implementing the same policy, which leads to uncoordinated effort, overlapping and delays.
Some provinces do not fully comply with policies for primary and lower secondary teachers serving
classes with children with disabilities (reduction of periods, early pay rise). Furthermore, the existence of
many different policies may cause confusion One student can benefit from various policies for example
on scholarships. Some policies once revised take a lot of time to take effect. There are no guidelines
to administer small grants from organisations and philanthropists, which target an intended group
vis-a-vis the whole population, so as to clarify on the scope of coverage and to avoid confusion on the
part of those not receiving the grants.
Fifthly, the lack of shared understanding among people on support policies has resulted in break-down
of trust and competition. People even take their children away from school as a reaction to the unfair
treatment (e.g. some students receive lunch subsidies, while others in the same class do not). This
requires communication effort to ensure clarity in the rationale, intended beneficiaries and specifics of
the coverage.
4.1.2. National targeted programmes on education
National targeted programs have provided effective support for primary and lower secondary students.
The Government report No. 211/BC-CP dated 17th October 2011 on Implementation results of National
Target Program 2006-2010 period has affirmed the contribution of these programs in education:
“So far, Viet Nam have completed and sustained universal primary education across the country and
headed towards universal primary education at the official age, and achieved universal lower secondary
education by 2010”. The results of universalization shall directly minimize out-of-school children.
The aims of these programs are to reduce poverty, in which support to ensure access to education is
seen as a sustainable poverty reduction measure, especially for ethnic miniority groups. More details of
the national target programmes related to Education, are presented in Annex 2. Baulch et al, (2009) state
‘Viet Nam’s policies and programs are seen to have targeted ethnic minorities in three ways: based on
location, household economic status, and ethnic minority group membership.
i. The first approach, used by Program 135, price and transportation subsidy policies and
some components of Program 143, targets communes in extremely difficult areas, without
distinguishing between the ethnicity of households living in these communes. Regional
programs, such as Program 168, 173 and 186, work in the same way though at a more
aggregated level, and have proved useful when clear divisions into geographic regions based on
different production, settlement and social conditions can be identified.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
103
ii. A second approach targets households based on their economic status. For example, the
successors to the Program 143 and many education and health exemptions specifically target
households that are classified as poor or hungry. Some programs (such as Programs 134 and
139) have added ethnicity as additional criterion for poor households to qualify for benefits and
exemptions.
iii.A third approach, used by the Program to Support Ethnic Minority Households in Especially
Difficult Circumstances and some provincial initiatives, targets specific ethnic minority groups,
typically those having very low populations and living standards.’24
4.1.3. Decentralisation and education management
The Education Law states that the State should manage the national education system; focus
on education quality; decentralise education management; and strengthen the autonomy and
accountabilities of educational institutions. Decentralisation in education management means greater
autonomy to local government and educational training institutions. Local authorities are responsible
for budget allocations to basic education and locally-managed training institutions. MOET is responsible
for the state management of early childhood education and of primary and secondary education, while
MOLISA manages vocational education. District People’s Committees are responsible for managing
primary and lower-secondary schools, while Provincial People’s Committees are responsible for
upper-secondary schools. The Provincial Department of Education and Training provides education
sector management support to the Provincial People’s Committee. The District Bureau of Education
and Training provides management support to the District People’s Committee. However Education
management still continues to be a thorn in the side of MOET and management practices need to be
strengthened.
The UNICEF 2010 Situation Analysis of Children in Viet Nam makes the point that ‘Recently, increasing
attention has been paid to the problem of corruption in the education system, with cases being
reported by the national media. There is some evidence of various forms of corruption, including paying
bribes to ensure students receive good marks, demanding that parents pay fees for extra classes, and
unethical practices in the recruitment and promotion of teachers. To eliminate cheating and academic
corruption, MOET took the initiative in 2007 to undertake a Two No’s campaign “No cheating and No
false records”.25
One bright note on the issue of management and governance is noted by J.L London (2011) who
describes a website called www.edu.net.vn managed by MOET where Vietnamese from across the
country engage in debate and discussion with policy leaders. This is the kind of policy dialogue that is
hard to find in much wealthier countries and ostensibly more democratic ones at that.26
4.1.4. Policies to eliminate economic barriers and improve living standards
The World Bank Analysis places a big emphasis on the social reasons why ethnic minorities have poorer
financial gains than their Kinh counterparts in the same remote areas. This diagram outlines how
difference becomes disadvantage27:
24 Baulch, B Baulch, B. Nguyen Thi Minh Hoa, Nguyen Thi Thu Phuong & Pham Thai Hung (2009) Ethnic Minority Poverty in Viet Nam Hanoi World
Bank (p.47 onward)
25 UNICEF (2010) An analysis of the situation of children in Viet Nam Hanoi: UNICEF (p.173)
26 London, J.L (2011). Education in Viet Nam, historical roots, recent trends. In London, Jonathon D.(Ed) (2011) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam
Update Series, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
27 World Bank (2009) Country Social Analysis Ethnicity and Development in Viet Nam Summary Report Washington DC The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank p 24
104
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Figure 4.1:
The difference between ethnic minorities and Kinh
Lower education
Stereotyping and
misconceptions
Less mobility
Lower
livelihood
Lower market access and
lower inomes from
goods sold
Less access to
financial services
and investments
Less productive landholdings
Policies and strategies related to families and communities that affect education are linked to provision
of loans, access to market and provision of land and the ways in which ethnic minority peoples act in
these contexts.
Credit Access
Ethnic minority households report huge demand for credit but often they do not get access to large
amounts of credit in the way that Kinh in similar regions do. The World Bank Country Social Analysis
explains how ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to predatory lending in the informal sector (private
money-lenders) and they are also more likely to pay high interest when purchasing goods on credit. This
example from the Country Social Analysis explains how:28
How Informal Sector Lending Leads to Indebtedness
Traders in one commune in Dak Lak extend credit to ethnic M’Nong to buy inputs prior to the corn planting season, taking
advantage of lending in cash but then converting the amount to be repaid to corn equivalence if commodity prices are
high. For example, if the price of the previous year’s crop was VND 700,000/ton, the Kinh traders lend M’Nong households
VND 700,000 ($42), then collect one ton of maize from them after the harvest. The traders never accept repayment in cash
if there is a rise in prices from season to season. In 2005, the price was 700,000 VND per ton of corn, but in 2006 it had risen
to 1,400,000/ton ($84). With repayment in maize, the traders got 100 percent interest in the course of 6 months. If they
worked with cash only, they could likely only charge around 5 percent interest a month without protest from the minority
households that the interest was too high. The M‘Nong also need to purchase rice to eat in the lean months before harvests
are due (July, August, and September in Dak Lak). Each household needs about 250kg of rice per month to cover their
shortfall, so they borrow 50 kg bags of rice from a local Kinh trader to get them through. Then, by maize harvest time in
October, the trader collects 250kg of corn from the farmers for every 50kg bag of rice. Corn in 2005 fetched a price of 1,300
VND /kg. That means the trader has essentially charged 325,000VND for a 175,000VND bag of rice. Since the trader does
not deal in actual cash amounts, however, the profits are not as noticeable.
Source: Field Notes, World Bank Country Social Analysis
28 World Bank (2009) Country Social Analysis Ethnicity and Development in Viet Nam Summary Report Washington DC The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank p 32
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
105
However the analysis does go on to say that there is cause for hope given the large expansion in the
availability of credit in the past five years is reaching minority households, as a majority of households
surveyed by the Country Social Analysis had been able to take out a loan. However, minorities still
borrow less frequently than Kinh and Hoa, get smaller loans overall, and are more vulnerable to cycles of
debt in the informal sector.
Land Access
Since 1993, according to the Land Law, families secure the right to land use. Ethnic minorities often face
more constraints in productive capacity. They are more reliant on upland farming systems and report
lower rates of agricultural investment, with resultant lower productivity. Much of their land is often
forested and yet forestry makes only a small contribution to household incomes. Therefore, poverty
reduction through access to land remains limited.
Market access and poorer returns from markets
Ethnic minority farmers sell more low-valued crops and lack value-added processing and value-chain
linkages for their produce; minority representation in the non-farm sectors and off-farm employment
is low; minorities report barriers to access in the marketplace, and may be taken advantage of by Kinh
traders; petty trading, even at village levels, is dominated by Kinh traders (Shanks, 2009).
4.2. Social insurance and protection related to education and out-of-school children
4.2.1 Social Insurance Programmes include pensions on a pay as-you-go basis but also include
short-term sickness benefits, unemployment allowances, maternity and disability benefits which are
available to 56 % of population. The main beneficiaries are poor households, public servants, and
social policy target groups. However, benefits usually only account for 4% of households’ total income
resulting from small contributions and low allowance levels. There is also inequality with 40% of social
protection funds spent for 20% of richest quintile while 20% of the poorest quintile only receives7%
of total funds. Challenges include low compliance rates, especially in non-public sector, lack of
financial viability, limited access of the poor to voluntary social insurance (In 2009, 20% of labour force
participated in social insurance, 9% of elderly have pension); majority of rural labour do not participate
in any kind of social insurance.
4.2.2 Health Insurance Coverage has been expanding rapidly in recent years with the extension of free
health insurance for disadvantaged groups and all children below the age of 6 years
4.2.3 Social Assistance Programmes: Current challenges to Social Assistance Programmes include the
fact that only 1.3% of the population receive cash transfers, with a level of support equaling about 50%
of the minimum standard of living. There are low quality social services in poor areas. Migrants in urban
areas also have only limited access.
4.2.4 Planned Strategies 2011-2020 MOLISA (Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, 2011) has
developed a series of Social protection Strategies for 2011-2020 with the following key principles:
-Universal, with all persons having the right to be safeguarded and to have access to social
protection system.
- Sharing: Based on the redistribution among poor-non poor, among old and younger generations.
- Equitability and sustainability, binding responsibilities and benefits, between contribution and
benefits
- Promoting responsibility of individuals, families and communities in ensuring the social protection.
106
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
- Special supports to the poor, vulnerable groups to ensure the minimum subsistence living level in
case of risks that cause temporary or forever loss or reduction of income
- International cooperation on ideas,
A recent discussion paper by UNICEF and World Bank has provided some suggestions for strengthening
social assistance programmes for Viet Nam’s poor. The writers see social assistance as combining three
major objectives:
i. Protection of the chronic poor
ii. Prevention of adverse effects of economics or other shocks and
iii.Promotion of human capital for long-term poverty reduction through investing in children.29
The writer suggests that it would be useful to roll together existing social transfers into a single
‘family package’ which integrates and expands existing programmes, to serve as a foundation on
which additional benefits can be built, depending on household characteristics such as numbers of
household members working or numbers and ages of children. They present a series of scenarios of
a social assistance programme designed for the bottom 15% of households, assuming nationwide
implementation.
However the proportion of recipients of Social Protection in vulnerable groups is low and this has flow
on effects for children at risk of dropping out-of-school. (Roelen, 2010, p. 124).
Table 4.1:
Distribution of social welfare
Share of poor in social
welfare beneficiaries
Share of non-poor in social
welfare beneficiaries
Total
Monetary poverty
Total population
22.1
77.9
100
Children
38.0
62.0
100
44.4
55.6
100
Multidimensional poverty
Children
Source: Author’s calculations from VHLSS 2006
Roelen, 2010, p.132
Roelen notes: ‘The receipt of social welfare is biased towards specific demographic groups that do not
necessarily have the largest prevalence of poverty. Especially rural areas, the North West region and
ethnic minorities hold a share of children receiving social welfare that is smaller than their share in
poverty (P 140). Evidence does not suggest a strong beneficial impact on children’s lives. (Roelen, 2011).
Roelen suggests the introduction of a child-targeted benefit which may be category-defined such as
belonging to a particular ethnic group. In addition she suggests that because current social protection
systems are clearly linked to formal employment those children in families in the informal sector are not
29 World Bank/UNICEF (2011) A protection, prevention and promotion program for Viet Nam’s poor; some ideas for strengthening social assistance to
help secure a minimum living standard for all. Unpublished paper (pp3-4)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
107
reached through formal schemes of social protection. Therefore, children that live in households with
workers in the informal market, children of unregistered migrants and children outside of any family
setting also need special consideration.
4.2.5. Capacity Gaps in Social Protection
UNICEF Situation Analysis (2010) sees a key challenge in child protection in Viet Nam is the absence
of a strong and efficient social protection system, the lack of professional social services with the
capacity to respond to vulnerable children, and the absence of a ‘continuum of services’ that can assure
the protection of children at all times across the range of child protection issues. During this study, a
number of capacity gaps were identified in the child protection system, as follows:
- An absence of a network of village collaborators involved in childcare and protection activities,
including a lack of funding for this network, a lack of professional social workers at the community
level, and local people with social work skills and experience.
- The commune authorities and village heads find it difficult to accurately assess and follow up child
protection needs in the community, and the commune legal cadres have difficulty in keeping
up-to-date with birth registration requirements.
- The commune authorities, community leaders and local communities themselves lack experience
with more effective approaches to dealing with new and emerging social issues and child
protection issues (for example, HIV/AIDS and drug abuse).
- The justice sector has a limited number of staff at the district and commune level to adequately
follow up birth registration procedures.
4.2.6. Overarching analysis and implications for education
There are relatively adequate educational policies and economic barrier elimination policies that help to
improve living standards, and social protection policies that help families access basic social services like
education. However, there remain children who are out-of-school, especially in mountainous, remote
and ethnic minority areas.
Limited resource is one of the reasons why some major objectives set in those policies are not achieved
to boost enrollment for children in difficult circumstance. It also explains why the levels of support are
not high enough to attract these children to schools. Moreover, there remains inappropriateness in
mode of support and constraints in implementation of these policies; the lack of shared understanding
among people on different support policies has resulted in competition, comparison and decrease
of trust, with people even stopping their children from going to schools because of the unfairness
that they perceive; this is another factor which constrains the efforts in reducing the number of
out-of-school children.
Often poor people do not know about availability of social protection programmes and very often
there is no conditionality in terms of school attendance built in to social welfare programmes. Most
importantly, social protection programmes do not reach the groups that are the poorest and in such
families education is often perceived as having a lower value than economic survival, and how this plays
out will be dependent on the vagaries of cash markets which change from year to year, to which, in
the case of ethnic minority families, there may be less access than Kinh families in the same areas. Their
access depends on macro-economic regulation, as well as the implementation of supporting policies
and directions from different management levels.
108
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
109
110
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
CHAPTER V
RECOMMENDATIONS
The below recommendations are based on the analyses on the profile of out-of-school children in
Chapter 2, on the barriers and bottlenecks in Chapter 3, and the consultation at central levels and field
surveys in 6 provinces: Dien Bien, Ninh Thuan, Kon Tum, Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Thap and An Giang.
These recommendations are for both the demand and supply sides, on policies and future interventions
to address the barriers and bottlenecks to ensure education equity for all children, especially the right to
education for out-of-school children and the children at risk of dropping out.
5.1. Recommendations related to the children and parents:
The awareness on the value of education by the communities and the parents particularly those
without education should be enhanced via specific measures. For example: Communication on the
long-term educational value, the value of life-long learning to change perceptions that disadvantaged
children especially children with disabilities should not go to school; on the advantages of attending
the Continuing education centers when the children are not enrolled in formal schools. At the same
time, teachers should be trained to enhance their capacity in communication with parents on the values
of education. To increase awareness amongst parents on child rights and the legal requirements and
entitlements of birth registration.
For ethnic minority areas, to continue targeted investments in education for ethnic minority students
and promote role models their of success in learning. To strengthen communication against early
marriage.
To promote the roles of the Parents Associations, the Women Union, the Education Promotion groups
or similar associations in coordination with schools to manage and encourage out-of-school children to
return to school.
To reduce education inequalities by extending the implementation of National Target Programmes such
as the Poverty Reduction Programs and Program 135. Where conditions allow, to lessen the economic
burdens (such as tuition fees, contributions to school infrastructure and the costs of extra tutoring and
other costs such as cost for health check-up, uniform etc.) on the extremely disadvantaged households.
To ensure equitable access to all ethnicities in Viet Nam by providing equal market access and
employment opportunities, and social protection mechanisms when the two formers fail. To provide
incentives to the students through different initiatives such as scholarships and rice subsidy
Strengthen ‘preventive measures’ to reduce the flow of children into child labour, including: (i)
sustaining progress in ensuring access to secondary school, especially for girls; (ii) intensifying support
measures whereby children temporarily absent from school, or children just making the transition to
lower secondary level can catch up and complete schooling; (iii) continued awareness raising amongst
local communities and parents; (iv) strengthening the commitment by local authorities to safeguard the
right to education of children by restricting private enterprises from hiring children in casual work.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
111
5.2. Recommendations related to teachers:
To develop short-term and long-term training programs to train and recruit adequate number of ethnic
minority and local teachers by appropriate methods such as nominations, distribution, rotation etc.
To invest in improving training quality, teacher’s professional training as to make a difference in
teaching quality including inclusive education and differentiated instruction. To develop policies that
focus on improving teaching methods to be more interactive and stimulating, especially in ethnic
minority, rural and remote areas and areas with children from the poorest families. To strengthen
training for teachers in language, culture and customs of the communities in which they teach. To use
ethnic minority language and culture as criterion for teachers’ assessment in schools in ethnic minority
areas.
To address motivational issues through incentives for teachers, and strengthen the quality of tuition and
support for underperforming students and those at risk of dropping out. To link teacher qualifications
with salary scales and teacher promotion with evaluation of professional standards.
To review, revise and supplement incentives for teachers, especially those serving classes with children
with disabilities, multi-grade classes in kindergarten and primary education; allowances for teachers
and managers working in remote school sites in mountainous areas. To provide allowances to facilitate
home visits by teachers in remote areas to encourage students to go back to school. To ensure adequate
housing for teachers serving in remote and resource constraint areas.
5.3. Recommendations related to the schools:
To continue making investments in school infrastructures with priority given to kindergartens,
especially in ethnic minority and remote areas in the Northwest and Northeast, the Central Highland
and in the Mekong Delta regions; and priority construction of clean water and sanitation facilities in
schools. To build satellite secondary schools, mirroring those in primary education to bring secondary
school closer to many more children in remote areas. Changing the strategy “Bringing children to
schools” into “Bringing schools to children”. In other words, to ensure schools that are close to where
children live, especially during their first years at school, is one of the effective policies. This policy
should be further promoted during the lower, upper secondary years, since distance from home to
school is one of the major reasons for school dropouts. In the first semester of 2012-2013 school year
at Thuong Phuoc lower secondary school, Hong Ngu district, Dong Thap province, a female student
has good school performance and strong interest in school, but her family was poor, her bicycle broke
down but they had no money for a new one. She used public transport for a 10-kilometer journey to
school, at the daily cost of 30.000 Vietnam Dong for schooling (20.000 Dong for transportation back
and forth, 10.000 for lunch). After a period of time, she could not keep up and had to drop out as her
family could not afford the daily expenses. In this case, if there were any school that are close enough to
her house, she could not have dropped out. To continue to develop ethnic minority boarding schools
from various financial sources. Alongside inclusive education for children with disabilities, to develop
more educational institutions for the children with disabilities including special school using different
financial sources. To provide sufficient teaching materials and textbooks. To gradually improve facilities
and learning environment for children with disabilities.
To apply child-centered teaching methods and engage teacher assistants from villages as a language
bridge between mother tongue and majority language (replicating the Oxfam UK projects in Lao Cai,
Tra Vinh and Dak Lak, Save the Children UK projects in Quang Ninh and Dong Thap, and the Action
Research project by MOET in collaboration with UNICEF). To instruct on the channeling of students
at beginning of school year to different learning options, and strengthening follow up support to be
provided by experienced teachers for lower performers to enable them to keep up with the learning. To
work with problem students and to prevent them from inducing other students to be distracted from
studies leading to drop out.
112
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
To expand and improve the quality of semi-boarding schools, including the people-based
semi-boarding schools in the most remote and mountainous areas.
To develop new technologies for education provision in remote areas such as the digital school radio,
which is a useful idea to be considered. Viettel should extend their Internet coverage to more remote
schools. MOET should work on the development of digital learning materials in ethnic minority and
Kinh languages.
5.4. Recommendations related to management:
Recommendations on the management of OOSC relate to 3 aspects: (i) Education planning and policy
development, (ii) Implementing organization, and (iii) Monitoring and evaluation.
5.4.1. Education planning and policy development
OOSC-related issues should be integrated in the education sector planning from central to local levels.
This is an important basis to systematically address OOSC issues and promote equity in education.
Planning capacity should be improved at all levels, with an increased focus on the right to education of
out-of-school children.
Sector planning should be based on adequate data and analysis on the education situation of the
children, especially the disadvantaged and out-of-school children to inform the development of
specific objectives and management and technical measures for provincial Department of Education
and Training (DOET), District Bureau of Education and schools, including inter-sectoral coordination
to address the barriers related to out-of-school children; the allocation of resources should integrate
addressing the barriers related to OOSC. The aggregate figures and analyses on children might mask
disparities and inequities in education faced by some groups of disadvantaged children, thus missing
out appropriate solutions and measures to ensure their education.
To renovate educational management at local levels in order to build the capacity and promote
autonomy and ownership at the local level, teachers and educational managers.
To provide guidance for development and delivery of local curriculum as per instructions by the MOET.
Textbooks should reflect the cultural diversity and be relevant to ethnic minority people in terms
of images, cultural characteristics and customs. Textbook reforms should focus on the reduction of
curriculum loads and strengthen life skills education. To develop positive and powerful images on
ethnic minority groups in the textbooks and education on mass media to support to eliminate the
cultural stereotypes and barriers.
5.4.2. Implementation
To identify and propose timely solutions to address the duplication and overlap of policies. To ensure
timely disbursements aligning with school calendar. DOETs are to proactively make proposals to the
People’s Committees for adequate resources to deliver education mandate. To undertake resource
mobilisation from philanthropists, but not from parents’ contributions. To effectively implement
the 2 Circulars on supporting inclusive education (policy applied to people with disabilities such as
non-limited age of schooling, tuition reduction and exemption, special treatment in assessment,
provision of textbooks and school equipment).
To encourage full day schooling in all schools with child support systems for the children from poorest
families and with ethnic minority background. For example, full day schooling with lunch provision
at kindergartens for children aged 5 and at primary schools, full day schooling with semi-boarding
arrangements.
To ensure transparency and due engagement of relevant stakeholders in the provision of scholarships
at district ethnic minority boarding schools and manage frustration from any groups of population. This
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
113
includes transparency in the communication specific policy provisions with parents, especially those
from ethnic minority community.
To implement management measures to create a child-friendly learning environment such as
recreational and physical exercise conditions (playground, space for physical exercises), promotion of
extra-curriculum activities (school-wide activities, music, sport events) in order to stimulate learning in
an inclusive environment for ethnic minority children and children with disabilities, implementing the
slogan “Each day in school is a happy day”.
To thoroughly address the shortage of full-time staff at the DOETs and District Bureau of Education
according to regulations of Decree 115 on Decentralised education management.
5.4.3. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of planned targets should align with the indicators on
out-of-school children and ensure tracking if the implementation of the measures would address the
barriers constraining education of these children. To ensure availability of accurate and sufficient data
on OOSC and dropouts is an important task in situation monitoring as it serves as an evidence basis for
the management and policy advocacy to realize the right to education of these children.
To strongly fight against the pursuit of exaggerated achievements in primary education graduation
assessments, especially for ethnic minority children.
5.5. Recommendations related to policies
It is important to close the disparity gaps among regions which result in OOSC related barriers and
issues, through targeted policies and measures relevant to each geographical area, for example
Northern midlands and mountainous areas and the Mekong Delta. To contextualize central level
educational directions with the reality at the sub-national levels. To make sure that all new social
protection strategies will reflect a child focus. To study policies for tuition exemption for children aged 5
at pre-primary schools.
To ensure inclusive education policies by considering the needs of all children in a classroom regardless
of ethnicity or disability. To research on more appropriate teaching methods to enhance inclusive
education.
To review the relationship between employment and education for ethnic minority children and
children in remote areas to date, and to learn from lessons of successful interventions and identify
additional measures to create more learning opportunities for these children. To conduct policy
advocacy through sharing knowledge on the benefits of the “Mother tongue-based Bilingual Education”
project with partners including the Ethnic Council of the National Assembly, the Central Committee
of the Communist Party, the Committee for Ethnic Minority and MOET to expand the “Mother
tongue-based Bilingual Education” project with detailed action plan and budget to ensure adequate
preparation for ethnic minority children for schooling thereby helping to reduce out-of-school children
in the short and long term. To reduce class size for those classes with 100% ethnic minority students to
enhance the quality of care and education.
To develop policy and mechanisms for teachers and managers serving in ethnic minority semi-boarding
schools and schools with semi-boarding students. To develop mechanisms for the recruitment of health
workers, cooks, and guards at these schools.
For the areas with low density, it is important to address the inappropriateness in the budget allocation
formula which is based on population head count.
114
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
5.6. Recommendations related to the education system
The education system shall ensure quality education for all regardless of their ability to pay. Continue to
review the solutions to reduce effectively the curriculum load for ethnic minority children.
To ensure the implementation of Decree 115/2010/ND-CP of the Government on responsibilities of
state governance on education consistently across the country; research on the amendment of the
Law on State Budget towards more effective decentralization on financial management; to ensure that
the delivery of education mandate comes together with the assurance of due human and financial
resources.
The provinces shall review and improve or develop local curriculum which integrates the ethnic
minority cultural values.
Strengthen statistical data on out-of-school children by first reviewing the current practices for
statistical data collection related to OOSC, and then identifying areas for improvements. In the
long-term, the education sector should:
- Coordinate with the General Statistics Office to address the discrepancies in the data on age group
population; strengthen the coordination between central and local levels in the collection, analysis
and publication of statistics on OOSC. This includes institutionalising the utilisation of data from
the mid-term population survey and periodic census for OOSC analysis in the education sector.
- Research further on integrating data from universalization surveys with routine education data
collection for sector planning and management purposes, in which it is important to incorporate
the possibility of collection of data on out-of-school children, dropouts and disadvantaged
children such as children with disabilities and ethnic minority children.
- Obtain data on the disparities in access to education and educational results, including gender
disaggregated data on enrollment, completion of primary and lower-secondary education of boys
and girls; further disaggregated data on health care, nutrition and child protection among ethnic
minority groups and the poor, including children with disabilities, orphans, abandoned children
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
115
and single-parent and poor households in relation to dropping out; data on migrants. These
characteristics are closely attributed to out-of-school children.
- Coordinate with MOLISA and other sectors to obtain better quality data on the number of children
potentially working in hazardous jobs and identify solutions to address the problem if it exists. It
is important to incorporate data on child protection issues in order to obtain a full picture of the
children’s situation concerning issues such as HIV/AIDS, child abuse and drug use.
Viet Nam has made remarkable achievements in education and Viet Nam will achieve the Millennium
Development goals related to education by 2015. However, more efforts are needed to bring the
benefits to a significant group of children who remain disadvantaged in education and whose right to
education has not been realized.
It is important to note that unless education is extended to all of its citizens, the expenses for
supporting a growing aging population will not be afforded by an under-educated, under-skilled
society. This is an economic catalyst for quality education for all. There is also a right-based reason. All
people have the right to a quality education regardless of their ethnicity, gender, place of residence,
social status or economic standing.
The fact that disadvantaged children remain out-of-school, particularly children with disabilities, ethnic
minority children, migrant children and poor children presents a challenge to the education sector
and the socio-economic development of Viet Nam. It is expected that insights from the Report of the
Study on Out-of-school Children will inform the effort to address these challenges and achieve equity in
education.
116
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
REFERENCES
1. Baulch, B Baulch, B. Nguyen Thi Minh Hoa,Nguyen Thi Thu Phuong&Pham Thai Hung (2009) Poverty
in ethnic population in Viet Nam, hanoi. World Bank http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/
default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/08/25/000333038_20110825012124/Rendered/PDF/642
720WP0P107600361533B0PUBLIC0.doc.pdf
2. MOET, UNICEF & UNESCO (2007) Transition from pre-primary to lower secondary education of
ethnic girls, Hanoi: UNICEF
3. Ministry of Education and Training Viet Nam 2011 (published brochure) Education figures for 2011
4. Department of Foreign Affairs, USA on human trafficking (2011) http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/
tiprpt/2011/
5. Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism. General Statistics Office (2007) Survey of Family of Viet Nam
2006
6. MOH. General Statistics Office UNICEF. WHO. (2008) National Survey on Adolescents and Youth of
Viet Nam
7. Cox, M. Et al (2011) Paris Declaration/Core Hanoi Statement phase 2, Assessment on Viet Nam http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/16/47083805.pdf
8. International management system for USAID (2005) Program review and disabled status evaluation
in Viet Nam
9. ILO (2010) Social protection strategy of Viet Nam, 2011-2020, Conception and new approaches
PPT 14 Oct., 2011 http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-hanoi/
documents/presentation/wcms_145777.pdf
10. ILSSA, RCFLG& ILO (2009) Child labour in 8 provinces/cities of Viet Nam. Hanoi
11. From Jones R., Tran Thi Hanh, Nguyen Anh Phong and Truong Thi Thu Trang (2009) A Mapping
Exercise – Poverty Reduction Programmes and Policies in Viet Nam Hanoi: UNDP
12. Lewin, Keith M. (2007().Lewin, Keith M. (2007().Improving access, equity and transitions in
education: Creating a research agenda. Research monograph. Falmer: Consortium for Research on
Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE).
13. United Nations in Viet Nam (2011) MDG Report http://www.un.org.vn/en/publications/
un-wide-publications/cat_view/130-un-viet-nam-joint-publications/210-mdgs-joint-unpublications.html?start=5
14. London, Jonathon D.(Ed) (2011) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam Update Series, Singapore: Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies,
15. Mann, B & Dang, T H T, (2010) Causes of children’s dropping out-of-school (UNICEF, VWU, RTCCD)
16. Mann, B & Dang, T H T, (2010) Causes of children’s dropping out-of-school (UNICEF, VWU, RTCCD)
17. Maplecroft (2009) Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI)http://maplecroft.com/about/news/
ccvi.html
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
117
18. Mont, D. and N.V. Cuong (2011), Disability and Poverty in Viet Nam, World Bank Economic Review,
Published June 6, 2011
19. World Bank (2009) Country Social Analysis Ethnicity and Development in Viet Nam Summary Report.
Washington DC The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
20. 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
21. World Bank/UNICEF (2011) A protection, prevention and promotion program for Viet Nam’s poor;
some ideas for strengthening social assistance to help secure a minimum living standard for all.
Unpublished paper.
22. Cuong, Nguyen Viet & Daniel Mont Does Parental Disability Matter to Child Education?
Evidence from Viet Nam Hanoi: The World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region Poverty Reduction
& Economic Management Sector Department http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/
main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469372&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166322&entity
ID=000158349_20110801083520
23. Pouille, L et al (2011) Viet Nam status of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children
for Research Centre for Family Health and Community Development (CEFACOM- ECPAT in Viet
Nam)
24. Roelen, K. (2010) False positives or hidden dimensions: the definition and measurement of child
poverty PhD dissertation Maastricht University
25. Roelen, K. (2011) Stopping Child Poverty in its Tracks: The Role for Social Protection in Viet Nam IDS
Working Paper 371 http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp371.pdf
26. SCF UK (2006) Report on a rapid assessment of the situation of migrant children in Viet Nam Hanoi:
SCF UK
27. Shanks, E. (2009) Review of UNICEF’s ethnic minorities program and work in Viet Nam Final Report
Hanoi: UNICEF, unpublished paper
28. Kontum Provincial Department of Education & Training (2009) Report of survey findings on
children’s repetition, drop out and absence rates in communes of DakHa and To Mo Rong districts.
Unpublished paper for UNICEF Viet Nam
29. Youth Newshttp://www.tuoitrenews.vn/cmlink/tuoitrenews/education/education-news/uplandgirls-quit-school-for-early-marriage-1.47642)
30. World Health Organisation & World Bank (2010) World Report on Disability http://whqlibdoc.who.
int/publications/2011/9789240685215_eng.pdf
31. General Statistics Office (2007). Result of Survey on Living Standards of Households of Viet Nam
2006. Statistical Publishing House, Ha Noi.
32. General Statistics Office (2009). Result of Survey on Living Standards of Households of Viet Nam
2008. Statistical Publishing House, Ha Noi.
33. General Statistics Office (2010). The 2009 Viet Nam Population and Housing Census. Statistical
Publishing House, Ha Noi.
34. General Statistics Office (2011). Result of Survey on Living Standards of Households of Viet Nam
2010. Statistics Publishing House, Hanoi
118
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
35. Chi, Truong Huyen ‘They think we don’t value schooling’ Paradoxes of Education in the multiethnic
central highlands of Viet Nam in Jonathon D. London (Ed) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam Update
Series, Singapore: London, Jonathon D.(Ed) (2011) Education in Viet Nam, Viet Nam Update Series,
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, (pp171-211)
36. UCW (2009) Understanding Children’s Work in Viet Nam Report on child labor http://www.
ucw-project.org/Pages/bib_details.aspx?id=11991&Pag=0&Country=-1
37. UNDP (2006) Impacts of Basic Public Services Liberalization on the Poor and Marginalized People:
The Case of Health, Education and Electricity in Viet Nam http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/
public/File/2_Impact_on_Poor_Report_72.pdf
38. UNDP. Provincial People’s Committee Hà Nội: Provincial People’s Committee Ho Chi Minh City.
Survey on Urban Poverty in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city 2009 (UPS 2009) Ho Chi Minh City, 2009.
39. UNESCO, MOET & ASEM LLL (2010) Viet Nam Forum: Lifelong learning building a learning society
Proceedings Hanoi: UNESCO & ASEM, Viet Nam News Agency Publishing House
40. UNICEF & UIS (2011) Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children Conceptual and methodological
framework (CMF) March 2011 Unpublished
41. UNICEF & MOET (2011) Action research on mother tongue-based bilingual education: achieving
quality, equitable education (Programme brief 1) Hanoi: UNICEF
42. UNICEF & MOET (2011) Action research on mother tongue-based bilingual education: creating
learning opportunities for ethnic minority children (Programme brief 2) Hanoi: UNICEF
43. Study on the correlation between household environmental sanitation, household water supply,
mothers’ hygiene behaviour for children under 5 and the status of child nutrition in Viet Nam
Unpublished paper, Hanoi: UNICEF
44. UNICEF (2010) An analysis of the situation of children in Viet Nam Hanoi: UNICEF
45. An Giang Provincial People’s Committee & UNICEF An Analysis of the situation of children in An
Giang Province
46. Dien Bien Provincial People’s Committee & UNICEF (2010) An Analysis of the situation of children in
Dien Bien
47. Ninh Thuan Provincial People’s Committee & UNICEF(2011) An Analysis of the situation of children
in Ninh Thuan, May, 2011
48. Viet Nam Institute of Educational Sciences and the Ninh Thuan Provincial Department of Education
and Training (2009) Report on survey findings of ethnic minority students’ repetition and dropout
rates in Bac Ai District, Ninh Tuan Province, Viet Nam a report prepared with the assistance of
UNICEF Viet Nam.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
119
Annex 1:
Poverty reduction
programmes in Viet Nam
Targetting Education
From Jones R., Tran Thi Hanh, Nguyen Anh Phong and Truong Thi Thu Trang (2009) A Mapping Exercise –
Poverty Reduction Programmes and Policies in Viet Nam Hanoi: UNDP (pp 19-25)
Access to education
A considerable number of poverty reduction projects aim to bring poor and ethnic minority students
to education through supporting with fees and subsidies as well as supplying financial support for
transport and boarding support, either financial or the building of boarding accommodation near
schools. A significant number also aim at developing school buildings and renovating buildings and
classrooms where needed with targets throughout many projects of one school per commune and
district.
120
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Table 1:
Education support components and policies
Type of support
Component/Project
Description (Beneficiaries, support details, approach)
Infrastructure
component/P 135-II
1. Beneficiary: P135 communes
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local state budget
3. Details:
3a. New or upgrading classrooms (demands-based)
Infrastructure in poor
coastal communes /
NTP-PR
1. Beneficiary: poor coastal communes
2.Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
3. Details:
3a. New or upgrading classrooms (demands-based)
Infrastructure
component/resolution
30a, TT 109/109/
TTLB-BTC-BGD-DT
1 Beneficiary: 62 poor districts
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
2c. Community contribution
2d. Enterprises
2e. ODA
2f. Government bonds
3. Details:
3a.Upgrading or new classroom (demands based)
3b. People-based boarding school
Infrastructure
component/Regional
SED programs
1. Beneficiary: 6 regions
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
3. Details:
3a. District and commune infrastructure projects
Concretization/
NTP-Education for All
1. Beneficiary: Schools throughout the country
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
2c. Government bonds
3. Details
3a. Construction schools, classrooms at district and
commune levels
Infrastructure
(new construction,
concretization
facilities,
equipment)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
121
Type of support
Component/Project
Description (Beneficiaries, support details, approach)
Support poor
students, ethnic
students,
textbooks,
notebooks and
food
Support poor students/
NTP-PR,QD 20/2007/
QD-TTg
1. Beneficiary: poor students
2. Financing sources: no direct budget allocation
3. Details:
3a. Tuition exemption, reduction
Loans/NTP-PR, QD
20/2007/QD-TTg
1. Beneficiary: poor students
2. Financing sources:
2a. From VDB
3. Details:
3a. Loan for food at 800,000VND/HH/month
Support minority
students/QD 112/2007/
QD-TTg, TT 06/2007/
TT-UBDT
1. Beneficiary: minority children in kindergartens and
boarding schools
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
2c. Community contribution
2d. Enterprises
2e. ODA
2f. Government bonds
3. Details:
3a. Support for food, textbooks, notebooks (140,000VND/
month in 9 months for boarding students and 70,000VND/
month for kindergarten students)
3b. Poor parents (1 mill VNd/a time/HH)
Support poor
students/TT 43/2007/
TTLT-BTC-BGĐT,
2/5/2007
1. Beneficiary: poor students
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
3. Details:
3a. Scholarship equal to 80% of basic salary
Housing/Resolution
30a, TT 109/109/
TTLB-BTC-BGD-DT
1. Beneficiary: teachers in remote areas
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
2c. Community contribution
2d. Enterprises
3. Details
3a. Housing
Support teachers,
education
managers
122
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Type of support
Support minorities
in the most
disadvantaged
areas
Eliminate illiteracy,
enhance universal
education
Vocational training
for the poor
Component/Project
Description (Beneficiaries, support details, approach)
Direct support/
Circular 06/2007/
TTLT-BGDDT-BNV-BTC
dated 27/03/2007
1. Beneficiary: teachers in the most disadvantaged areas
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
3. Details:
3a. Support 5 litres of drinking water/teacher/month
3b. Support to travel cost
Nominations for
universities/CT-GDCMN,
Decree 134/2004/
ND-CP
1. Beneficiary: minority upper secondary education
graduates in the most disadvantaged areas
2. Financing sources: no direct budget allocation
3. Details:
3a. Textbooks and notebooks
3b. Scholarship equal to 80% of basic salary
3c. Nomination without exams
Teaching minority
languages/
NTP-Education for All
1. Beneficiary: minority students of small population
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. ODA
3. Details:
3a. Delivering curriculum and textbooks
3b. Training for teachers in minority languages
Continuing education/
NTP-Education for All
1. Beneficiary: illiterate and lower secondary education
undergraduates
2. Financing sources: no direct budget allocation but
support provided through giving salaries to teachers in
continuing education center
3. Details: Non-official courses on basic education
Vocational training/
NTP-PR
1. Beneficiary: groups of HHs in poor communes
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local Budget
2c. Enterprises
3. Details:
3a. Vocational training linked to jobs generation in state
farms model
3b. Vocational training linked to overseas jobs model
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
123
Type of support
Labors abroad
124
Component/Project
Description (Beneficiaries, support details, approach)
Vocational training/P
135-II
1. Beneficiary: groups of minority HHs in P135 communes
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget
2b. Local budget
2c. Enterprises
3. Details:
3a. Vocational training linked to jobs generation
Vocational training/
Resolution 30a
1. Beneficiary: groups of HHs in P135 communes and other
communes in 62 poor districts
2. Financing resources:
2a. National state budget added to non-P135 communes
in 62 poor districts
2b. Local budget
2c. Enterprises
3. Details:
3a. Vocational training linked to job generations
3b. One vocational training center per district with
boarding facilities for students from remote areas
Vocational training
‘Mekong delta support
project
1. Beneficiary: poor HHs in poor communes from Mekong
delta
2. Financing sources:
2a. Local budget
2b. Financial support from VBP
3. Details:
3a. concessional loans to vocational trainees (max. 3 mill
VNd/person)
Labor export/
Resolution 30a
1. Beneficiary: P135 communes and other communes in 62
poor districts
2. Financing sources:
2a. National state budget added to support the non-P135
communes in 62 poor districts
2b. Local budget
2c. Enterprises
3. Details:
3a. Support vocational training
3b. Teaching foreign language and improve knowledge
3c. Loans
Support Mekong delta
workers
1. Beneficiary: poor HHs in poor communes from Mekong
Delta
2. Financing sources:
2a. Local budget
2b. Financial support from VPB
3. Details:
3a. concessional loans to support labor export (max 20 mill
VNd/worker)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Type of support
Loans for job
creation
Component/Project
Description (Beneficiaries, support details, approach)
Support Mekong Delta
1. Beneficiary: groups of HHs in poor communes from
Mekong Delta
2. Financing sources:
2a. Enterprises
2b. Financial source from VBP
3. Details:
3a. Loans for job generation (max 10 mill VND 0% interest
for 3 years
3b. Support moving to other livelihood activities (grant of
3 mill/HH)
Hỗ trợ tiếp cận giáo dục đã nhận được nhiều sự ủng hộ thông qua 14 dự án và các hợp phần phụ, trong
đó 4 dự án hỗ trợ tiếp cận giáo dục cho đồng bào dân tộc thiểu số. Có sự pha trộn đáng kể các loại hình
hỗ trợ, bao gồm 5 dự án về cơ sở vật chất với 3 dự án tập trung nâng cấp lớp học. Bốn dự án hỗ trợ nâng
cao tiếp cận giáo dục bằng cách miễn giảm học phí hoặc tiếp cận với sách và nơi ăn ở. Đa số kinh phí
đều thông qua ngân sách nhà nước và đóng góp của ngân sách địa phương. Hai dự án không được cấp
kinh phí là Dự án miễn giảm học phí cho học sinh nghèo theo Chương trình mục tiêu quốc gia về giảm
nghèo và Dự án tiếp cận chương trình cử tuyển vào đại học.
Đào tạo nghề và tăng cường tiếp cận việc làm
Một số dự án giảm nghèo đặt trọng tâm lớn vào đào tạo nghề và tạo việc làm với Chương trình mục tiêu
quốc gia về giảm nghèo và Nghị Quyết 30a chiếm tỷ lệ lớn nhất trong tổng khối lượng công việc. Hỗ trợ
học nghề là một trong những can thiệp giảm nghèo khó thực hiện nhất. Hệ thống đào tạo nghề chính
thức của Việt Nam có nhiều yếu kém và do vậy, cũng không có gì khó hiểu khi hệ thống này gặp khó
khăn khi phục vụ người nghèo, mặc dù có nhiều chương trình hỗ trợ và mức độ hỗ trợ cao.
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
125
126
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/Rural
Gender
28.2
71.8
82.6
1.8
2.1
1.5
1.4
2.5
8.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Urban
Rural
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
Disabled
Partially
disabled
Not
disabled
Yes
N/A
47.3
Female
No
52.7
8.5
Viet Nam
Male
<5
96.3
3.7
98.4
1.4
0.2
8.1
2.3
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.7
83.2
71.5
28.5
47.8
52.2
1.7
5
96.8
3.2
98.6
1.2
0.2
8.4
2.5
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
82.4
72.7
27.3
48.0
52.0
1.5
6
1.5
7
97.2
2.8
98.7
1.1
0.2
8.7
2.4
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.8
82.2
74.3
25.7
48.0
52.0
Child population by age
Age
Table 2.1:
97.4
2.6
98.6
1.2
0.2
8.8
2.3
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.8
82.3
74.5
25.5
47.9
52.1
1.7
8
Annex 2:
Additional tables
97.6
2.4
98.6
1.2
0.2
9.1
2.5
1.6
1.3
2.0
1.8
81.8
74.6
25.4
47.9
52.1
1.6
9
97.8
2.2
98.4
1.4
0.2
9.5
2.4
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.1
80.9
76.8
23.2
48.0
52.0
1.5
10
97.9
2.1
98.4
1.4
0.2
8.7
2.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
2.0
82.2
75.5
24.5
47.8
52.2
1.6
11
97.8
2.2
98.2
1.6
0.2
8.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
2.1
1.8
82.3
75.5
24.5
48.0
52.0
1.7
12
97.8
2.2
98.1
1.7
0.3
8.3
1.9
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.0
82.6
75.4
24.6
48.0
52.0
1.9
13
97.7
2.3
98.0
1.7
0.3
7.9
1.7
1.4
1.6
2.2
2.1
83.0
75.8
24.2
48.0
52.0
1.9
14
97.1
2.9
98.1
1.7
0.2
7.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.3
2.1
83.3
75.7
24.3
48.2
51.8
2.1
15
95.9
4.1
98.1
1.7
0.2
7.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.2
2.2
83.6
75.7
24.3
48.1
51.9
2.1
16
94.9
5.1
98.1
1.7
0.2
6.6
1.2
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.2
84.7
73.7
26.3
48.3
51.7
2.1
17
92.2
7.8
90.1
9.3
0.6
5.6
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.9
87.2
68.8
31.2
51.7
48.3
68.8
17+
93.4
6.6
92.1
7.4
0.5
6.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.9
85.8
70.4
29.6
50.5
49.5
100.0
General
73305072
5205648
72340475
5785684
384561
5521036
1085697
1191974
1243911
1530235
1616666
73600054
60415311
25374262
43307024
42482549
85789573
Total (N)
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
127
Region
Urban/rural
Gender
Age
Table 2.2a:
21.3
21.5
R.2Red River Delta
R.3 North and South Central
Coast
R. 6 Mekong River Delta
R. 5Southeast
20.6
15.6
7.2
12.1
R.1Northern Midlands and
Mountains
R.4 Central Highland
71.5
0
14
Rural
0
13
28.5
0
12
Urban
0
11
47.8
0
10
Female
0
9
52.2
0
8
Male
0
7
1469140
0
6
Total
1469140
5
5
20.2
14.3
8.2
23.0
20.3
12.2
74.5
25.5
47.9
52.1
6645736
0
0
0
0
1257209
1353717
1423428
1302865
1308518
0
6 - 10
Viet Nam
19.2
13.2
7.9
25.7
20.1
11.9
75.6
24.4
48.0
52.0
6065100
1598533
1590014
1468681
1407872
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 – 14
22.8
17.6
5.1
22.8
25.2
4.8
67.7
32.3
47.8
52.2
1222114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1222114
5
22.6
16.2
5.9
24.6
24.3
4.5
71.0
29.0
47.9
52.1
5444656
0
0
0
0
1016982
1106936
1170954
1071412
1078372
0
6 - 10
Kinh
21.3
14.7
6.0
27.7
23.9
4.5
72.4
27.6
47.9
52.1
5007860
1327172
1313949
1208885
1157854
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 – 14
0.0
2.6
8.3
1.0
2.6
83.1
87.3
12.7
47.9
52.1
24884
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24884
5
Population Distribution of School Age Groups by Ethnic Background (1)
0.0
3.4
9.0
1.1
2.5
81.2
89.0
11.0
49.0
51.0
122277
0
0
0
0
25869
24285
24926
23891
23307
0
6 - 10
Tay
0.0
2.9
8.1
1.1
2.7
82.5
89.8
10.2
48.6
51.4
121147
34164
32437
27004
27542
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
0.1
0.2
2.6
32.2
0.0
64.9
93.4
6.6
47.7
52.3
28436
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28436
5
0.0
0.2
2.6
32.5
0.0
64.6
94.1
5.9
48.4
51.6
134462
0
0
0
0
26981
27423
27277
26241
26539
0
6 - 10
Thai
0.0
0.2
2.3
36.9
0.0
60.6
94.3
5.7
48.1
51.9
126951
35011
33295
30682
27964
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 – 14
128
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
8 provinces
0.7
0.7
2.1
7.6
1.9
2.5
Ninh Thuan
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
3.7
96.3
No
98.4
1.4
0.2
Yes
Not disabled
Partially disabled
Disabled
82.7
0.8
Dien Bien
Other
0.9
Lao Cai
5
97.4
2.6
98.6
1.2
0.2
83.5
2.5
1.9
6.5
2.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
6 - 10
Viet Nam
97.8
2.2
98.2
1.6
0.2
84.8
2.4
2.0
5.7
2.0
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
11 – 14
96.0
4.0
98.5
1.3
0.2
83.5
2.9
2.3
8.6
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.3
5
97.1
2.9
98.7
1.1
0.2
84.6
2.9
2.3
7.5
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.3
6 - 10
Kinh
97.6
2.4
98.2
1.6
0.2
85.7
2.8
2.4
6.4
1.2
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
11 – 14
98.0
2.0
98.0
1.8
0.2
92.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
6.0
5
98.5
1.5
98.4
1.5
0.2
91.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.1
6.7
6 - 10
Tay
98.8
1.2
98.0
1.8
0.2
92.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.1
6.5
11 - 14
97.2
2.8
97.9
2.0
0.1
87.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
12.2
0.2
5
97.6
2.4
98.1
1.8
0.1
86.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
12.7
0.2
6 - 10
Thai
98.0
2.0
97.7
2.1
0.2
86.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
12.6
0.1
11 – 14
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
129
Region
Urban/rural
Gender
Age
Table 2.2b:
4.7
95.3
62.6
Urban
Rural
R.1Northern Midlands and Mountains
3.7
1.1
0.0
R. 5Southeast
R. 6 Mekong River Delta
25.8
R.4 Central Highland
R.3 North and South Central Coast
6.8
49.0
Female
R.2Red River Delta
51.0
Male
0
14
19,873
0
13
Total
0
12
0
9
0
0
8
11
0
7
0
0
6
10
19,873
5
5
0.0
0.8
3.6
27.9
6.2
61.4
96.0
4.0
48.1
51.9
92,775
0
0
0
0
18,668
17,781
19,467
18,734
18,125
0
6 - 10
Muong
0.1
0.8
3.1
31.7
5.9
58.5
96.2
3.8
48.0
52.0
91,214
25,763
24,367
20,811
20,273
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
95.9
3.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
84.6
15.4
48.9
51.1
20,406
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,406
5
96.2
3.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
85.6
14.4
47.6
52.4
101,469
0
0
0
0
19,219
21,329
22,741
18,500
19,679
0
6 - 10
Khmer
95.3
4.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
84.8
15.2
48.4
51.6
90,756
22,771
23,976
22,811
21,198
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
5
0.0
0.1
3.7
4.0
0.0
92.2
98.6
1.4
48.5
51.5
34,497
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34,497
Population Distribution of School Age Groups by Ethnic Background (2)
0.0
0.1
3.7
4.6
0.0
91.6
98.6
1.4
48.6
51.4
160,219
0
0
0
0
30,559
33,397
32,784
31,307
32,173
0
6 - 10
Mong
0.0
0.1
3.7
4.6
0.0
91.7
98.3
1.7
47.9
52.1
118,437
26,760
29,643
31,036
30,997
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
3.0
10.1
32.5
18.6
2.7
30.6
87.6
12.4
47.7
52.3
118,930
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118,930
5
2.6
10.2
33.7
18.6
2.8
29.5
88.2
11.8
48.3
51.7
589,879
0
0
0
0
118,931
122,565
125,279
112,780
110,323
0
6 - 10
Other
2.5
11.0
31.8
18.2
2.8
30.7
87.8
12.2
48.1
51.9
508,734
126,891
132,347
127,452
122,044
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
130
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
8 provinces
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
Ninh Thuan
Kon Tum
Gia Lai
HCM city
Dong Thap
An Giang
1.2
98.8
No
98.2
1.5
0.3
Yes
Not disabled
Partially disabled
Disabled
98.6
0.0
Dien Bien
Other
0.2
Lao Cai
5
99.2
0.8
98.4
1.5
0.2
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
6 - 10
Muong
99.3
0.7
98.2
1.7
0.2
98.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
11 - 14
97.6
2.4
98.9
1.0
0.1
92.4
6.3
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
98.7
1.3
98.8
1.0
0.2
91.6
7.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6 - 10
Khmer
98.2
1.8
98.7
1.1
0.1
91.4
7.6
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11 - 14
97.8
2.2
98.4
1.5
0.1
69.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
16.1
13.8
5
97.9
2.1
98.4
1.5
0.1
70.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
16.5
12.7
6 - 10
Mong
98.1
1.9
98.4
1.5
0.1
71.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
15.8
12.6
11 - 14
98.0
2.0
98.1
1.7
0.2
70.6
0.3
0.0
4.6
13.1
4.9
2.2
1.0
3.1
5
98.5
1.5
98.2
1.7
0.2
70.4
0.3
0.0
4.7
13.1
5.0
2.5
1.0
3.0
6 - 10
Other
98.5
1.5
97.9
1.8
0.2
72.5
0.3
0.0
4.9
11.2
4.5
2.5
0.9
3.2
11 - 14
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
131
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban /
rural
Gender
Age
83.2
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.4
2.3
8.1
Kinh
Tay
Thai
Muong
Khmer
Mong
Other
No
Yes
Not disabled
96.3
3.7
98.4
1.4
71.5
Rural
Partially disabled
28.5
Urban
0.2
47.8
Female
Disabled
52.2
0
14
Male
0
13
1469140
0
12
0
9
0
0
8
11
0
7
0
0
6
10
1469140
5
5
97.4
2.6
98.6
1.2
0.2
8.9
2.4
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
81.9
74.5
25.5
47.9
52.1
6645736
0
0
0
0
1257209
1353717
1423428
1302865
1308518
0
6 - 10
Viet Nam
97.8
2.2
98.2
1.6
0.2
8.4
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.0
82.6
75.6
24.4
48.0
52.0
6065100
1598533
1590014
1468681
1407872
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
97.9
2.1
98.4
1.3
0.3
27.1
34.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
10.8
27.0
82.6
17.4
46.4
53.6
13779
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13779
5
98.6
1.4
98.3
1.7
0.1
28.2
33.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
13.3
25.0
84.6
15.4
48.7
51.3
61877
0
0
0
0
12102
12596
12945
12083
12151
0
6 – 10
Lao Cai
Population distribution by province (1)
Total
Table 2.3:
1.2
98.8
97.6
2.4
98.8
1.1
2.2
97.6
0.1
10.4
46.2
0.0
0.0
28.8
0.3
14.3
88.9
11.1
46.9
53.1
12015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12015
5
0.2
30.2
28.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
14.8
26.6
84.2
15.8
48.2
51.8
53188
13577
13787
12649
13175
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 – 14
98.1
1.9
98.2
1.6
0.2
10.7
47.3
0.0
0.1
30.6
0.2
11.1
90.3
9.7
48.6
51.4
55861
0
0
0
0
10755
11664
11799
10434
11210
0
6 - 10
Dien Bien
98.4
1.6
98.2
1.7
0.1
10.5
41.4
0.0
0.1
35.4
0.2
12.4
89.1
10.9
47.3
52.7
45178
10956
11457
11579
11185
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
98.1
1.9
98.1
1.5
0.4
23.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.2
65.4
34.6
48.5
51.5
10846
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10846
5
98.9
1.1
98.6
1.2
0.2
26.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.6
68.0
32.0
47.8
52.2
55241
0
0
0
0
11008
11105
12017
10510
10601
0
6 - 10
Ninh Thuan
98.8
1.2
98.1
1.6
0.2
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.7
67.5
32.5
47.8
52.2
53101
14081
13701
12771
12549
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
95.9
4.1
97.9
1.7
0.4
56.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
41.0
68.6
31.4
47.7
52.3
10243
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10243
5
96.8
3.2
98.1
1.6
0.3
60.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
37.5
71.5
28.5
47.7
52.3
48800
0
0
0
0
9230
9745
10720
9155
9950
0
6 - 10
Kon Tum
97.3
2.7
97.9
1.9
0.2
56.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.6
0.8
41.1
69.0
31.0
47.9
52.1
40201
10443
10253
9948
9557
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
132
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Migrated
Disability
Ethnicity
Urban/rural
Gender
Age
Table 2.3b:
Partially disabled
1.5
3.2
96.8
No
98.3
Yes
Not disabled
0.2
50.9
Other
Disabled
0.0
0.3
Khmer
Mong
0.3
0.1
Thai
Muong
0.8
25.9
Urban
Tay
47.7
Female
74.1
52.3
47.6
30717
Total
Male
Rural
147725
0
14
Kinh
0
0
13
97.6
2.4
98.6
1.1
0.2
52.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.8
46.1
76.4
23.6
48.0
52.0
0
0
0
0
28093
31354
0
0
9
31681
12
0
8
28132
28465
11
0
7
0
0
6
0
6 - 10
10
30717
5
5
Gia Lai
97.6
2.4
98.6
1.1
0.3
47.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.8
51.2
73.6
26.4
48.0
52.0
120025
28927
31728
29912
29457
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
Population distribution by province (2)
86.6
13.4
98.2
1.7
0.1
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
94.7
20.7
79.3
48.2
51.8
111143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111143
5
88.4
11.6
98.4
1.4
0.1
6.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
93.4
18.7
81.3
47.7
52.3
434627
0
0
0
0
69052
88115
94241
86933
96286
0
6 - 10
HCMC
88.8
11.2
97.4
2.5
0.2
7.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
92.4
18.8
81.2
47.7
52.3
346200
88541
88989
85198
83473
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
97.9
2.1
98.7
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.8
83.1
16.9
47.7
52.3
28032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28032
5
98.8
1.2
99.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
84.0
16.0
48.2
51.8
127939
0
0
0
0
22465
27184
28877
24498
24916
0
6 - 10
Dong Thap
99.0
1.0
98.7
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
84.5
15.5
47.4
52.6
118848
29368
31228
30134
28119
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
98.6
1.4
99.3
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.6
72.8
27.2
47.9
52.1
36879
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36879
5
98.5
1.5
99.3
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
94.3
73.3
26.7
48.1
51.9
165563
0
0
0
0
29645
34310
36883
33466
31257
0
6 - 10
An Giang
98.9
1.1
99.1
0.7
0.2
1.1
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
94.2
73.7
26.3
48.5
51.5
148124
35737
38554
38252
35581
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 - 14
Table 2.4:
Age
Population of children aged 5
Total
Male
Female
1469140
766312
702828
Urban
418530
219903
198627
Rural
1050610
546409
504201
Kinh
1222103
637978
584126
Tay
24884
12968
11916
Thai
28436
14863
13573
Muong
19873
10126
9747
Khmer
20405
10427
9979
Mong
34497
17770
16727
Other
118942
62180
56762
2424
1410
1014
20352
10853
9499
1446365
754049
692315
Yes
54527
28358
26169
No
1414613
737954
676659
5
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Disabled
Partially disabled
Not disabled
Migrated
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
133
Table 2.5:
Population of children aged 6-10
Total
Male
Female
6
1308518
680403
628115
7
1302865
677104
625761
8
1423428
742083
681345
9
1353717
705344
648373
10
1257209
654310
602899
Total
6645736
3459244
3186492
Urban
1692883
886529
806354
Rural
4952854
2572716
2380138
Kinh
5444656
2838680
2605976
Tay
122277
62354
59923
Thai
134462
69364
65098
Muong
92775
48175
44600
Khmer
101469
53158
48311
Mong
160219
82394
77825
Other
589879
305120
284758
Disabled
12517
7208
5309
Partially disabled
81268
45872
35396
6551951
3406165
3145786
Yes
175939
92635
83304
No
6469797
3366609
3103188
Age
Urban/rural
Disability
Not disabled
Migrated
134
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
Table 2.6:
Population of children aged 11-14
Total
Male
Female
11
1407872
735505
672368
12
1468681
763253
705427
13
1590014
827588
762425
14
1598533
830530
768002
Total
6065100
3156877
2908223
Urban
1482577
772977
709599
Rural
4582523
2383900
2198623
Kinh
5007860
2608675
2399184
Tay
121147
62277
58870
Thai
126951
65865
61086
Muong
91214
47438
43776
Khmer
90756
46800
43956
Mong
118437
61719
56718
Other
508734
264103
244632
Disabled
14225
8065
6160
Partially disabled
96336
51496
44840
5954539
3097316
2857222
Yes
134201
70708
63493
No
5930899
3086169
2844730
Age
Urban/rural
Ethnicity
Disability
Not disabled
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN
VIET NAM COUNTRY STUDY
135
Bộ giáo dục và đào tạo
Địa chỉ: 49 Đại Cồ Việt,
Hai Bà Trưng, Hà Nội
Tel: +84.4. 3.869.5144
E-mail: bogddt@moet.edu.vn
Web: www.moet.gov.vn
www.edu.net.vn
Địa chỉ: 81A Trần Quốc Toản
Hoàn Kiếm, Hà Nội
Tel: +84.4. 3.942.5706 - 11
Web: www.unicef.org/vietnam
Follow us:
• www.facebook.com/unicefvietnam
• www.youtube.com/unicefvietnam