Addressing the exclusion of adolescents in upper secondary education:
A concept note to build on the Global Out-of-School Children Initiative (OOSCI)
July 2011
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics’ Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children
(OOSCI) introduces a new model for analysing the problem of OOSC through “Five
Dimensions of Exclusion (5DE)” (see Figure 1) that capture excluded children from preprimary to lower secondary school age and across a wide range and multiple layers of
disparities and various degrees of exposure to education. Across all of the Five
Dimensions, the analysis developed in each country will consider more systematic
linkages between three main components: Profiles of excluded children, barriers and
bottlenecks that explain the causes of this exclusion, and policies and strategies that
can address exclusion in education and beyond.
FIGURE 1: FIVE DIMENSIONS OF EXCLUSION (5DE)
Not in preprimary school
Pre-primary
age children
Dimension 3
Dimension 2
Dimension 1
Attended
but
dropped
out
Will never
enter
Will enter
late
Primary age children
Attended
but
dropped
out
Will never
enter
Will enter
late
Lower secondary age children
Dimension 4
Dimension 5
At risk of
dropping out of
primary school
At risk of dropping
out of lower
secondary school
Primary school students
Out of
school
In
school
Lower secondary school students
Source: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (CMF) of the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children, UNICEF and
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, March 16, 2011.
The purpose of this concept note is to define an approach to address the phenomenon
of exclusion at a very specific level of the education system: upper secondary
education. To do this, the proposed research will build on the existing Conceptual and
Methodological Framework (CMF) of the OOSCI, complementing the originally
proposed analysis with the case of adolescents of upper secondary school age who are
not in school and those under-18 in upper secondary schools (or post lower secondary
educational establishments) who are at risk of dropping out, not graduating, or not
acquiring the knowledge and skills they need to be effective workers and citizens as
adults and to continue their learning paths in case they choose to do so.
1. RATIONALE: Developing a framework for addressing upper-secondary school age
that is in line with the OOSCI
Addressing the exclusion of upper-secondary age adolescents who are not in school is
based primarily on the right of adolescents in this age group to development,
specifically formal education, as well as the right to participation more generally.
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
Economic considerations are also of importance for this age group, given their relative
proximity to the labor market, and will be discussed in more detail in the sub-section
that follows regarding ‘special considerations in the analysis of the 15-17 age group’.
Given that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - which legally binds states
parties to fulfill the rights of individuals under the age of 18 - states that an adolescent
at age 17 has the same right to education as a six year-old child, UNICEF underlines the
need for a more comprehensive approach that builds on the OOSCI framework to
include the upper-secondary age (15-17)1 subset of rights-holders whose right to
education is not being fulfilled. While Article 28 of the CRC does not place the same
responsibility on states parties to provide education that is free and compulsory
beyond the primary school level, it does nonetheless establish the state’s responsibility
to create the conditions that allow all people under the age of 18 to fulfill their right to
education, whether they are legally obligated to attend or not. In other words, the
legal possibility of an adolescent of age 17 to choose to not attend school, for example
if he or she chooses to work full time, does not relieve the duty bearer from ensuring
that quality, equitable, and inclusive educational opportunities exist for this
adolescent.
UNICEF2 has stated that “positive adolescent development is achieved through access
to quality education, health services, reliable information, a suitable justice system
that respects their rights, and a safe, protective and stimulating environment. The key
to this is to develop their skills and abilities, and provide them with opportunities to
participate and express their opinions; in other words, to live in full exercise of their
rights.” From an education point of view, exclusion effectively refers to the exclusion
of certain students who are not only deprived of essential learning, but more
importantly, of the opportunities that are necessary to allow learning to take place.3 In
order to truly fulfill the rights of adolescents to education, therefore, the opportunities
provided must not only include the academic content necessary to meet learning
requirements, but also inclusive processes that do not exclude adolescents in a way
that inhibits their ability to learn. Depending on the context, this exclusion can be
either directed at groups of students (girls, indigenous, poor students) or at
adolescents in general, when pre-existing biases of school management or teachers
toward this age group result in generally exclusionary practices. In synthesis, education
exclusion includes the deprival or denial of rights that all adolescents or young people
have – for the simple fact of being an adolescent or young person – to an education.
Special considerations in analysis of the 15-17 age group
The proposed approach to address adolescent exclusion is based on certain basic
assumptions set out in several international instruments4 for studying this age group
that will guide the proposed analysis (both quantitative and qualitative):
1
The respective age ranges vary according to national definitions. For international comparisons it is recommended to refer to the
International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO 2006). ISCED classifies education programmes according to their
curriculum content by level and field of study.
2 UNICEF. The Missing Generation. A Literature Review and Situational Analysis of Adolescents (10-14) in the Caribbean
Community. UNICEF, Panama, 2008.
3 Escudero, Juan Manuel et al., 2009, page 48.
4 Web Page http://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/17041.htm.
2
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011

Adolescence is characterized as being a period of change and of great
vulnerability and therefore, support and assistance from family, educational
and community networks are required.

As this is a developmental stage, adolescence provides an opportunity for
positive influence and to lay the foundations for fair, supportive, democratic
and productive societies.

Young people are legally capable of demanding their rights as well as
contributing to their own development and to that of society.

A common demand made by adolescents and young people is real and
effective participation in processes that involve them.

Young people are aware of their own needs and priorities; accordingly, they
should participate actively in decision-making spaces and at different stages
in the elaboration of public policy, when appropriate.

The well-being of adolescents closely depends on their relationship with their
family, educational and community environments. They are eager for
recognition, guidance and support from their parents and/or tutors.

Adolescents need to develop their self-esteem, self-awareness and a sense of
belonging.
In addition to fulfilling the rights to development and participation, inclusion in upper
secondary also constitutes essential preparation for students to continue on to higher
or tertiary studies or to enter the labor market, features which separate this age group
from younger age groups. Adolescents between the ages of 15 and 17 are legally
permitted to enter the workforce in most countries, and so the proximity of the labor
market in general is a more salient consideration for discussion of upper secondary
exclusion. The possibility to work full time can be seen as an ‘opportunity cost’ of
attending upper secondary (the cost of deferring work in the 15-17 year age group) or
as an investment in future labor market returns (the increased earnings that a 15-17
year-old could hope to receive after having completed upper secondary as opposed to
the expected returns of not receiving this level of education). Yet in many cases where
the labor market is particularly exclusive, families and adolescents from poorer
households or indigenous households may value upper-secondary education less than
their peers from wealthier families because they do not feel that achieving a higher
level of education would raise the ‘returns to education’ that they will realize as adults.
In this sense, discrimination in the labor market can be in part the result of exclusion in
the school system, but may also contribute to unequal education attainment.5
In addition, for households located in areas where the labor market presents mostly
informal opportunities, or limited sectors of employment, such as many rural areas,
the value families and adolescents place on education can be limited by the easily
observable career possibilities. Estimated returns to secondary education are high in
most countries – for example, a worker who has completed secondary school in
Mexico earns 33% more than a worker who has only finished basic education (32 pesos
per hour as compared with just 24, as shown in the table below).
5
Marshall, Jeffery H. and Valentina Calderón, ‘Social Exclusion in Education in Latin America and the Caribbean,’Inter-American
Development Bank, Sustainable Devleopment Department Technical Papers Series, 2006.
3
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
Hourly w age of w orkers betw een the ages of 25 and 64 in Mexico,
by level of schooling, age group and sex (2007).
Pesos per hour w orked.
Age group
Education level
Without basic
25-44
45-64
Men
Wom en
18
17
Basic (prim ary and low er secondary)
22
23
Upper secondary
30
30
Post-secondary
53
49
*
*
25-64
Men
Wom en
19
18
*
28
33
*
39
43
72
64
*
Men
Wom en
Total
19
17
*
18
23
25
*
24
32
32
59
52
32
*
All levels
27
29
33
32
29
29
* Differences between men and women statistically significant and the 95% level
Source: INEE, estimaciones a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo, 2° trimestre de 2007, INEGI.
56
29
Despite the higher income correlated with completion of upper secondary schooling,
perceived returns may be lower due to imperfect knowledge about income and
opportunities, thus lowering the value an adolescent places on additional years of
upper-secondary schooling. Research using survey data for eighth-grade boys (last year
of compulsory schooling) in the Dominican Republic found that “the perceived returns
to secondary school are extremely low, despite high measured returns.” Through an
experimental intervention, Jensen´s research went on to show that students at
randomly selected schools given information on the higher measured returns
completed on average 0.20–0.35 more years of school over the next four years than
those who were not.6
In line with the OOSCI CMF, the proposed analysis will attempt to develop “profiles” of
adolescents of upper secondary school age who are not in school and explore the
inter-relationship between these profiles and the diverse factors of exclusion (“barriers
and bottlenecks”) in order to recommend public “policies and strategies” that reduce
the exclusion of this important group that has often been left behind in analyses of
educational exclusion in the past.
2. COUNTRIES
The analysis will be carried out in 4 middle income countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico,
and Turkey) as the problem of excluded adolescents is more relevant in these
countries in light of their relatively well advanced status on basic education.
Nonetheless the framework and tools can be adapted for use in any country where the
issue of exclusion in upper secondary is of particular interest. The four selected
countries are middle income countries that face similar constraints to guaranteeing the
right of all adolescents to quality education. Adolescents in countries such as Mexico
also face a complex web of pull factors, such as migration, urbanization, a strong illicit
economy as well as persistent inequalities, which combine with educational system
constraints and uneven quality of educational supply to result in widespread exclusion
from education at the upper secondary level.
6
Source: Jensen, R. (2010). ‘The (Perceived) Returns to Education and the Demand for Schooling’. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 125 (2): 515-548.
4
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
In a country such as Mexico, for example, high primary attendance (98%)7 and high
public expenditure on education (both in terms of spending per child and per cent of
GDP) are contrasted with persistently low results in terms of quality across the
educational system, as seen in the recent PISA exam results, among other indicators.
This creates a cycle of exclusion, where large numbers of students are ‘at risk’
(Dimension 5) of dropping out of lower secondary education as they are increasingly
kept behind to repeat grades - nearly 24% of 7th graders are in this category.8 At the
upper secondary level, though many of the children previously ‘at risk’ for drop out will
have already exited the formal education system, the number of adolescents severely
behind remains a concern. Among young people between the ages of 15 and 17, 7%
are several years older than their standard grade level, with states such as Chiapas,
Guererro and Oaxaca having the greatest age-grade disparities, 14.7%, 13.4% and
13.1% respectively.9
The country has made substantial progress in terms of primary coverage, but issues of
quality, relevance, participation and ethnic inclusion need to be addressed in order to
maintain high coverage later in the educational cycle and better prepare future citizens
and working adults. At the upper secondary level, the number of adolescents notin
school (which can be conceptually seen as an extension of Dimension 3, despite the
acknowledged difference that this level of education is not necessarily defined as
compulsory in a legal sense) remains high, with 60.9% of 16 to 18 year-olds out of
school. However among indigenous groups, the poor and in rural areas, the
percentage of out-of-school adolescents is even higher, showing greater disparities in
this age group than at other levels. In 2008, although basic education attendance was
high among children between the ages of 5 and 14 identified as poor (94.6% of poor
children as compared to 97.7% of non-poor children), only 25.4% of young people 15
and older attended school, whereas attendance among non-poor children reached
35.5%, a difference of 10 percentage points.10 In addition, only 18.9% of adolescents
(ages 12-18) living in extreme poverty attend school, which drops to 18.1% when
limited to rural areas, where indigenous groups are concentrated. This is consistent
with data for Latin America that indicate that the de-schooling of adolescents from the
lower social strata begins at 13 years, while those located in higher strata commence
their separation from school at 17 years.11
Other countries, to be filled in by Brazil. Indonesia, Turkey
3. METHODOLOGY
The proposed methodology for this study is a combination of qualitative and
quantitative approaches following and building on the CMF in the area of profiles,
barriers/bottlenecks and policies/strategies. However, because of the different legal
and institutional status of upper secondary education, the analysis on profiles will not
7
INEGI, ENIGH 2008.
Percentage of students behind grade level (rezago en secundaria básica); own calculations based on UIS data (provided by TACRO
OOSCI consultants).
9 INEE, 2008.
10 UNICEF based on INEGI, ENIGH 2008.
11OEI. La Escuela y los Adolescentes. Informe sobre Tendencias Sociales y Educativas 2008. La escuela y los adolescentes (SITEAL)
OEI-UNESCO-IIEP, Buenos Aires, 2008, page 24.
8
5
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
represent an extension of the 5 Dimensions of Exclusion model, but rather an
adaptation of the concepts and tools presented in the 5DE to ensure coherent
terminology and conceptual clarity. Though governments in many countries have tried
to remove barriers to secondary education and, since the end of the 1980s, many have
made lower secondary compulsory, upper secondary education is not considered
compulsory by law and includes adolescents of a legal working age. As a result, the
education supply and participation are fragmented and difficult to monitor at the
upper secondary level, and therefore limit analysis of exclusion of adolescents in this
age group. While not legally compulsory, upper secondary education must be made
accessible and equitable by states parties as duty bearers to adolescents under 18
according to the CRC, and yet in many cases information regarding their actions
toward fulfilling this obligation are more disperse than at lower levels of education.
The proposed research will accordingly attempt to bring together the fragmented
information on this area of exclusion to provide a complete picture of the efforts and
advances on behalf of states parties to fulfill their obligation with respect to upper
secondary education as defined by the CRC.
3.1. PROFILES
Nonetheless, the present research module provides data tables from the CMF that
have been adapted to the upper secondary level to guide the process of collecting and
harmonizing data on this group of adolescents. The analysis of exclusion in upper
secondary education considers both those who are not in school and those at risk of
dropping out (or not graduating), conceptually linked to the dimensions of ‘out of
school’ and ‘at risk’ of the 5 Dimensions of Exclusion. The present research module
gives however more particular attention to the multiple forms of exclusion in relation
to transition rates, learning and completion. These forms are categorized as follows:
enrolment and process exclusion - linked to 15 to 17 year-old adolescents who are
not in school as well as
learning and results exclusion, which describe those at risk of dropping out, not
graduating or not achieving the minimum expected levels of achievement.
Across all levels of exclusion, the ability to disaggregate the information to provide the
most detailed profile possible will be key to the analysis of education exclusion.
In addition, to complement this analytical description of profiles that uses adapted
tools outlined in the CMF, an econometric analysis will be undertaken that assigns a
probability of being out-of-school given different combinations of profile
characteristics, in an attempt to quantify which characteristics are most strongly linked
to exclusion. This approach will strengthen the disparity analysis and guide the
selection of sites for the quantitative analysis. As in all the 5DE in the CMF, analysis of
‘profiles’ will be strongly supported by a combination of administrative data from the
education system, as well as household survey data..
Four forms of exclusion
The following levels of education exclusion in upper secondary education are proposed
to be quantified in the definition of profiles:
6
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
Enrollment exclusion. This is the first logical extension12 of Dimension 3 to
adolescents of upper secondary school age who are not in school, in particular
those who ‘never entered’ upper secondary, and is calculated using the Table 1
School Attendance of Population of Upper Secondary Age and Table 4
Educational Attainment of Population of Upper Secondary Age Not in School
(the quantification of ‘attended but dropped out’ will be quantified separately).
Process exclusion. This is the extension of Dimension 3 to those adolescents of
upper secondary school age who are not in school, specifically defined as the
subset of the adolescent population who attended but did not complete upper
secondary education. This includes those who: i) after enrolling in the first year
of upper secondary school, were not able to continue on to second year or,
those who went on to the second year were not able to continue to the third
year; and, ii) those who have enrolled in the first year and even continued on to
the second or third year, were obliged –for whatever reason– to leave the
education system. Table 4 Educational Attainment of Population of Upper
Secondary Age Not in School will guide the identification of the upper
secondary age adolescents who are not in school. A specific sub-category of
‘attended but no longer attending’that is of particular interest to this age group
is the adolescent population that has completed primary school and lower
secondary (basic compulsory education) and is of the age to enroll in upper
secondary but have not (yet) done so. FOR THIS WE NEED TO DEFINE A
TRANSITION RATE FROM LOWER TO UPPER SECONDARY
Learning exclusion. This is an additional extension of Dimension 5 that refers to
the group of young people who are ‘at risk’ of dropping out of upper secondary
education because they are behind grade level,13 as outlined in Table 3
Educational Attainment of Population of Upper Secondary Age in School.
Wherever possible these calculations should be disaggregated by school
modality, as in many countries the upper secondary system is fragmented into
different types of schools that have different standards, funding and other
inputs (in Mexico these include tele-correspondence schools, private schools,
vocational schools, technical schools etc). In addition, the table calculations
should be complemented by analysis of specific national standards and
academic results of testing carried out in many countries, also broken down by
school modality. Standards set by international agencies (OECD-UNESCO) will
also be considered as applicable.
Results exclusion. This is an additional dimension of analysis proposed for the
upper secondary population, who after having finished two (2) years of upper
secondary school – even after having passed all legal requirements for
completion – has not achieved the level of knowledge, skills and competencies
12
There are key differences with the 5 DE in the calculations of these forms. So while they are considered as extensions of
Dimensions 3 and 5, this extension is more of a conceptual nature.
13
In Mexico there are two possible definitions that could be used to define behind grade level, depending on their comparability
to other countries. These include: a) ‘students above age for grade level’, defined as number of children enrolled in a grade level
for which their age exceeds two or more years the normative age level for that year of schooling; or b) ‘students behind grade
level (moderate)’ defined as those who are one year behind the corresponding grade level for their age
7
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
expected of a student at this level; and which are set out in regulations, plans
and programs that guide secondary schooling in each country.
Table 1: School attendance of population of upper secondary age (%)
Pre-primary Primary
Lower
Upper
(ISCED 0)
(ISCED 1)
secondary
secondary
(ISCED 2)
(ISCED 3)
Total
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Male
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Female
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Postsecondary,
non-tertiary
(ISCED 4)
Tertiary
(ISCED 5, 6)
Total
8
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
THIS TABLE
MODALITY
SHOULD
ALSO
BE
BROKEN
Table 2: Educational attainment of population of upper secondary age (%)
No formal
Pre-primary Incomplete Primary
schooling
(ISCED 0)
primary
(ISCED 1)
DOWN
Incomplete
lower
secondary
Lower
secondary
(ISCED 2)
BY
UPPER
Incomplete
upper
secondary
SECONDARY
Upper
secondary
(ISCED 3)
More than
upper
secondary
Total
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Male
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Female
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
THIS TABLE SHOULD ALSO BE BROKEN DOWN BY SCHOOL MODALITY IN UPPER
SECONDARY
9
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
Table 3: Educational attainment of population of upper secondary age in school (%)
Pre-primary Incomplete Primary
Incomplete Lower
(ISCED 0)
primary
(ISCED 1)
lower
secondary
secondary
(ISCED 2)
Total
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Male
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Female
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Incomplete
upper
secondary
Upper
secondary
(ISCED 3)
More than
upper
secondary
THIS TABLE SHOULD ALSO BE BROKEN DOWN BY SCHOOL MODALITY IN UPPER
SECONDARY
10
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
Table 4: Educational attainment of population of upper secondary age not in school (%)
No formal
Pre-primary Incomplete Primary
Incomplete
schooling
(ISCED 0)
primary
(ISCED 1)
lower
secondary
Total
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Male
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Female
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
Urban
Rural
Poorest quintile
Second quintile
Middle quintile
Fourth quintile
Richest quintile
Lower
secondary
(ISCED 2)
Incomplete
upper
secondary
Upper
secondary
(ISCED 3)
More than
upper
secondary
Tables for analysis of data on upper secondary education.
Note: The example assumes that upper secondary age is 14-17 year. The ages in the table must be adjusted according to ISCED.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 21 April 2011
Econometric methodology
In addition to the above analysis of exclusion forms, the methodology proposes an
econometric analysis that assigns a probability of not being in school given different
combinations of profile characteristics, in an attempt to quantify which characteristics
are most strongly linked to exclusion. The proposed tool is logit14 model for
adolescents between the ages of 15 and 1715, that is based on the following general
logistic function:
=
Where the dependent variable pi is dichotomous with a value of 1 if the adolescent is
not attending any level of schooling and 0 in any other case. The model above shows
that the probability of an adolescent i not being in school as a function of the
14
In reality, a Probit probability model could also be used since both (Probit and Logit) work with dichotomous dependent
variables. In general, both models are accepted and the one that provides the most suitable (or “cleaner”) result to whatever one
is trying to prove is kept. We suggest the Logit model in this paper because it has been used more widely in the literature on dropout and determiners of education level, but if appropriate, it could be exchanged for a Probit model, keeping the same dependent
and independent variables.
15 Specific age groups can be defined at the country level in line with the normative age of upper secondary students according to
ISCED..
11
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
demographic and economic characteristics of the individual and the members of his or
her household, controlling the model with existing educational resources.
The independent variables are grouped into the following categories, usually drawn
from household standard-of-living surveys:

Demographic characteristics of adolescent
Gender. Value 0 = male and 1 = female.
Age. Natural logarithm of age in years.16
Marital status. 0 = single, 1 = married or partnered.17
Indigenous. 0 = does not speak an indigenouslanguage, 1 = speaks an indigenous
language.
 Demographic characteristics of the adolescent’s household
Level of education of head of household. Since accurate parental relationships cannot
always be established by household survey instruments (i.e. who is the child of whom),
this variable contains the number of years of education of the head of the household
instead of that of the adolescent’s father or mother.
Gender of the head of the household. 0 if he is male, 1 if she is female.
Siblings. Number of members of the household that are younger than the adolescent
i.18

Economic characteristics of the adolescent and his or her household
Income. Natural logarithm of net household income per capita. Given available,
comparable data in the participating countries, this could also be defined as net
income (including transfers, remittances etc) or as expenditure.
Employment. 0 = if the adolescent does not work, 1 = works.19
Residence. 0 = if the adolescent resides in an urban location or town with 15,000 or
more inhabitants, 1 = if the adolescent resides in a rural location or town with less than
15,000 inhabitants.20
Due to the fact that the estimated probability of an adolescent i not being in school
gives a specific value depending on the value of other variables, it is suggested that the
16
We propose including log age in order to prevent the variation in age from distorting the impact of age on the model, which is a
convention used in these types of models.
17
This variable may be closely correlated with age and sex, and therefore its inclusion should be considered based on preliminary
results.
18
There are studies that use total number of siblings (instead of those younger than the adolescent) but the majority of the
studies consulted yielded significant results with younger siblings because it is assumed that parents favor the education of
younger siblings over that of older ones. However, when it is time to run the model, we could test it using both variables and leave
whichever turns out more significant. See: Sarmistha Pal, ‘Child Schooling in Peru: Evidence from a Sequential Analysis of School
Progression’, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 657-680; Claudia Buchmann and Emily Hannum,
‘Education and Stratification in Developing Countries: A Review of Theories and Research’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27
(2001), pp. 77-102; Kelly Bedard, ‘Human Capital versus Signaling Models: University Access and High School Dropouts’, The
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, No. 4 (Aug., 2001), pp. 749-775; Jay D. Teachman, Kathleen Paasch, Karen Carver, ‘Social
Capital and Dropping Out of School Early’, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Aug., 1996), pp. 773-783; Zvi Eckstein
and Kenneth I. Wolpin, ‘Why Youths Drop Out of High School: The Impact of Preferences, Opportunities, and Abilities’,
Econometrica, Vol. 67, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp. 1295-1339.
19 Definition of work (in terms of number of hours, inclusion of household chores etc.) will depend on survey specifications. As in
marital status, its endogeneity to school attendance will have to be tested and its inclusion assessed as a result.
20 Sample definition of urban/rural used in Mexico, but should be adapted given in-country definitions.
12
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
resulting coefficients be changed to , or in other words, to a ratio of
,
which represents the ratio of the estimated probability of dropping out of school in
relation to an increase in the independent variable by one unit. In other words, if the
ratio is equal to 1, the probability does not increase when the independent variable is
increased by one; if it is greater than 1 then the probability of not being in school
increases when the independent variable is increased by one; and if it is less than 1,
the probability decreases when the independent variable is increased by one. In this
way, the ratio expressed by the resulting coefficient is independent of the values of
other variables and to a certain extent, ‘standardized’ in order to facilitate
comparisons between the coefficients.21 Any other way, interpreting the estimators
becomes complex and inconsistent according to the independent variables and the
only relevant figure would be the coefficient sign.
There is the possibility that some of these variables may not prove significant between
the four countries in the comparative study (i.e. the indigenous variable); as a result,
this model only represents a standard to be followed, which may be modified
according to the characteristics of each country.
3.2. BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS
The analysis of barriers and bottlenecks to inclusion in upper secondary education will
follow the structure of the CMF (demand side socio-cultural barriers, demand side
economic barriers, supply side barriers and political, governance, capacity and financial
bottlenecks), highlighting specific research questions within two types of barriers that
accentuate relevant considerations of the 15-17 age group and its unique experience
of school inclusion/exclusion. In particular, the qualitative research component will
assess the value adolescents and families place on upper secondary education in
relation to their proximity to the labor market, as well as supply side factors
concerning how teachers and schools regard and include adolescents in general.
For the qualitative component of the analysis, comparable guided focus group sessions
will allow the adolescents and their families to have a voice in explaining the exclusion
they may experience as well as possible policies to promote their inclusion. This
analysis intends to answer the questions regarding demand-side socio economic
barriers laid out in the global OOSCI Conceptual and Methodological Framework (CMF)
regarding the emotional experiences of adolescents, the socio-cultural practices that
impact on their education experience, violence in the home and community and value
placed on the educational process in the home and community. In addition, the focus
group discussions will consider questions related to supply side barriers such as type
of upper secondary modality available, school and classroom management and
pedagogy that correspond to the modality and school safety, which aim to assess the
emotional experience of adolescents in school and the possible role of discriminatory
attitudes of society towards adolescents in general that may lead to their exclusion.
(a)A special case of demand side socio-cultural barriers for adolescents: Family-level
The problem of education inequality is reflective of social exclusion in general. In this
sense, there is less of a causal and linear relation between the level of economic
21
Rumberger, Russell (1995), Dropping Out of Middle School: a Multilevel Analysis of Students and Schools, UCSB, pp.599 – 603.
Marginal effects could also be considered, but can be difficult to interpret given that their value changes depending on where in
the distribution they are calculated.
13
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
development of families and the school results of young people but rather a persistent
cycle of exclusion. In essence, when parents fail to establish positive relationships with
their children and lack the tools to understand, listen and process conflict with
adolescents, the likelihood of education exclusion increases. An even greater
determining factor of exclusion among adolescents and young people is the way in
which parents are able to relate to the school institution, in particular, the value they
assign education compared with access to labor markets and other options. When
families do not value that their children remain in secondary school, it becomes
acceptable for them to leave. Parents even encourage this decision so that their
children might search for employment in order to supplement family income. In this
sense, the value the family and or the adolescent him/herself places on education with
respect to current and future opportunities in the labor market is important to explore
as a possible barrier to upper secondary education.
(b) Of special consideration for adolescents: Supply side barriers
Analyzing the differences that exist between all the variables related to educational
processes (conditions, materials, content, flexibility of the curriculum, learning
processes and times, etc.) according to the mode of teaching in schools, based on the
differences between institutions situated in rural versus urban environments, or
considering modalities aimed at specific populations, such as migrants and the
indigenous, will allow the identification of factors that have a greater or lesser effect
on the processes of exclusion among adolescents and young people. The implications
of these structural exclusion phenomena are twofold: an adolescent may feel excluded
within the school environment, while at the same time consider that access to
education would not improve employment options due to persistent social barriers. In
this case, both reasons for questioning the value of education feed into one another.
From a school perspective, it is possible to see that the complex relationships that
form between young people and other actors in school –especially teachers and the
authorities– have an enormous impact on the process of education exclusion. One
situation that demands attention is the degree to which teachers are limited by their
comprehension and understanding of the characteristics inherent to this age group,
their lack of tools for deciphering their discourse, their acceptance of their identities
and above all, their ability to encourage their energy and vitality. In other words, to
identify the extent to which schools –institutions that strongly subscribe to an adultcentric viewpoint– are unable to relate positively or productively to adolescents and
young people.
In this same sense, it is necessary to identify how the reproduction of stereotypes
regarding youth culture result in highly discriminatory practices based on behavior,
discipline, appearance, dress and gender, amongst other aspects of school life. In this
way, upper secondary school becomes a breeder of dynamics, relationships and
practices which both describe and explain situations of education exclusion among
adolescents and young people.
Drawing on the guidelines presented in the CMF (Annex 5) and subsequent
presentations on qualitative research methods, this analysis seeks to explain why the
phenomenon of education exclusion occurs, under what conditions and why there are
correlations between the different forms of exclusion. The proposal is to use a
14
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
qualitative sample of communities corresponding to excluded and included
adolescents to be defined based on the results of the profile analysis.22
Techniques for the collection of information must keep in mind the scope of the study,
in particular as related to school supply:
 Curriculum: in particular the perceived relevance of the learning to future
employment opportunities.
 School culture and climate: participation, respect and relationships between
actors, particularly where these factors differ across upper secondary school
modalities.
 School discrimination: based on age, language, ethnicity, culture and religion
 School violence: gender, among students and/or adults.
In addition, information related to demand-side socio-cultural barriers should also be
explored by the interviews and focus groups, such as:23
 Cultural capital of the families of excluded adolescents and young people.
 Emotional experiences of the adolescents with respect to school
attendance.
 The value placed on education at the household level, as well as assessment
of the factors that enter into this assessment, such as labour market
conditions, relevance of curriculum in the available upper secondary school
modality, persistent inequalities (that would render a higher level of
education less ‘valuable’ in terms of employment prospects), influence of
migration of community members or family members etc.
School selection should consider the following criteria, to ensure interesting
comparison cases:
 Extreme cases in education indicators: for example, schools with low or high
enrollment rates or schools with low or high drop-out rates, amongst others.
 Schools with different modes of education; federal, state, general, technical,
etc.
 Urban and rural schools with both high and low levels of exclusion to form a
basis of comparison.
The proposed techniques for undertaking field work are as follows:
 Survey of adolescents after defining a representative sample of students from
the selected communitiies. Surveys will enable information on the opinions and
perceptions of adolescents to be collected in a standardized way.
 Focus groups of students, parents and teachers in the selected schools as well
as adolescents of upper secondary age who are not in school in the same
communities. The groups will each have a facilitator who will lead the
discussion based on a predesigned guide.
 In-depth interviews of parents and teachers in the selected schools in order to
expand on key aspects of the information collected from focus groups.
22
Sample size and comparison groups (high exclusion and high inclusion areas) to be defined by a forthcoming methodological
note.
23 Appendix 1 contains a more detailed list of the topics to be considered.
15
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011

In-depth interviews of upper secondary-age students who either never
attended upper secondary school or who have dropped out since beginning
secondary school.
The following activities would be expected to support the organization of focus groups:
 Analysis of information from the survey.
 Transcription of records (contents of interviews and focus groups).
 Classification of contents into categories for analysis guided by the research
questions and identification of relationships between categories.
 Explanation of possible explanations and hypotheses.
Field work will adopt a rights-based approach and must be participative; in other
words, it must capture the perspectives of the actors who participate in the study.
Likewise, the process should encourage self-reflection and production of collective
knowledge, in which the key players in the project are substantially involved in the
topics, collection and analysis of information. To guarantee this, interviewees should
be informed of the intentions and purpose of the study, and offer feedback as the
process unfolds and once the study ends; likewise, participants will be asked to provide
their authorization and anything they say will be kept in strict confidence by removing
links between individuals and their specific comments.
3.3 POLICES AND STRATEGIES
The proposed analysis of policies and strategies will follow the guidelines laid out in
the CMF for the other levels of education, including demand side socio-cultural policies
and strategies, demand side economic policies and strategies, supply side policies and
strategies, management and governance related policies and strategies and budgeting
and finance policies and strategies, with a particular emphasis on differential supply
and inequitable financing within the education sector that spur inequality. As
previously mentioned, the fragmented supply of secondary schooling across different
and unequal modalities is of particular concern at this level of education – given that it
is not always centrally managed in the same way that compulsory levels of education
are, the education provided in different modalities is often unequal in both its design
and funding, and adolescents may have limited options of which modality to attend
given their location. The analysis will therefore focus on the aspects of supply side
policies and strategies related to education policies that concern the structure of
types of upper secondary education offered, as well as budgeting and finance policies
and strategies that determine differential funding levels for the types of upper
secondary schools, thus exacerbating the inequity of opportunities offered to
adolescents.
Upper secondary schooling in many countries has not offered equal education
opportunities for all young people, and in the majority of cases, the equality proposed
is completely formal: equal number of years of schooling for each level, equal
certificates and diplomas issued, etc. However, in practice, the inputs or material
resources for education are not distributed equally among all schools, above all, in
terms of pedagogical processes –in other words, the quality of teachers, sufficient time
for learning, and the efficient and proper use of available pedagogical methods, among
others. It is clear then that not all young people or even all schools receive the same
treatment or face the same conditions.
16
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
At the same time, numerous studies conducted in countries with very high levels of
inequality have indicated that the homogenizing nature of secondary schooling does
not give rise to pedagogical designs and processes that respond effectively to the
broad diversity found among adolescents and young people. For example, despite
efforts to introduce more flexible curriculums at the local level, they seldom address
regional and geographical variations, or differences between cultural identity and
gender.
Lastly, a detailed analysis on educational policies, and in particular public spending on
education, will link the results of the qualitative research to effective or ineffective
education policies and social policies, such as social protection, to make
recommendations for how to improve educational inclusion of adolescents in uppermiddle-income countries. The analysis will draw on the research questions regarding
school supply indicators and education financing in the CMF, in order to expose the
relationship between these factors and exclusion/inclusion within the upper secondary
age group.
17
OOSCI concept note on upper secondary exclusion – July 2011
APPENDIX 1: Topics for the qualitative analysis (focus group sessions/in-depth
interviews)
1. Perceptions of the value of education
 Value placed on education in the community, family and among
adolescents
 Contributing factors to determining the value of education (relevance of
curriculum, labour market conditions, whether friends/peers complete
secondary school etc.)
 Factors that contribute to the decision to continue or drop out of school
2. School discrimination:
 Perception of adolescents and young people about:
a. Acts of discrimination against students with different
capabilities
b. Acts of discrimination against students for belonging to new
youth identities
c. Acts of discrimination against students for poor physical
condition (overweight, underweight, height, etc.)
d. Acts of discrimination for other reasons
3. School violence:
 Perception of adolescents and young people about:
e. Acts of physical violence (aggression, fights, etc.) in the school
f. Acts of psychological violence in the school (bullying,
harassment, threats, etc.)
g. Acts of symbolic violence
4. Gender violence
 Perception of adolescents and young people about:
h. Acts of sexual harassment
i. Acts of discrimination against homosexual students
j. Acts of gender-related physical violence (aggression, fights,
etc.) in the school
k. Acts of gender-related psychological violence (bullying,
harassment, threats, etc.)
l. Acts that perpetuate stereotypes and gender roles in the
school
5. Culture and school climate:
 School management model
 Perception of teacher/student relations; attitudes of teachers towards
students, adolescents, and what is perceived as school ‘failure’
 Pedagogical models and their relationship with student confidence,
emotional experience at school, etc.
 Perception of relations with parents and other school actors
 Participation of adolescents and young people in decisions that affect them
 Participation of parents in education process
 Emotional experience at school
18