Lesotho MICS EAGLE Fact-Sheets

Lesotho Education
Fact Sheets | 2021
Analyses for learning and equity

using MICS data
MICS-EAGLE
Lesotho fact sheet.indb 1 2021/09/13 12:13

Ackowledgements Photo credits
The 2021 MICS-EAGLE Lesotho Education Fact Sheets were jointly developed by Cover page: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/KSchermrucker/ Page 35: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
2017 Page 37: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/FrayMedia/2019
Frederik Leenknecht, Lati Lerotholi and Trine Petersen with inputs from Umasree Title page: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/FLeenknecht/2019 Page 40: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Polepeddi, Motseoa Nolwazi Tshabalala, Emmanuel Saka, Malume Mohale and Page 3: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/FrayMedia/2019 Page 41: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/KM/2014
Elita Banda of the UNICEF Lesotho Country Office; Beifith Kouak Tiyab of UNICEF's Page 4: @UNICEF/Lesotho/2019 Page 43: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office; and Sakshi Mishra, Suguru Mizunoya Page 5: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2016 Page 44a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Page 7: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 44b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
and Diogo Amaro of the Education team in the Data and Analytics section, Division of
Page 9a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 45: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2016
Data, Analytics, Planning and Monitoring, UNICEF Headquarters, with support from Page 9b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/LL/2017 Page 47: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
many helping hands. Page 13: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2016 Page 50: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2019
Page 15: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/LL/2018 Page 50: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/KSchermrucker/2017
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the Ministry of Education and Page 16a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2017 Page 51: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/SMoody/2012
Training officials who provided inputs to the MICS-EAGLE Lesotho Education Fact Page 16b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 53: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2019
Sheets, with special mention to Lineo Mokitimi, Maleshoane Rapholo, Matsepiso Page 17: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 55: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2019
Page 19: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/2013 Page 56a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Ntsaba, Mapaballo Setlaba and Monaheng Mohale, without whose support this
Page 23: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/SMoody/2012 Page 56b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
initiative could not have advanced. Page 24a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 60: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2016
Page 24b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MM/2016 Page 61a: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
This work was supported by the Global Partnership for Education Knowledge and
Page 25: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/2019 Page 61b: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Innovation Exchange, a joint endeavour with the International Development Research Page 25: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 62: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Centre, Canada. Page 27: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021 Page 63: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Page 31: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/MMotsopa/2017 Page 65: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
Last but not least, the team would also like to thank ACP Project Consultants for the Page 33: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/LL/2016 Page 66: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021
editing and design of the Fact Sheets. Page 34: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/SMoody/2012 Page 67: ©UNICEF/Lesotho/JKalebe/2021

Table of contents
Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
Topic 1 Foundational Learning Skills ..................................................... 2
Topic 2 Completion Rates...................................................................... 14
Topic 3 Out-of-School Children ............................................................. 22
Topic 4 Early Childhood Development and Education ........................... 32
Topic 5 Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions ................................. 42
Topic 6 Child Protection ......................................................................... 48
Topic 7 Inclusive Education.................................................................... 52
Topic 8 Remote Learning....................................................................... 58
Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 3 2021/09/20 13:01

Introduction
Introduction
What is MICS? What is MICS-EAGLE?

How are fact sheets structured?
UNICEF launched Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys UNICEF launched the MICS-EAGLE (Education Analysis for
(MICS) in 1995 to monitor the status of children Global Learning and Equity) Initiative in 2018. Its objective is The MICS-EAGLE Initiative offers activities at
around the world. Over the past twenty-five years, this to improve learning outcomes and equity issues in education the national, regional, and global level.
household survey has become the largest source of by addressing two critical education data problems – gaps in
statistically sound and internationally comparable data key education indicators, and lack of effective data utilisation The seven topics listed below are
on women and children worldwide. by governments and education stakeholders. MICS-EAGLE analysed through an equity lens (gender,
is designed to: socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc.):
MICS surveys are conducted by trained fieldworkers
• support education sector situation analysis and sector
who perform face-to-face interviews with household
plan development by building national capacity, and
members on a variety of topics. More than 330
leveraging the vast wealth of education data collected Access and completion
MICS surveys have been carried out in more than
by MICS6; and
115 countries. It is a major data source of information
• build on the global data foundation provided by MICS6
for the Millennium Development Goals indicators,
to yield insights at the national, regional, and global level Skills
and continues to inform more than 150 Sustainable
about ways to ensure that each child can reach his or her
Development Goals (SDG) indicators in support of the (learning outcomes, ICT skills and
full potential by reducing barriers to opportunities. literacy rate)
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.
MICS has been updated several times with new and
improved questions. The current version, MICS6, What is profiling? Inclusive Education
was deployed in 2017 and is being implemented in One of the characteristics of these fact sheets is profiling. (with a focus on disability)
58 countries. MICS6 includes new modules that Profiling illustrates the demographic and socioeconomic
track SDG4 indicators related to education such as characteristics of children in a certain category, and answers
learning (SDG4.1.1), Early Childhood Development and questions such as “What percentage of a key population Early Learning
Education (SDG4.2.1 and SDG4.2.2), information and group is male and what percentage is female?” or “What
communication technology skills (ICT—SDG4.4.1), and percentage of a key population group lives in rural area and
child functioning (child disability—SDG4.5.1) as well as what percentage lives in urban areas?” Because profiles
parental involvement in education. . examine all children within a key population group, the sum Out-of-School Children
of various characteristics always adds up to 100 percent
(although rounding may affect this).
For example, a profile of children not completing primary Repetition and Dropouts
education will highlight some of the main characteristics (internal efficiency)
of children in the target population group for this indicator.
Primary completion rates look at children aged 3 – 5 years
older than the entry age of children for the last grade of Child Protection
primary school, so the target population will be 15 – 17-year- (child labour and child marriage)
olds who have not completed primary education.
In Lesotho, 20 per cent of children aged between 15 and 17
have not completed primary education. Among this, Remote Learning
20 percent who have not completed primary education, 80
percent are males, therefore 20 percent have to be females.
Introduction 1

TOPIC 1 Foundational Learning Skills
What are foundational learning skills?
Foundational learning skills in the MICS module are learning outcomes expected for Grades 2 and 3 in numeracy and reading. They are measured for children aged 7 to 14 years. This data can
be used to calculate SDG4.1.1.a to measure the proportion of children in Grade 2/3 achieving minimum proficiency in (i)reading and (ii) numeracy, by sex. In Lesotho, foundational reading skills in
English and Sesotho were assessed.
Guiding questions 1 By which grade do most children 2 What characteristics are linked 3 What percentage of each group of 4 What is the profile of children who
acquire foundational learning skills? to higher shares of reading and young people are literate, and what are not learning?
numeracy skills? share have ICT skills?
Foundational reading and numeracy skills (based on contents for Grades 2 and 3)
FIGURE 1 Share of children with foundational skills by grade
100
92 94 93
90 87
80 76 79
71
70 67
64
60 59
50 46 49
44 42
40 37 37 37
31 28 33
30
30
20
19 17 16 17 18
10 12
10 7 6 6 9
4 2 5
0 0 0 0 0
0
Out-of-school Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9
Reading (both) Reading (Sesotho) Reading (English) Numeracy
FIGURE 2 Share of children with foundational reading skills FIGURE 3 Share of children with foundational numeracy skills
25
80
70 68 20
20
18
60 57 56 52
53 16
48 50 49 15
50 46 45 1
44 41 13 13 13
40 37 35 39 41
40 36 11 11
34 31
30 29 10
30 27 26
25 24 7
19 17 17 17
20
5
8
10
0 0
Female Male Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Total Sex Area Wealth quintile Total Sex Area Wealth Quintile
Reading (English or Sesotho) Reading skill (Sesotho) Reading skill (English)
2 Lesotho Education Fact Sheets 2021 I Analyses for learning and equity using MICS data

Map of Lesotho’s districts (2018)
Findings
The Foundational Learning Module assesses whether children aged 7
to 14 have Grade 2/3 level (SDG 4.1.1a) reading and numeracy skills.
Butha-Buthe • For reading skills, children had the option to take the reading test
in English or Sesotho. The findings indicate that only 17 percent of
children in Grade 3 have the expected reading skills (either English
Leribe or Sesotho). About 16 percent of children have the expected
reading skills in Sesotho, whereas only 6 percent have the
expected reading skills in English.
Berea • The share of children with reading skills at Grade 2/3 level
Mokhotlong increases from 17 percent in Grade 3 to 94 percent in Grade 9.
• In Grades 2, 3 and 4, less than 10 percent have the expected
numeracy skills at Grade 2/3 level. The share of children with
numeracy skills at Grade 2/3 level increases from 2 percent in
Maseru Grade 3 to 42 percent in Grade 9.
Thaba-Tseka
• In each grade the share of children with foundational reading
skills in Sesotho is higher than in English. In terms of comparing
Mafeteng Grade 9 and Grade 3 children, the share of children with
foundational reading skills in English in Grade 9 is 14.5 times higher
than Grade 5. For Sesotho, the share of children with foundational
reading skills in Grade 9 is 6 times higher than in Grade 3. Until
Qacha’s Nek Grade 7, there is a 20-percentage point gap between reading skills
in Sesotho and English, in favour of Sesotho.
Mohale’s Hoek
The skills of out-of-school children are particularly low. Out-of-school
children here include both, children who never attended school and
those who did not attend school in the current year.
Quthing
• The increase in share is higher in reading than numeracy. The data
also indicates that children learn by staying in school.
• Only 10 percent of out-of-school children aged 7 to 14 had
numeracy skills at Grade 2/3 level. This means that while they may
be able to do one numeracy task, they were not able to do all four
tasks that included: reading numbers, addition, discriminating
between numbers, and recognising patterns. In contrast, 37
percent of out-of-school children aged 7 to 14 have foundational
reading skills with only 19 percent having reading skills in English.
• Learning gaps along socio-economic lines exist in Lesotho. A
higher share of urban children have foundational reading and
numeracy skills.
• The learning gap by household wealth is the biggest. The share
of children from the richest quintile with foundational numeracy
skills is 7 times higher than the share of children from the poorest
quintile. This gap is smaller in reading skills: the share of children
from the richest quintile with foundational reading skills is 2.5
times higher than the share of children from the poorest quintile.
Topic 1 I Foundational Learning Skills 3

Regional disaggregation – foundational learning skills
FIGURE 4 Share of children aged 7 to 14 with foundational FIGURE 5 Share of children aged 7 to 14 with foundational
reading skills by district numeracy skills by district Findings
• Learning gap by district is high.
Foundational reading skill by district
44 9 • Between districts, Mohale’s Hoek and the Leribe
districts have the highest share of children with
50 19 foundational reading skills, whereas Mokhotlong and
Thaba-Tseka have the lowest share of children with
42 8
33 5 foundational reading skills.
• In terms of the learning gap between districts, the
share of children with foundational reading skills in
46 26 16 9 Mohale’s Hoek is almost twice the share of children
with foundational reading skills in Thaba-Tseka.
44 13 Foundational numeracy skills by district
42 11 • Across all districts, the share of children with
51 17 foundational numeracy skills is much lower than the
share with foundational reading skills.
40 14 • However, trends between districts is similar to

foundational reading skills, i.e. Mohale's Hoek
and Leribe have the highest share of children with
foundational numeracy skills, whereas Mokhotlong,
Berea, Butha-Buthe and Thaba-Tseka have the lowest
share of children with foundational numeracy skills.
0–11 12–21 22–31 32–41 42–51 0–11 12–21 22–31 32–41 42–51

Foundational reading among children aged 7 to 14 years, by language
80
FIGURE 6 70
Share of
70 Findings
60
children 60 • Large variations exist in the share of children with
aged 7 to foundational reading and numeracy skills based on
14 with 50 46
foundational
43 39 the language spoken at home. A higher share of
40 36 35 34 children who speak English at home has foundational
skills by 32
language 30
reading skills in any language. Children who speak
24
spoken at 19 Sethepu at home have foundational numeracy skills
home 20 17
14 11 higher than children who speak other languages at
11 9
10 home.
0 • This disparity gets particularly amplified in the

English Sesotho Xhosa Sethepu language of instruction: the share of children whose
teacher uses English as the language of instruction
have a higher share of foundational skills than the
share of children whose teacher uses Sesotho as
the language of instruction. Twice as many children
60
FIGURE 7 55 whose teacher used English rather than Sesotho as
Share of 50 the main language of instruction have foundational
50
children reading and numeracy skills.
aged 7 to
40 • Children who speak English at home and whose
14 with 34
foundational teacher uses English as the language of instruction
skills by 30
have a higher share of foundational skills compared
language 22
20 to those who speak Sesotho at home and whose
teacher uses 20 17
most often
language of instruction is Sesotho. The gap is
in class particularly large for reading skills.
10 7 7
46
0
English Sesotho
90
FIGURE 8 80
80
Share of 68
children 70
aged 7 to 60
14 with 51 52
foundational 50 47
skills when 40
language at 31
home and 30
instruction is 22 20
20 16 12
the same
10 7 7
0
Cannot be determined English Sesotho

Literacy and ICT skills among youth aged 15 to 24
How were literacy and ICT skills measured?
ICT skills ICT skills were based on the information of women and men age 15-49 about whether Literacy Literacy was assessed for women and men age 15-24 years on the ability to read a short
they carried out at least one of nine specific computer related activities in the last three months simple statement or based on school attendance. Those who have ever attended lower secondary
prior to the survey. or higher education are immediately classified as literate, due to their education level and are
therefore not asked to read the statement. All others who successfully read the statement are
also classified as literate.
FIGURE 9 Share of youth aged 15 to 24 that are literate FIGURE 10 Share of youth aged 15 to 24 that performed any ICT-related
activity (ICT skills) Findings
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• About 92 percent of
15 – 24-year-olds are literate.
However, only 65 percent of
Total 92 Total 14
those whose highest level of
education is primary were found
Male 83 Male 14 to be literate. Female youth living
in urban areas and youth in the
Sex Sex
richest wealth quintile, have higher
Female 96 Female 15 shares of literacy when compared
to their peers from the other socio-
economic groupings.
Urban 96 Urban 24
• ICT skills is a new module
Area Area
included in MICS6. To assess
Rural 88 Rural 8 the prevalence of ICT skills, the
module collects information on
the recent use of ICT skills by
Poorest 82 Poorest 2 measuring certain activities. About
14 percent of
15 – 24-year-olds reported
Second 87 Second 4
engaging in any ICT activity in the
Wealth Wealth three months before the survey.
quintile
Middle 92 quintile
Middle
8
• The share of 15 – 24-year-olds
from urban areas who engaged in
Fourth 96 Fourth 18
any ICT-related activity was three
times more than the share of
Richest 98 Richest
35 15 – 24-year-olds from rural areas.
Only 2 percent of youth from the
poorest quintile undertook any
ECE, pre- ECE, pre- ICT-related activity whereas 35
primary or 0 primary or 0
none none percent from the richest quintile
undertook any ICT-related activity.
Primary 65 Primary 1
• The biggest driver of ICT skills
Highest Highest among youth is educational
level of Lower level of Lower
100 7
education secondary education
secondary attainment. There is a large jump
attained attained in the share of youth performing
Upper Upper
secondary 100 secondary 18 any ICT-related activity: from lower
secondary (7 percent) to upper
100 secondary (18 percent) to higher
Higher Higher 81
education (81 percent).

Profile of children aged 7 to 14 years who are not learning
FIGURE 11 Profiling of children who are not FIGURE 12 Profiling of children who are not learning, FIGURE 13 Profiling of children who are not learning, by wealth quintile
learning, by sex by area
Numeracy Numeracy Numeracy
51 49 31 69 25 22 20 19 15
Reading Reading Reading
58 42 25 75 30 24 18 19 9
0 20 40 60 80 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
FIGURE 14 Profiling of children who are not learning, by district
Numeracy
7 15 15 24 10 8 5 4 6 7
Reading
6 14 14 24 10 7 6 4 7 9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Botha-Bothe Leribe Berea Maseru Mafeteng Mohales Hoek Quthing Qachas Nek Mokhotlong Thaba-Tseka
Findings
• These profiles provide information on children aged 7 to • Most children who are not learning are in rural areas and
14 who are not learning according to the foundational from the poorest two wealth quintiles. 47 percent of
learning module in MICS6. The information in these charts children who do not have foundational numeracy skills
shows the profiling of the (a) 56 percent of 7 – 14-year- and 54 percent of children who do not have foundational
olds who are not learning in reading and (b) 87 percent of reading skills are from the bottom two-fifths of the
7 – 14-year-olds who are not learning in numeracy. country’s wealth distribution.
• Among those who do not have foundational reading and • With respect to the district, children from the Mohale’s
numeracy skills, boys are more prevalent than girls. Hoek are the most represented among those who do not
have foundational reading or numeracy skills.

Profiling by ecological regions/zones
FIGURE 15 Gender profiling of children not learning in Lowlands FIGURE 16 Gender profiling of children not learning in Mountains
Numeracy skill Numeracy skill
50 50 51 49
Reading skill Reading skill
59 41 57 43
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Male Female Male Female
FIGURE 17 Gender profiling of children not learning in Foothills FIGURE 18 Gender profiling of children not learning in Senqu River Valley
55 45 52 48
58 42 55 45
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 19 Area profiling of children not learning in Lowland FIGURE 20 Area profiling of children not learning in Mountains
50 50 12 88
59 41 9 91
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 21 Area profiling of children not learning in Senqu River Valley

Findings
• There are more males than females in all the regions/zones in Lesotho for children who are
Numeracy skill
not learning.
• There are no urban observations from the Foothills region/zone. There is an even split
13 87 between urban-rural among children not learning in the Lowland region/zone. Rural children
are over-represented in the Highlands (Mountain) and Senqu River Valley regions/zones,
This could be because of the rural nature of these regions/zones, which means that there
are more rural children in general in these regions/zones.
Reading skill
• The Lowlands region/zone is different from the Foothills, Highlands (Mountain) and Senqu
River Valley regions/zones in terms of wealth profiling. Among children not learning in
8 92 the Lowlands region/zone, there are very few poorest children – starkly opposite to
other regions/zones. This could be attributed to the fact that most individuals living in the
Lowlands region/zone are wealthier that individuals living in other regions. The poorest
0 20 40 60 80 100 profile is thus under-represented in this part of the country.
Male Female

FIGURE 22 Wealth profiling of children not learning in the Lowlands region/zone FIGURE 23 Wealth profiling of children not learning in the Foothills region/zone
Numeracy skills Numeracy skills
7 20 24 26 23 48 28 15 8 1
Reading skills Reading skills
8 23 25 28 16 50 27 13 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
FIGURE 24 Wealth profiling of children not learning in Highlands (Mountain) region/zone FIGURE 25 Wealth profiling of children not learning in the Senqu River Valley region/zone
Numeracy skills Numeracy skills
59 23 8 8 2 46 23 19 9 3
Reading skills Reading skills
63 23 6 7 1 53 23 14 7 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TABLE 1: Foundational skills – Shares and headcounts of children aged 7 to 14 who are not learning, by various
socioeconomic characteristics
Shares (%) Headcount*

(children aged 7 – 14 who are not learning) (children who are not learning)
Reading Numeracy Reading Numeracy
Total 56 87 184 200 283 600

Male 66 89 107 200 143 500
Sex
Female 47 85 77 000 140 100
Urban 43 82 46 200 88 400

Area
Rural 63 89 138 000 195 200
Poorest 73 93 54 800 69 800
Second 62 87 43 800 61 800
Wealth quintile Middle 51 84 33 800 55 400
Fourth 55 87 34 500 54 100
Richest 32 80 17 400 42 500
Butha-Buthe 56 91 11 800 19 200
Leribe 50 81 26 400 43 100
Berea 58 92 26 400 41 600
Maseru 54 84 43 500 68 300
Mafeteng 56 87 17 900 27 900

District
Mohale’s Hoek 50 83 13 000 21 800
Quthing 60 86 10 200 14 400
Quacha’s Nek 58 89 6 700 10 400
Mokhotlong 67 95 12 400 17 400
Thaba-Tseka 74 91 15 900 19 300
*headcounts based on population data shared by CO

Shares and headcounts of children aged 7 to 14 who are not learning, by various socioeconomic characteristics
FIGURE 26 Share and headcount of children who do not have foundational reading skills
Findings
100 • These charts show the trade-off
Thaba-Tseka between shares of children aged
90 Poorest
7 – 14-years-old who are not learning
and population size. The population
size is represented by the size of
Male
80 Berea
Quthing the bubble. The height of the bubble
Rural Fourth
Mafeteng
Second Butha-Buthe Mokhotlong represents the share of children who
do not have the foundational skills. The
70
Qacha's Nek higher the bubble, the larger the share.
Female • These charts clearly show that rural
60 Maseru
Middle
Leribe Mohale's Hoek areas have both a high share of
children not learning, as well as a high
50 headcount.
Urban
Foundational reading skill

Richest
40
• The data indicates that children from
the poorest wealth quintiles are the
30 most disadvantaged. They have both
a high share of children not learning
reading and a larger headcount than
20 other quintiles.
• Thaba-Tseka has the highest share of
FIGURE 27 Share and headcount of children who do not have foundational numeracy skills children not learning reading, whereas
Maseru has the highest headcount
100 of children not learning reading. This
Mokhotlong
difference is as a result of Maseru
Poorest Berea
having a higher population than
90
Fourth Mafeteng Thaba-Tseka.
Male
Rural Second Butha-Buthe Thaba-Tseka Foundational numeracy skills
80 Qacha's Nek
Female
• Poorest, rural and male children have
Quthing
similar shares of children who are not
70 Middle Mohale's Hoek
Maseru learning numeracy skills. However, in
Leribe
Urban Richest terms of headcount, rural areas have
60 the highest headcount for children who
are not learning numeracy skills.
50 • Mokhotlong has a higher share of
children not learning numeracy,
40
whereas Maseru has the highest
headcount of children not learning
numeracy. This difference is as a result
30 of Maseru having a higher population
than Mokhotlong.
20


TOPIC 2 Completion Rates
What is completion rate?
The completion rate reflects the percentage of a cohort of children or young people three to five years older than the intended age for the last grade of each level of education (primary, junior
secondary, or senior secondary) who have completed that level of education. For example, if the official age of entry into primary education is 6 years, and primary school has seven grades,
then the intended age for the last grade of primary education is 12 years. In this case, the reference age group for calculation of the primary completion rate would be 15–17 years
(12 + 3 = 15 and 12 + 5 = 17). This indicator is used to calculate SDG 4.1.2 – Completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education).
Guiding questions 1 For which level of education is the 2 What are the socioeconomic 3 What regions have the lowest 4 What is the profile of children who
completion rate the lowest? characteristics of children who do not completion rates at each level? do not complete each level of
complete each level of education? education?
Overview
FIGURE 28 Overview of completion rates FIGURE 29 Primary completion rate
96 100
96
100 92 92
92 87
90 80 82
77
80 80 73 80 74
74 69
70
58 61 58
60 68 60
50 44 50
40 40
30 32
31
20 20 20
10
12 4
0 0
Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Total Sex Area Wealth quintile
Total Urban Rural Poorest Richest
FIGURE 30 Lower secondary completion rate FIGURE 31 Upper secondary completion rate
80 70
73 61
70 68 60
60 50
60 55 50 46
50
44 43 40 37
40 32
33 31 30 27
30 29 24
20
20 17
20
12
10
10 4
0 0
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Total Sex Area Wealth quintile Total Sex Area Wealth quintile

Findings
• About 80 percent of children complete primary
education. However, the completion rate declines
steeply for lower and upper secondary education
with only 33 percent completing lower secondary
and 14 percent completing upper secondary.
• Declining completion rates can be attributed to
dropout and repetition or delayed completion – this
means that learners are more likely to drop out,
repeat grades or experience delayed completion as
they progress through the education system.
• Children belonging to the poorest quintile and those
living in rural areas have particularly low completion
rates. At all levels, rural and poor children complete
below the national average whereas urban and
richest children complete at a level higher than the
national average.
• The gap between completion rates of children from
the richest and poorest wealth quintiles widens
starkly as they progress through the education
system. While 61 percent of children from the richest
wealth quintile complete upper secondary education,
only 4 percent of children from the poorest wealth
quintile complete upper secondary education.
• The share of the richest wealth quintile completing
primary education is 1.6 times higher than the share
of the poorest wealth quintile completing this level.
• At lower secondary level, the ratio is 5.5, that is, the
share of the richest wealth quintile completing lower
secondary education is 5.5 times higher than the
share of the poorest wealth quintile completing this
level. At the upper secondary level, the share of the
richest wealth quintile completing is almost 31 times
higher than the share of the poorest wealth quintile
completing this level. This signifies an increasing gap
along socio economic lines of children completing a
level of education.
• There are also large differences in completion rates
between boys and girls – in favour of the latter. The
gap is particularly large at the primary level
(23 percentage points) and decreases with each
level: 22 percentage points in lower secondary and
10 percentage points in upper secondary.
• Rural children have a lower completion rate with a
difference of more than 15 percentage points in
each level.
Topic 2 I Completion rate 15

Regional disaggregation – completion rate
FIGURE 32 Primary completion rate FIGURE 33 Lower secondary completion rate FIGURE 34 Upper secondary completion rate
81 40 21
87 37 28
85 46 39
60 23 16
88 61 55 24 46 13
78 42 26
65 30 20
77 43 17
75 31 28
0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99
Findings
• The regional disparity in completion rates is
high and increases with each level.
• No district is close to achieving a universal
completion rate. Districts in the east lag in
completion rates, with the districts in the
west displaying a concentration of higher
completion rates.
• In particular, the completion rate in Maseru
is 20 percentage points higher than Thaba
Tseka.
• Thaba Tseka has the most drastic decline
in completion rates from primary to upper
secondary. 61 percent of children complete
primary education in Thaba Tseka, which
decreases to only 13 percent of children
completing upper secondary in the district.

Profiles of children who do not complete school
FIGURE 35 Profiling of children who do not FIGURE 36 Profiling of children who do not FIGURE 37 Profiling of children who do not complete school, by wealth quintile
complete school, by sex complete school, by area
Upper secondary Upper secondary Upper secondary
54 46 28 72 23 24 23 18 12
Lower secondary Lower secondary Lower secondary
58 42 22 78 24 28 22 15 11
Primary Primary Primary
80 20 13 87 41 24 19 13 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FIGURE 38 Profiling of children who do not complete school, by district Findings

• The profiles of children not completing school for each level of
education is based on the share of children not completing a level
Upper secondary
of education. So, for example, of the 20 percent not completing
6 16 11 25 10 8 5 5 6 9 the primary level, 58 percent are not completing lower secondary,
and 68 percent are not completing upper secondary.
Lower secondary • Among those not completing their education, a higher share of
boys do not complete across all levels. Boys are over-represented
5 15 12 23 10 7 6 6 6 10 in the primary level by a large margin, but in the upper secondary
level 51% of the children who do not complete are boys. Girls only
Primary
make up 20 percent of those who do not complete the primary
level, but this increases to 45 percent and 49 percent in lower and
6 9 10 15 11 9 7 7 11 14 upper secondary levels, respectively.
• Most children not completing school live in rural areas. This can
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 be attributed to the large rural population in the country. However,
Butha-Buthe Leribe Berea Maseru Mafeteng Mohale's Hoek Quthing Qacha's Nek Mokhotlong Thaba-Tseka the trend of non-completion is increasing in urban areas when
compared to primary and lower secondary levels – even though
the rate of non-completion for rural children is still dominant.
• The poorest wealth quintiles make up over half of those who
did not complete primary and lower secondary levels. The trend
reverses In upper secondary as there are very few children from
the poorest two quintiles in that level.
• The district of Maseru is over-represented across the three levels.
For the primary level, Thaba-Tseka has the second highest share
of children not completing the primary level, whereas Leribe has
the second highest share of children not completing the lower and
upper secondary levels.

FIGURE 39 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Lowlands region/zone FIGURE 40 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Foothills region/zone
Upper secondary Upper secondary
51 49 62 38
Lower secondary Lower secondary
56 44 54 46
Primary Primary
80 20 80 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 41 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Mountain region/zone FIGURE 42 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Senqu River Valley region/zone
54 46 60 40
64 36 61 39
Primary Primary
80 20 83 17
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 43 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Lowlands region/zone FIGURE 44 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Foothills region/zone
51 49 62 38
56 44 54 46
Primary Primary
80 20 80 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 45 Gender profiling of children not completing in the Mountain region/zone

Findings
• Across all zones there are more males than females that do not complete the primary level.
Upper secondary
Although there are more males in all levels of education, their share declines with each
level of education.
54 46
• In the Highlands (Mountains) and Senqu River Valley, rural children form the overwhelming
majority among those not completing a level of education because these regions/zones are
Lower secondary
mostly rural. There is, however, an increase in the share of children not completing in urban
areas with each level of education.
64 36
• In the Foothills, Highlands (Mountains) and Senqu River Valley regions/zones, the poorest
two wealth quintiles form the majority of those not completing a level. This is again because
Primary people in these regions/zones are poorer than people in the Lowlands region/zone.
80 20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Male Female

FIGURE 46 Wealth profiling of children not completing in the Lowlands region/zone FIGURE 47 Wealth profiling of children not completing in the Foothills region/zone
4 22 30 25 19 33 26 28 9 4
7 27 29 19 18 34 30 21 12 3
Primary Primary
10 20 33 28 9 50 33 13 3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 48 Wealth profiling of children not completing in the Highlands (Mountains) region/zone FIGURE 49 Wealth profiling of children not completing in the Senqu River Valley region/zone
46 32 14 6 2
53 25 10 9 3
47 29 12 9 2 44 28 14 12 3
Primary Primary
60 24 11 5 1 50 21 13 12 4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
FIGURE 50 Primary non-completion rates and headcount of children not completing
100
Findings
90 • These charts show the trade-off between shares
and population size, where the height of the bubble
80
represents the share of children who have completed
70
a level. The higher the bubble, the larger its share.
60 Population size is represented by the size of the bubble.
50 Mokhotlong
Poorest • Trends across all three levels
40 The completion rate for rural areas is lower than the
Male Mohale's Hoek Thaba-Tseka
30 Rural
Middle
Butha-Buthe
Quacha's Nek
completion rate for urban areas for all three levels. This
Fourth Berea
20 Female Quthing means that children living in urban areas are completing
Mafeteng
10
Second
Richest
all levels of education at a higher rate than rural children.
Leribe
Maseru Headcounts of children who live in urban and rural areas
0 Urban
that are not completing also reflect this discrepancy. This
means that when we convert the shares to numbers
using population estimates, the number of children living
FIGURE 51 Lower secondary non-completion rates and headcount of children not completing in rural areas who do not complete a level of education
is larger than the number of children living in urban
100
areas. This means that although urban areas are less
90 Poorest populated, children who live in them tend to do better in
Thaba-Tseka
Second
80
Quacha's Nek terms of completing a level of education.
70
Male
Rural
Middle Butha-Buthe Mohale's Hoek Mokhotlong » Primary level
60 Berea Quthing Maseru has the highest headcount of children not
50 Leribe completing, followed by Leriba and Berea. This
Fourth Mafeteng
Female
means that the number of children not completing a
40
Richest level is high in these districts. However, in terms of
30 Maseru
shares, these three districts have the highest rate
20 Urban
of completion at the primary level. This presents a
10 contradictory picture, where because of their high
0 population, these districts not only have a high
headcount but are also the best districts for children
completing a level. On the contrary, Thaba-Tseka and
FIGURE 52 Upper secondary non-completion rates and headcount of children not completing Mokhotlong have extremely low completion rates but
also a comparatively smaller headcount of children not
100
Poorest Thaba-Tseka
completing.
90 Mohale's Hoek
Middle Butha-Buthe Quacha's Nek » Lower secondary level
80 Rural
Mokhotlong
Maseru has the highest headcount of children not
Male
70 Second completing and the highest completion rate, whereas
Mafeteng
60
Female Fourth Leribe
Quthing Mokhotlong has an extremely low completion rate but
Berea a low headcount of children not completing.
50 Richest
Maseru » Upper secondary level
40 Urban
Children from the lowest wealth quintile and
30 Mokhotlong and Thaba-Tseka have extremely low
20 completion rates (below 5 percent). However,
10 the headcount of children not completing upper
0
secondary is highest in Maseru and Leribe.

TOPIC 3 Out-of-school Children
Who are out-of-school children?
Out-of-school children are children and young people in the official age range for a given level of education who are not attending either pre-primary, primary, secondary or higher levels of
education. The objective of the out-of-school children rate is to identify the part of the population in the official age range for a given level of education not attending school, in order to formulate
targeted policies that can be put in place to ensure they have access to education. It is used to calculate SDG 4.1.4 – Out-of-school rate for different levels of education, including primary, lower
secondary and upper secondary.
Guiding questions 1 Which level of education has the 2 How many children are out 3 Which regions have the highest 4 Where do most out-of-school
highest out-of-school rate? of school? out-of-school rates? children (OOSC) live and what is
their background?
Overview
FIGURE 53 Overview of out-of-school rates FIGURE 54 Number of out-of-school children (estimates)
70
8 500
60 59
50
43
40
36
30
23 28 800
21
20 18
14 11
10 5 7 17 600
33 3
0 5
1 Primary
Lower secondary Upper secondary Lower secondary
Primary
Upper secondary
Total Urban Rural Poorest Richest
Findings
• Nationally, less than 3 percent of children out of school at the primary level. These levels. For the primary level, urban and are out of school when they should be
who are primary school age are out of figures increase to 11 percent for the rural out-of-school share are similar to attending lower secondary.
school at the primary level. richest wealth quintile and 59 percent the national average. However, this gap
• The number of out-of-school children
for the poorest wealth quintile in upper increases in lower and upper secondary,
• Wealth inequity plays a big role. Only increases at the upper secondary level,
secondary. with higher shares in the rural areas.
1 percent of children from the richest with 31 068 children not attending school.
wealth quintile are out of school in the • When comparing the national average, • In total, about 8 302 children are out of
primary level, while 5 percent of children children from the poorest wealth quintile school when they should be attending
from the poorest wealth quintile are have higher out-of-school rates at all primary school, and 18 569 children

Out-of-school children by the level of education
FIGURE 55 Primary out-of-school rates FIGURE 56 Lower secondary out-of-school rates FIGURE 57 Upper secondary out-of-school rates
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Total 3 Total 14 Total 36
Male 4 Male 19 Male 43
Sex Sex Sex

Female 2 Female 9 Female 28
Urban 3 Urban 7 Urban 21

Area Area Area
Rural 3 Rural 18 Rural 43
Poorest 5 Poorest 23 Poorest 59
Second 2 Second 20 Second 47
Wealth Wealth Wealth

quintile quintile quintile
Middle 2 Middle 13 Middle 38
Fourth 3 Fourth 6 Fourth 28
Richest 1 Richest 5 Richest 11
Findings
• At the primary level, nearly 3 percent of children are out of school. Children from some groups have
higher shares than others. For example, children from the poorest wealth quintile have a much
higher share compared to their peers across all levels.
• At the lower secondary level, nearly 14 percent of children are out of school. For children who should
be attending lower secondary education, the out-of-school rate for males is higher than for females,
and the rate for rural areas is higher than for urban areas. The wealth disparity also increases with
the share of out-of-school children from the poorest wealth quintile being two times higher than the
national average.
• At the upper secondary level, the share of out-of-school children increases to nearly 36 percent.
There is a higher share of boys who are out of school than girls, and the rate of out-of-school children
from rural areas are two times higher than that of urban areas.
Topic 3 I Out-of-school Children 23

Disaggregation by district – out-of-school rates
FIGURE 58 Primary out-of-school rates FIGURE 59 Lower secondary out-of-school rates FIGURE 60 Upper secondary out-of-school rates
1 13 35
1 8 26
2 13 33
4 29 43
3 5 10 27 31 59
4 17 39
2 14 51
2 11 35
4 18 37
0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99
Findings
• Most children are in school in the primary level, however, the rate of out-of-
school children increases in the lower and upper secondary levels.
• Across all levels of education, the out-of-school rate is comparatively higher in
the eastern districts.
• In lower secondary, most districts have an out of school rate of around 10 to 15
percent, but Thaba-Tseka and Mokhotlong's rates are almost double at 27 and
29 percent, respectively.
• In Thaba-Tseka, the out-of-school rate increases from 5 percent in the primary
level to 59 percent in the upper secondary level.
• In Leribe and Butha-Buthe, the out-of-school rate increases from 1 percent in
the primary level to 26 percent and 35 percent in the upper secondary level,
respectively.

Profiles of out-of-school children
FIGURE 61 Profiling of out-of-school children, FIGURE 62 Profiling of out-of-school children, by FIGURE 63 Profiling of out-of-school children, by wealth quintile
by sex area
Upper secondary Upper secondary Upper secondary
63 37 20 80 31 26 21 16 6
Lower secondary Lower secondary Lower secondary
69 31 15 85 39 29 19 7 5
Primary Primary Primary
64 36 30 70 46 15 12 21 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FIGURE 64 Profiling of out-of-school children, by district

Findings
• This profiling is based on the share of out-of-school
Upper secondary
children for each level of education: 3 percent in the
6 10 12 24 11 8 5 6 7 12 primary level, 14 percent in the lower secondary level,
and 36 percent in the upper secondary level.
Lower secondary • The majority of out-of-school children are males for all the
levels. The share of out-of-school females is similar for all
6 8 12 18 11 7 7 4 12 15 levels.
• There are more out-of-school children in rural areas than
Primary in urban areas for all the levels. Moreover, the number of
out-of-school children in urban decreases with each level
3 4 10 28 15 6 8 3 9 14
of education.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 • Despite making up approximately 40 percent of the

population, children in the two poorest wealth quintiles
Butha-Buthe Leribe Berea Maseru Mafeteng Mohale's Hoek Quthing Qacha's Nek Mokhotlong Thaba-Tseka
comprise the majority of out-of-school children at all
levels. Of the out-of-school children in the primary level,
46 percent are from the poorest wealth quintile.
• Maseru is overrepresented at all levels of education
for having the most out-of-school children but its
relative share declines in upper secondary where other
ethnic groups become more overrepresented. This
is not because of the decline in out-of-school rates in
Maseru, but rather because of the relative changes in
the composition of out-of-school children from different
ethnic groups.

FIGURE 65 Gender profiling of children out of school in the Lowlands region/zone FIGURE 66 Gender profiling of children out of school in the Foothills region/zone
56 44 59 41
58 42 51 39
Primary Primary
49 51 60 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 67 Gender profiling of children out of school in the Mountain region/zone FIGURE 68 Gender profiling of children out of school in the Senqu Valley River region/zone
73 27 67 33
83 17 63 37
Primary Primary
87 13 60 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 69 Area profiling of children out of school in the Lowlands region/zone
Findings
Upper secondary • Males are over-represented among out-of-
school children in all regions/zones and across
all levels of education. The only exception is
35 65
the primary level in the Lowlands region/zone,
where there are slightly more out-of-school
Lower secondary females.
• Children from rural areas are over-represented
33 67
among out-of-school children, particularly in the
Highlands (Mountains) and Senqu River Valley
Primary regions/zones.
• In the Foothills, Highlands (Mountains) and
58 42 Senqu River Valley regions/zones, the poorest
two wealth quintiles make up the majority of
out-of-school children.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Rural
FIGURE 70 Area profiling of children out of school in the Mountain region/zone FIGURE 71 Area profiling of children out of school in the Senqu Valley River region/zone
10 90 11 89
2 98 11 89
Primary Primary
4 96 14 86
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Rural Male Female

FIGURE 72 Wealth profile of OOSC in Lowlands FIGURE 73 Wealth profile of OOSC in Foothills
10 23 27 31 10 40 34 19 5 2
10 32 31 14 13 35 40 18 6
Primary Primary
15 15 17 39 15 84 6 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIGURE 74 Wealth profile of OOSC in Highlands (Mountains) FIGURE 75 Wealth profile of OOSC in Senqu River Valley
51 28 14 5 2 46 27 16 4 6
64 24 9 21 51 26 15 6 3
Primary Primary
72 16 7 5 0 55 26 8 10 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TABLE 2: Out-of-school rates and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Out-of-school rates (%) Headcount*

(children aged 7 – 14 not learning) (out-of-school children)
Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
Total 3 14 36 8 500 17 600 28 800

Male 4 19 43 5 500 12 100 18 100
Sex
Female 2 9 28 3 100 5 500 10 600
Urban 3 7 21 2 500 2 600 5 500

Area
Rural 3 18 43 6 000 15 100 23 200
Poorest 5 23 59 3 900 6 800 9 000
Second 2 20 47 1 300 5 100 7 600
Wealth quintile Middle 2 13 33 1 000 3 300 5 900
Fourth 3 6 28 1 800 1 300 4 600
Richest 1 5 11 600 1 000 1 600
Butha-Buthe 1 13 35 200 1 000 1 700
Leribe 1 8 26 400 1 500 3 000
Berea 2 13 33 800 2 100 3 300
Maseru 3 10 31 2 400 3 100 6 700
Mafeteng 4 17 39 1 300 1 900 3 200

District
Mohale’s Hoek 2 11 35 500 1 200 2 200
Quthing 4 18 37 700 1 200 1 500
Quacha’s Nek 2 14 51 300 800 1 700
Mokhotlong 4 29 43 800 2 100 2 000
Thaba-Tseka 5 27 59 1 200 2 700 3 400
* Headcount based on population data shared by CO.

Out-of-school rates and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Please note: The data range for the three graphs differ significantly, therefore the scale for these graphs are different.
FIGURE 76 Primary out-of-school rates and headcounts

Findings
7 • These charts show the trade-off between
shares and population size. The height
6
Thaba-Tseka of the bubble represents the share of
5
Poorest out-of-school children at each level. The
Mafeteng higher the bubble, the larger the share.
4 Population size is represented by the size
Fourth
Male Quthing Mokhotlong of the bubble.
3 Rural
Second
Across all three levels
2 Female Maseru
Urban Qacha's Nek • Rural areas have a higher headcount and
Butha-Buthe Berea Mohale's Hoek
Middle share of out-of-school children than urban
1
Richest
areas for all three levels.
Leribe
0 • Out-of-school rates and headcounts are
higher for males when compared to
FIGURE 77 Lower secondary out-of-school rates and headcounts females.
Mokhotlong
30 • Out-of-school rates differ along
socioeconomic lines. Although the poorest
25 Thaba-Tseka wealth quintile comprises 20 percent of
Poorest
the population, the headcount and share
20 Male
of out-of-school children is larger at all
Mafeteng
Rural three levels when compared to out-of-
Second
Berea Quthing
school headcounts and shares of other
15
Qacha's Nek
wealth quintiles.
Butha-Buthe
10
Female
Middle Primary level
Mohale's Hoek
Fourth Maseru
Leribe
• Thaba-Tseka has the highest share of
5
Urban out-of-school children. However, Maseru
Richest
has the highest headcount of out-of-school
0 children. This is because Maseru has a
higher population of children who fall
FIGURE 78 Upper secondary out-of-school rates and headcounts within the primary level age group where
75 lower shares translate to higher numbers.
Lower secondary level
65 Thaba-Tseka
• Mohale’s Hoek and Thaba-Tseka both have
Poorest
high shares and headcounts of out-of-
55
school children.
Qacha's Nek
45
Male Rural Mafeteng Upper secondary level
Second Quthing
Mokhotlong • Thaba-Tseka has the highest share of
35
out-of-school children. However, Maseru
Butha-Buthe Mohale's Hoek
Female Middle Berea has the highest headcount of out-of-school
25 Maseru childrenl at this level.
Fourth
Leribe
15 Urban

0

TOPIC 4 Early Childhood Development and Education
What is Early Child Development Index (ECDI)?
ECDI is a 10-item module which UNICEF developed to measure the percentage of children aged 3-4 who are developmentally on track in literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional, and
learning domains.
Guiding questions 1 Which children are 2 Which level(s) of 3 Do children attend Grade 1 4 What is the profile of 5 What is the profile of
developmentally on track education do young at the right age? children not attending children not developmentally
(measured by the Early children attend? early childhood education on track (measured by
Childhood Development (ECE)? ECDI)?
Index (ECDI))?
Overview
FIGURE 79 Share of 3 to 4-year-olds who are developmentally on track using ECDI FIGURE 80 Levels of education attended by age (%)
80 100 0
5
78 78 77 78 90
28
80
73 70 48
60 60
70 91
69 50
50
68 68
40
30
52
20
35
10 22
4
60 0 5
Male Female Urban Rural 3 4 No Yes 3 4 5* 6*
Total Sex Area Age Attending ECE Out of school Pre-primary or ECE Primary
FIGURE 81 Percentage of children aged 3 to 4 attending early childhood education FIGURE 82 Age distribution at Grade 1 of primary education
100 3
89 4
90
80 14 12
67
70
60 55
51
50 46 45 46 Two or more years younger
40 34 36 34 One year younger (children who do not turn 6 by
June 30th of academic yes)
30
Right age (Children who are 6 by June 30th of
20 academic year)
10 One year older
0 67
Two or more years older
Male Female Urban Rural 3 4 Primary or Secondary Higher
none
Total Sex Area Age Mother’s education * Children who are 5 but turn 6 before June 30th of the academic year are allowed to enter Primary
Grade 1. Therefore, 5 year olds here are those who do not turn 6 by June 30, and age 6 includes
those whose age at the beginning of school year was 5 but they turn 6 by June 30th.

Findings
• Based on the Early Childhood
Development Index (ECDI), around
73 percent of 3 to 4-year-olds are
developmentally on track.
• The share of children who are
developmentally on track is higher for
girls and urban children.
• The share of children attending ECE
who are developmentally on track is
about 10 percentage points higher than
that of children not attending ECE. This
is important because approximately 50
percent of 3 to 4-year-olds attend ECE
nationwide.
• Gender parity exists in ECE attendance
for 3 to 4-year-olds. ECE attendance is
higher among urban children and 4-year-
olds.
• ECE attendance is high (89 percent) for
children whose mothers attended higher
education, while it is only 34 percent for
children whose mothers attended some
primary or who have no education.
• The share of children attending ECE
increases as children get older. While only
34 percent of 3-year-olds are in ECE, this
percentage increases to 55 percent for
4-year-olds.
• The official starting age for primary in
Lesotho is 6-years-old, and 93 percent
of 6-year-olds attend primary. However,
Lesotho allows 5-year-olds to join Grade
1 if they turn 6 by June 30th of the
academic year. Therefore, the calculations
here include those who turn 6 by June
30th as ‘6-year-olds’.
• Younger children, however, also attend
primary. 5 percent 4-year-olds and 28
percent 5-year-olds (who do not turn 6 by
June 30th) also attend primary.
• In Grade 1, the majority of children are
at the official starting age. However, 33
percent of the children are not the right
age with 14 percent being a year older
and 12 percent being a year younger.
Topic 4 I Early Childhood Development and Education 33

Regional disaggregation
FIGURE 83 Share of children aged 3 to 4 attending early childhood FIGURE 84 Share of children aged 3 to 4 who are developmentally
education by district on track by district Findings
• ECE attendance is particularly high in Maseru,
followed by Berea. There is, however, a 20
percentage point difference in ECE attendance
44 72 between the two districts in favour of Maseru.
45 73 • Mokhotlong has the lowest ECE attendance, less
than half of Maseru’s ECE attendance.
45 80 • Despite the difference in ECE attendance – which
27 70
is the share of children who are developmentally on
track on the ECDI in Mokhotlong is at 70 percent,
65 31 71 61 which is on par with Maseru.
• The highest shares of children who are
36 73 developmentally on track are in Berea and Quthing.
41 74
38 78
35 80
0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99

Profile of children not developmentally on track or not attending ECE
FIGURE 85 Profiling of young children aged FIGURE 86 Profiling of young children aged FIGURE 87 Profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not
3 to 4 not attending ECE or not 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on track, by wealth quintile
developmentally on track, by sex developmentally on track, by area
Share of children not attending ECE Share of children not attending ECE Share of children not attending ECE
49 51 21 79 34 28 21 12 6
Share of children not developmentally on track Share of children not developmentally on track Share of children not developmentally on track
57 43 29 71 28 21 23 11 16
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FIGURE 88 Profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on track, by district
Findings
• The profiles of children who are not
Share of children not attending ECE Botha-Bothe learning provide information on 7 to
Leribe 14-year-olds who are not learning
5 18 13 16 12 9 6 4 7 9 according to the foundational learning
Berea
Maseru module in MICS6. The information in
Mafeteng
these charts shows the profiling of the (a)
Share of children not developmentally on track Mohale's Hoek
56 percent of 7 to 14-year olds who are
not learning in reading, and (b) 87 percent
Quthing
5 19 9 26 10 6 4 4 6 10
of 7 to 14-year olds who are not learning
Qacha's Nek
in numeracy.
Mokhotlong
Thaba-Tseka • Among those, who do not have
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% foundational reading and numeracy skills,
boys are more prevalent than girls.
• Most children who are not learning are
from rural areas and from the poorest
wealth quintiles. 47 percent of those
who do not have foundational numeracy
skills and 54 percent of those who do
not have foundational reading skills
come from the bottom two-fifths of the
country’s wealth distribution.
• Children from Mohale's Hoek are the
most represented among those who
do not have foundational reading or
numeracy skills.

Profiling by ecological zones
FIGURE 89 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on FIGURE 90 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on
track in Lowland track in Foothills
Not attending ECE Not attending ECE
50 50 41 59
Not developmentally on track Not developmentally on track
50 50 54 46
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 91 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on FIGURE 92 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on
track in Mountains track in Senqu River Valley
49 51 50 50
51 49 48 52
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 93 Area profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on track FIGURE 94 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on
in Lowland track in Mountains
37 65 6 94
47 53 11 89
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Rural Urban Rural
FIGURE 95 Gender profiling of young children aged 3 to 4 not attending ECE or not developmentally on
Findings track in Senqu River Valley
• In the Foothills region/
zone, more girls than
Not attending ECE
boys under 5 do not
attend ECE, whereas
more boys than girls are 9 91
not developmentally on
track.
• Children from rural Not developmentally on track
areas are over-
represented in all 13 87
regions/zones among
both children who are
not developmentally on 0 20 40 60 80 100
track and children who
are not attending ECE. Urban Rural
• In the Highlands
(Mountain) region/zone,
there are more children
from the poorest wealth
quintile than from other
wealth quintiles who
are not attending ECE.
This trend is opposite
to what is seen in the
Lowlands region/zone.

FIGURE 96 Wealth profiling of children not on track on ECDI and not attending ECE in the Lowlands FIGURE 97 Wealth profiling of children not on track on ECDI and not attending ECE in the Foothills
region/zone region/zone
12 30 29 18 11 43 28 21 8
7 19 25 24 24 39 27 20 12 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIGURE 98 Wealth profiling of children not on track on ECDI and not attending ECE in the Highlands FIGURE 99 Wealth profiling of children not on track on ECDI and not attending ECE in the Senqu River
(Mountains) region/zone Valley region/zone
66 23 6 5 1 53 29 15 2
59 21 9 8 3 37 27 21 10 4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TABLE 3: Early learning – Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Shares (%) Headcount*

(children aged 3 – 4) (children)
Not on track on ECDI Not attending ECE Not on track on ECDI Not attending ECE
Total 27 54 137 400 46 500

Male 32 55 70 000 22 600
Sex
Female 22 54 67 400 23 900
Urban 22 33 43 800 9 900

Area
Rural 30 66 93 700 36 600
Poorest 34 80 32 500 15 500
Second 25 69 29 100 13 000
Wealth quintile Middle 32 56 28 900 9 600
Fourth 18 38 25 000 5 500
Richest 24 17 21 900 2 900
Butha-Buthe 28 56 7 400 2 500
Leribe 28 55 22 600 8 600
Berea 20 55 17 000 6 000
Maseru 29 35 35 300 7 300
Mafeteng 27 64 14 000 5 400

District
Mohale’s Hoek 22 62 10 800 4 100
Quthing 20 65 6 700 2 800
Quacha’s Nek 26 59 4 800 2 100
Mokhotlong 30 73 7 800 3 400
Thaba-Tseka 39 69 11 100 4 200
*Headcounts based on population data shared by CO.

FIGURE 100 Share and headcount of children who are not on track on ECDI
Findings
100
• These charts show the trade-off
between shares and population size.
90 The height of the bubble represents the
share of children who are not on track
on ECDI (top) and who are not attending
80 ECE (bottom), meaning the higher
the bubble, the larger is the share.
70 Population size is represented by the
size of the bubble.
60
• For children not on track on the ECDI,
the share for children from Thaba-Tseka
is the highest. However, the headcount
50 of children from Maseru is more. This
Thaba-Tseka
is because it has a bigger population
of 3 to 4-year-olds, which results in
40
lower shares being translated to higher
Poorest
Mokhotlong numbers than Thaba-Tseka.
Male Middle
30 Butha-Buthe Mafeteng
Rural • ECE attendance is along socio-economic
lines with the share of children not
Mohale's Hoek
20 Female Leribe Maseru Qacha's Nek
attending ECE from the poorest wealth
Second quintile almost 5 times higher than the
Richest
Urban Quthing share of children not attending ECE from
10 Berea
Fourth the richest wealth quintile.
FIGURE 101 Share and headcount of children who are not attending ECE
• The share of children who are not
attending ECE is high for Mokhotlong
100 and Thaba-Tseka, but the headcount of
children who are not attending ECE is
90
more for Leribe.
Poorest
80 Mokhotlong
70 Mafeteng Quthing
Rural
Butha-Buthe Berea Thaba-Tseka

60 Second
Male Middle Mohale's Hoek
Female Qacha's Nek
50
Leribe
40
Fourth
30
Maseru
Urban
20
Richest
10

LESOTHO FACT SHEET TOPIC 4new.indd 41 2021/09/20 15:09

TOPIC 5 Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions
What is repetition rate? What is dropout rate? in school and are therefore not included in the calculation for
The repetition rate measures the share of children in a given The dropout rate measures the proportion of children from a dropout rate.
grade in a given school year who repeated that grade as a cohort attending a given grade in a given school year who are Who is a non-transitioner?
percentage of total number of children who attended the no longer attending school in the following year. It is worth Non-transitioners refer to those children who attended the last
grade in the previous year. clarifying that children who repeat are still considered to be grade of a level but did not continue to the next level.
Guiding questions 1 Which level or grade has the 2 What is the profile of children who 3 What is the profile of children who 4 What is the profile of children
highest rates of repetition, dropouts repeat a grade? drop out of school? who do not transition to the next
and non-transitions? level of education?
Overview
FIGURE 102 Repetition by grade
25
20
20 19
16
15
15 14
13
11 11
10 9
10
8
5
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year 1 Year 2
Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
FIGURE 103 Dropout rate by grade FIGURE 104 Share of non-transitioners from the last grade of a level to a higher level
16 80
15 73
14 70
13
12
12 60
10 50
8 40
6 30
4 3 20 15
13
2 2 2
2 1 1 10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 Year 1 Grade 7 Grade 10 Year 2
Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary

120
FIGURE 105
Education
attendance per 100
5 1 2 8
age
20 19 22
32 28
80
48 44
56
60 56 32
60 44
91 97
Out of school 97 98 97 94
50 4
ECE/Pre-primary 40 76 1
Primary 68 49 6
26 15 0
Lower 52 43
secondary 20 1
35 0 30
Upper 22 21
secondary 4 1 17
0 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 6
2 3 4 5* 6* 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
*Children who are 5 but turn 6 before June 30th of the academic year are allowed to enter primary education. Therefore, 5-year-olds here are also those who do not turn 6 by June 30th, and age 6
includes those who are 5 at the beginning of the year but turn 6 by June 30th.
Findings
• Repetition rates vary widely for each grade of primary and secondary education.
• Lesotho has a high repetition rate in the early grades of primary education. In
Grade 1 the repetition rate is at 20 percent.
• One explanation for this could be early entry. 5 percent of 4-year olds and 28
percent of 5-year olds (who do not turn 6 by June 30th of the academic year) attend
primary education, even though the starting age for primary education is 6.
• Dropout rates in primary education is low but increases in lower and upper
secondary education.
• Non-transitioners refer to those children who attended the last grade of a level
but do not continue to the next level. In primary and lower secondary education,
the non-transition rate is 13 and 15 percent, respectively. However, in upper
secondary, it increases to 73 percent. This means that most children do not
continue education after attending the last grade of upper secondary.
• The prescribed age for primary learners in Lesotho is 6 to 12, for lower secondary
learners is 13 to 15, and for upper secondary learners is 16 and 17. Most 6 to
12-year-olds are in primary but some (20 percent) 12-year-olds have already
progressed to lower secondary when they should have been in primary.
• Of the lower secondary age group, the majority of 13-year-olds, 26 percent of
14-year-olds, 15 percent of 15-year-olds, and some 16 and 17-year-olds continue to
attend primary.
• Among 12 to 17-year-olds, the share of children who are out of school increases
substantially. This shows that most children in Lesotho have attended some
education.
Topic 5 I Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions 43

Profile of repeaters, dropouts and non-transitioners
FIGURE 106 Profiling of repeaters, dropouts and FIGURE 107 Profiling of repeaters, dropouts and FIGURE 108 Profiling of repeaters, dropouts and non-transitioners, by wealth quintile
non-transitioners, by sex non-transitioners, by area
Non-transitors Non-transitors Non-transitors
49 51 39 61 13 19 20 22 27
Dropouts Dropouts Dropouts
54 46 36 64 19 22 24 21 13
Repeaters Repeaters Repeaters
52 48 41 59 17 19 18 21 25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIGURE 109 Profiling of repeaters, dropouts and non-transitioners, by level of education
Non-transitors Findings
• These findings are based on the share of children who
26 17 57
repeat, dropout or don’t transition to the next level, i.e.,
13 percent of repeaters, 5 percent of dropouts, and
Dropouts 5 percent of non-transitioners.
29 56 15 • Non-transitioners are almost evenly split between girls
Primary
and boys, with 51 percent being girls. However, of those
Lower
Repeaters secondary who repeat and those who drop out, boys are over-
Upper represented.
65 26 9 secondary
• For repeaters, dropouts and non-transitioners, children
from rural area form the majority. This means that
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% more rural children repeat, drop out, and are unable to
transition from the last grade of a level to another level of
education.
• The share representing children of the poorest wealth
quintile is lower than in other indicators. The shares for
the bottom 20 percent of the poorest children are
19 percent for dropouts, 17 percent for repeaters, and
13 percent for non-transitioners.
• In terms of the level of education, most repeaters
repeat a grade of primary education, with 65 percent
of repeaters at the primary level. Most dropouts are in
lower secondary, and most non-transitioners are in upper
secondary.

TABLE 4: Repetition, dropouts and non-transitioners – Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Rate (%) Headcount*

(children)
Repetition Dropout Non-transition Repeat Dropout Non-transitioners
Total 13 5 26 68 000 24 400 27 000

Male 15 6 28 38 600 13 700 13 100
Sex
Female 11 5 24 29 400 10 700 13 700
Urban 13 5 24 23 900 8 200 10 400

Area
Rural 13 6 28 44 100 16 200 16 400
Poorest 14 5 28 14 100 4 700 3 400
Second 14 6 27 14 800 5 500 4 900
Wealth quintile Middle 12 7 24 12 700 5 900 5 500
Fourth 13 6 25 14 200 5 000 5 700
Richest 11 4 27 12 100 3 400 7 200
Butha-Buthe 11 5 26 3 500 1 400 1 600
Leribe 11 5 23 8 700 3 200 3 700
Berea 14 6 30 10 400 3 700 4 300
Maseru 13 5 25 18,44 6 400 7 900
Mafeteng 14 5 25 7 300 2 100 2 200

District
Mohale’s Hoek 13 5 22 5 600 1 700 1 900
Quthing 10 6 26 2 800 1 500 1 200
Quacha’s Nek 12 6 27 2 600 1 000 1 000
Mokhotlong 14 6 32 4 000 1 500 1 300
Thaba-Tseka 14 6 36 4 700 1 800 1 700
*Headcounts are based on UNSD statistics, which can be calculated using other data sources if the country requests.

FIGURE 110 Share and headcount of repeaters

Findings
20 • These charts show the trade-off between shares and
18
population size. The height of the bubble represents the
share of children who are repeaters (top) and dropouts
16 Berea Mafeteng
Male
Poorest Mokhotlong (bottom). The higher the bubble, the larger the share.
Fourth
14 Population size is represented by the size of the bubble.
Richest
Urban Rural Leribe
12 Second Thaba-Tseka Repetition rate
Mohale's Hoek
Female Maseru Qacha's Nek
10 Middle
Butha-Buthe
• The share of repeaters is similar across groups.
Quthing
8 However, there are big differences in terms of
headcounts. Although Thaba-Tseka and Maseru have
6
similar shares, the headcount of children repeating in
4 Maseru is much bigger.
2 Dropout rate
• Most groups have similar shares of dropouts. However,
FIGURE 111 Share and headcount of dropouts the richest wealth quintile has a comparatively lower
dropout rate.
20
• While there is not much variation in shares, there are
18 Second Quthing Mokhotlong differences in headcount by the district. The headcount
Maseru
Male
16 Butha-Buthe
for Maseru is larger than other districts despite similar
Urban Rural Middle
Berea
Mohale's Hoek Thaba-Tseka shares of dropout rate.
14 Qacha's Nek
Female Fourth
Poorest Leribe
Non-transitioners
12 Mafeteng
10
• All groups, except the richest wealth quintile, have a
Richest
similar share of non-transitioners. The richest wealth
8 quintile has a higher share of non-transitioners when
6 compared to all other groups. One explanation for this is
that most non-transitioners are those who attend upper
4
secondary but do not pursue higher education, and in
2 Lesotho, children from the richest wealth quintile attend
upper secondary in greater numbers than other wealth
Please note: The data range for the three graphs differ significantly, therefore the scale for this graph is different. quintiles, which in turn makes them the group with the
biggest impact in non-transitioners.
FIGURE 112 Share and headcount of non-transitioners
40
35 Berea
Poorest Richest Thaba-Tseka
30 Male Middle
Butha-Buthe Mafeteng Mokhotlong
Rural Quthing
25 Female
Qacha's Nek
Urban Second
20 Fourth Maseru
Leribe Mohale's Hoek
15
10
Topic 5 I Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions 47

TOPIC 6 Child Protection
What is child marriage? What is child labour?
Child Marriage is a marriage of a girl or boy before the age of 18 and refers to both formal In the MICS module, children are considered to be in child labour if they engage in at least
marriages and informal unions in which children under the age of 18 live with a partner one of three categories: economic activities, household chores and hazardous conditions.
as if married. For each category, there is a time threshold based on different age groups. .
Guiding questions 1 Which groups have higher rates 2 Which groups of children are more 3 How is child labour linked to 4 How does child labour explain
of early marriage and how does it frequently involved in child labour? education attendance and the profile of children who are
impact literacy and ICT skills? foundational learning skills? out of school or not learning in
school?
Overview
FIGURE 113 Prevalence of child marriage among youth aged 20 to 24 years

Findings
50 • The prevalence of child marriage is higher
46
45 for women than for men. While no men
40 were married before 15, 1 percent of
35 20 to 24-year-old women were married
30 before their 15th birthday.
30 28
26
24
25 • The prevalence of marriage for 15 to
20 18 18-year-old women is higher than for men
15
15 12 13 in the same age group. Only 2 percent of
10 9
10 20 to 24-year-old men were married at
5 5 15 to 18, while about 6 times more
5 2 2 3 3
2 1 3 2 3 4
0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 females were married for the same
Total Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest ECE, pre- Primary Lower Upper Higher reference years.
primary or secondary secondary
none • Education is strongly associated with
Area Wealth quintile Highest level of education attained early marriage. Among youth who
attended higher education, no 20 to
Males before 15 Males between 15 and 18 Females before 15 Females between 15 and 18 24-year-olds reported entering a union or
marriage before 15, and only 1 percent
reported entering a union or marriage
FIGURE 114 Literacy rate by early marriage status FIGURE 115 ICT skills by early marriage status
between 15 to 18. In stark contrast,
a quarter of the youth whose highest
100 25
education is primary or lower secondary,
90
were married before the age of 18.
80 20
70 • There is a statistically significant
60 15 difference for ICT skills between women
50 who married early and those who did
96 95 96 not. Among those who did not marry
40 83 78 10 20 20
30
early, men and women have a similar
share of performing ICT-related activities.
20 5
10 • There is a statistically significant
0 0 3 difference among boys and girls for
Male Female No early marriage Early marriage between 15 to 18 literacy skills – in favour of that latter –
among those who did not marry early.
No early marriage Early marriage between 15 to 18 Male Female
LESOTHO FACT SHEET TOPIC 6Anew.indd 48 2021/09/23 12:45

Overview of child labour and education
97 98 96 98 99 97 98
FIGURE 116 Prevalence of child labour for children aged 5 FIGURE 117 100 96
to 17 years 99 97 99 98 88
School 90 95 86
93 94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 attendance by 90 79
age and child 80
Total 32 labour status 70
70
Male 46 69
60
Sex
49
Female 18 50 54
40
Urban 14
Area 38
30
Rural 40
20
5 to 11 29 Not in child
labour 10
Age Child labour
12 to 14 34 0
34 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
15 to 17
Poorest 45 Not in child labour Child labour

41
Second 36
Wealth
Middle 33
quintile
Fourth 23
50
FIGURE 118
Richest 14 45
Foundational
skills by child 40
Butha-Buthe 30
labour status
(children aged 35
Leribe 27 7 to 14)
30
Berea 32
25
Maseru 24 48 36
20
District Mafeteng 30 15
10
Mohale's Hoek 36
15 10
5
Quthing 35
0
Qacha's Nek 40 Reading Numeracy
Mokhotlong 44 Not in child labour Child labour
Thaba-Tseka 48
Topic 6 I Child Protection 49

Findings
• About 22 percent of 5 to
17-year-old children are engaged
in some form of child labour.
More males are involved in
child labour than females. The
share of child labour in rural
areas is twice that of urban
areas. Older children, children
from the poorest backgrounds,
and those in Thaba-Tseka and
Mokhotlong work in greater
shares than those from other
socio-economic groups.
• From 13 onwards, school
attendance of children who are
not working is higher than those
who are in child labour.
• At the end of primary school
age, there is a steep decline
in school attendance for both
children who are in child
labour and those who are not,
However, attendance declines at
a faster rate for children who are
in child labour.
• In both foundational reading
and numeracy skills, children
who are not in child labour have
marginally higher shares of
reading and numeracy skills than
children who are in child labour.

Profile of children not learning and out of school by child labour and uneducated or unskilled youth by early marriage
FIGURE 119 Profile of youth who did not attend school, are illiterate, lack ICT skills (20 – 24-year-olds)
by early marriage Findings
• Young people who did not marry early are overrepresented in all three groupings (did not
Did not attend school
attend school, illiterate, and no ICT skills). This is because of their larger population size.
82 16 2 However, relative to the share of youth who married at 20 to 24-years-old (around 8 percent),
they are over-represented in the profiling for each group. This means that despite their
Illiterate
smaller share in the profiling, those who get married early are more relatively more likely to
not attend school, be illiterate, or have no ICT skills.
90 8 2
• 22 percent of 5 to 17-year-old children are in child labour. The share of children not learning
who are in child labour is similar to their share of the total population.
No ICT skills
• The majority of children who are out of school in all levels of education indicate that they
86 13 1 could be dropping out to pursue work rather than continue education.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Did not marry early Married between ages 15 and 18 Married before 15
FIGURE 120 Profile of children out of school or learning by child labour status
Numeracy
Not learning
64 36
Reading
61 39
Upper secondary
44 56
Out of school
Lower secondary
43 57
Primary
52 48
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not in child labour Child labour
Topic 6 I Child Protection 51

TOPIC 7 Inclusive Education
Guiding questions 1 Which groups of children 2 What are the most 3 How is disability linked 4 How is disability linked to 5 How do disabilities explain
have higher rates of common disabilities to school attendance and repetition and dropout? the profile of children who
disability? among children? learning? are out of school or not
learning in school?
Children with disabilities
+
Examples include a child who Glasses are not available to the child These children are likely to experience
FUNCTIONAL UNACCOMMODATING
has gradually lost vision and who has difficulty seeing distant objects. DISABILITY limited participation and their right to
DIFFICULTIES cannot see well, or a child ENVIRONMENT Learning material is not made available education may be compromised as a
who is blind. in braille to the child who is blind. result of unaccommodating environments.
What are functional difficulties?

MICS collected data on child functioning for all children under 18 through either the questionnaire for children under 5 or the questionnaire for children aged 5–17 years. In the case of children under 5, data on functional
difficulties are collected on the following functional domains: seeing, hearing, walking, fine motor, communication, learning, playing, and controlling behaviour. For children aged 5–17 years, data on functional difficulties are
collected on the following functional domains: seeing, hearing, walking, self-care, communication, learning, remembering, concentrating, accepting change, controlling behaviour, making friends, and affect (or children with
difficulties controlling their emotions, which is calculated using metrics for anxiety and depression).
FIGURE 121 Prevalence of disabilities Age 5 to 17 Age 2 to 4
14 13
12
12 11
10 10
10
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 7 35 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
6 6 29 6
6
5 5
4 17 17
0
Male Female 5 – 9 years/ 10 – 14 years/ 15 – 17 years/ Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Butha-Buthe Leribe Berea Maseru Mafeteng Mohale's Quthing Qacha's Mokhotlong Thaba-Tseka
2-year-olds 3-year-olds 4-year-olds Hoek Nek
Total Sex Age Area Wealth quintile District
FIGURE 122 Prevalence of disabilities (children aged 2 to 4) Male Female
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
1 1 1 1
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Walking Fine motor Hearing Playing Learning Seeing Communication Controlling behaviour Any functional disability

FIGURE 123 Prevalence of types of disabilities (children aged 5 to 17)
9
8 8
8
3
2 2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
0 0 0 0 0
0
Walking Selfcare Hearing Making friends Communication Learning Depression Concentration Anxiety Accepting Seeing Remembering Controlling Any functional
change behaviour disability
Male Female
Findings
• Across the country, 8
percent of 5 to 17-year-old
children have at least one
functional difficulty. The
prevalence of any functional
difficulty is similar by
gender, age group, and area.
There are wide disparities in
prevalence by district with
the Berea having a higher
prevalence than others.
• Among 5 to 17-year-
olds, the most common
functional difficulties
are associated with
behavioural and cognitive
challenges which includes
controlling behaviour,
accepting change, seeing,
remembering, and anxiety.
• Among 2 to 4-year-olds,
functional difficulties
associated with controlling
behaviour are more
prevalent than other
functional difficulties.
Topic 7 I Inclusive Education 53

Inclusive education (2 to 17-year-olds)
FIGURE 124 Current school attendance by functional difficulty (5 to 17-year-olds) FIGURE 125 ECE attendance by functional
difficulty status Findings
• Figure 124 uses the information of
70 97 97 70 whether the child attended any level
92 91 91 88 of education and disaggregates
55 the information by disability. The
60 81 60
difference is statistically significant
50 50 between children who have issues
45
controlling their behaviour and those
40 40 with no functional difficulty or any
functional difficulty, with the former
30 30 attending on lower levels. Conversely,
children who had hearing functional
20 20 difficulties attend schools at higher
levels than those who do not have
10 10 functional difficulties. This difference
is statistically significant.
0 0 • There is a statistically significant
Seeing Accepting Any No functional Remembering Anxiety Controlling Primary Lower secondary difference between ECE attendance
change functional difficulty behaviour
change No functional difficulty Any functional difficulty by functional difficulty status, in
favour of those who do not have any
functional difficulty. This means that
in the early years children who had
any functional disability have ECE
FIGURE 126 Adjusted net attendance rates FIGURE 127 Dropout rate by functional difficulty FIGURE 128 Repetition rate by disability status attendance higher than those that
(ANAR) by functional difficulty status (includes dropouts and non-transitioners)
did not.
100
97 96 12 25 20 • Even though there are differences
90 8 in current school attendance by
10 17 disability, these are not statistically
80 20
significant because of overlapping
70 6 confidence intervals at primary level,
8
60 57 15 but they are statistically significant at
44
lower secondary level.
50 6 11 10
• There is a similar share of children
40 10
4
with and without functional difficulty
30 in dropout rate at primary level. In
20 5 lower secondary, the share of children
2 1 1 who have no functional difficulty
10
and drop out, is higher. However,
0 0 0 this difference is not statistically
Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary Primary Lower secondary significant.
No functional difficulty Any functional difficulty No functional difficulty Any functional difficulty No functional difficulty Any functional difficulty • In both primary and lower secondary,
a higher share of children with any
disability repeat. The difference is
statistically significant at both levels.
LESOTHO FACT SHEET TOPIC 7new2.indd 54 2021/09/20 15:11

Foundational Learning Skills and disabilities (age 7 to 14)
60
FIGURE 129
Foundational skills
by disability grouping 50 42
44
(age 7 to 14) 38
40 31
No functional 29
difficulty
Seeing or hearing 30
Remembering, 17
concentrating or
learning 20
12
Accepting change 14 10
or controlling
behaviour 10
3
Anxiety or
depression
0
Reading skill Numeracy skill
Findings
• There are differences in the share of children
with the skills based on the disability grouping
for both foundational reading and numeracy
skills,
• Children with no functional difficulty and
those with cognitive challenges such as
accepting change, controlling behaviour, and
difficulty making friends, have similar shares
of foundational reading skills. Children who
have difficulty remembering, concentrating,
or learning, have a comparatively low share of
foundational reading skills. These differences are
statistically significant.
• Children who have anxiety or depression and
those with no functional difficulty, have similar
shares of foundational numeracy skills.
• The difference between the foundational
numeracy skill of children with no functional
difficulty and those with remembering or
concentrating or learning is statistically
significant. Low shares of children with
remembering or concentrating or learning
functional difficulty have foundational
numeracy skills.

Profile of children not learning or out of school, by disability
FIGURE 130 Current school attendance by functional difficulty (5 to 17-year-olds)
Numeracy 92 8 Does not have a

Not learning
functional difficulty
Has a functional
difficulty
Reading 91 9
Upper secondary 92 8
Out of school
Lower secondary 93 7
Primary 92 8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Findings
• 8 percent of
children in Lesotho
have a functional
difficulty. They
are proprotionally
represented among
children not learning
and out of school
across all levels of
education.

TABLE 5: Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Headcount* Headcount
(children with disabilities aged 5 to 17) (children with disabilities aged 2 to 14)
Out of school In school Out of school In school

Total 5–9 10 – 14 15 – 17 5–9 10 – 14 15 – 17 Total 2–4 2–4
Any disability 1 500 700 3 300 16 900 15 800 8 600 Any disability 8 600 –
Accepting change 100 200 200 2 800 2 400 800 Communication 1 300 500
Anxiety – 200 900 2 900 1 900 1 700 Controlling 5 200 2 100
Communication 400 200 400 1 400 400 300 Hearing 500 300
Concentrating 800 200 200 1 400 2 600 1 100 Learning 800 200
Controlling behaviour 300 200 1 300 3 000 2 000 1 000 Fine motor 200 –
Depression – 100 100 1 500 1 500 200 Playing 600 200
Hearing 200 – 40 2 100 1 600 700 Seeing 900 800
Learning 200 300 100 1 200 2 100 1 700 Walking 1 000 800
Making friends 200 200 400 1 300 1 100 1 300
Remembering 200 300 400 1 400 2 900 1 900
Seeing 100 40 100 2 800 3 100 2 200
Selfcare 300 200 100 1 000 400 50
Walking 30 200 300 500 800 200

TOPIC 8 Remote Learning
Guiding questions 1 What share of children live in households with 2 How is remote learning associated with 3 What are the profiles of children who do not have
access to remote learning tools? foundational learning? access to remote learning tools?
Access to remote learning tools for children aged 3 to 24
FIGURE 131 Share of children with access to remote learning tools
100
100
96
90
85
80 77
72 72
70
62
61 59
60 59
58
57 56 57
56 55 54
53 52
51 50
50 48 48 48
46 46
45 45 45 43 44
41 41
40 38
35 36 36 37
36
33 33 33
30
30 29
25 27
23 22
20 18 17
10 9
6 5
4
0 2
0
Male Femaile Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
Total
Sex Area Wealth quintile Attending level in the current year
Internet Radio Television Electricity

FIGURE 132 90
Share of
80 77
Findings
children with
neither TV nor • Nationally, only 36 percent
radio in the 70 of 3 to 24-year-old children
household who are in school live in
60 58 households with internet
connectivity.
50 49
44 • Data suggests that children
43
40 belonging to the poorest
40 39 38 36 wealth quintile have
35
30 extremely low access to
30 29
remote learning tools at
22 home. Only 6 percent live in
20 households with access to
16
the internet and 23 percent
10 live in households with
3 access to a radio.
0
Male Femaile Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Pre-primary Primary
Lower Upper
Higher • Radio has the largest
Total secondary secondary
prevalence in the country.
Sex Area Wealth quintile Attending level in the current year
• No children belonging to the
poorest wealth quintile have
access to television in their
household.
FIGURE 133 120 • Access to electricity is a

critical issue for the two
Share of
children not
poorest wealth quintiles.
attending 100 98 Remote technologies may
school but rely on access to electricity
with access for efficient functioning.
to remote 80
learning tools 75 • 39 percent of children
(3 to 17-year- 68 attending school have neither
olds) 62 66
access to a TV nor radio. This
60 57
53 means that these children
48 51
cannot access remote
42 44 44
41 41 learning by either TV or radio.
40 36 38
32 • 18 percent of children who
26 26 are not attending school
23 20
18 20
20 have access to a TV in their
13 14
household, and 42 percent
7 8
4 have access to a radio.
0 0
0
• Children who are not
Male Femaile Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Total attending school at any level
Sex Area Wealth quintile
of education may benefit from
remote learning programs
during school closures.
Internet Radio Television
Topic 8 I Remote Learning 59

Profiles of children with no access to remote learning tools
45
FIGURE 134
Foundational 40 Findings
reading skill
by remote
• Among all remote learning
learning tools 35 tools, access is associated with
a higher share of children who
30 have foundational reading skills.
This difference is statistically
25 significant.
• For foundational numeracy,
20 48 access to remote learning
42 tools is also associated with a
15
higher share of children who
have foundational numeracy
10 20 41
39 56 37 51 62 38 54 skills. However, the difference
is statically significant for
5
radio and TV only. This means
that the share of children with
0
foundational numeracy skills
No internet Internet No radio Radio No TV TV No electricity Electricity
is higher for children who have
Internet Radio Television Electricity access to TV or radio than those
who do not.
25
FIGURE 135
Foundational
numeracy skill
by remote 20
learning tools
15
10
5 12 17 11 16 20 10 19 12 15
0
No internet Internet No radio Radio No TV TV No electricity Electricity
Internet Radio Television Electricity

Learning environment at home for children aged 7 to 14
96 98 96
100 94 95 92
FIGURE 136 89 88
88 87 85 84
Share of 79
80
children with 71
no child-
oriented 60 55
book in the
household
40
20
0
Not attending Primary or
Male Femaile Urban Rural Attending Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Secondary Higher
Total school none
Sex Area Attendance status Wealth quintile Mother/caretaker’s level of education
FIGURE 137 100 94 95

89 90
90 85 85 84 85 86
Share of 82 83 84
80
students 80 74
with parent
70
or caretaker
helping with 60
homework 50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Not attending Primary or
Male Femaile Urban Rural Attending Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Secondary Higher
Total school none
Sex Area Attendance status Wealth quintile Mother/caretaker’s level of education
Findings of no child-oriented books in the household.

The absence of books signals a divide
• 88% of children live in households where
in society of children who can practice
there are no child-oriented books. Child-
reading at home using age-specific books.
oriented books refer to books that are
suitable for children to read and do not • 85% of children receive help with their
include school books and religious texts. homework. Gaps, however, prevail along
Children who are not attending school, socioeconomic lines in favour of children
the poorest children, and children whose belonging to the richest wealth quintiles,
mothers have only primary or no education and those whose mothers are more
have higher shares educated.

Profiles of children with no access to remote learning tools
No TV and no radio
FIGURE 138
Profiling of 46 54
children with
no access No TV
to remote
learning tools, 48 52
by sex
No radio
46 54
No internet
Male
Female 48 52
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIGURE 139 No TV and no radio
Profiling of 20 80
children with
no access
No TV
to remote
learning tools,
22 78
by area
No radio
29 71
No internet
Urban
Rural 25 75
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FIGURE 140 No TV and no radio
Profiling of 38 29 23 8 1
children with
no access
No TV
to remote
learning tools,
29 29 28 13 1
by wealth
quintile
No radio
Poorest
30 23 20 17 10
Second
Middle No internet
Fourth
Richest 28 25 20 17 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FIGURE 141 Profiling of chidren with no access to remote learning tools, by district
Findings
• This profiling is based on the data
No TV and no radio
collected from households with regard
8 12 11 21 9 9 7 6 8 10 to their access to the internet, tv, and
radio. This means the profiling is for:
the 65 percent of children who do not
No TV
have access to the internet, 49 percent
7 14 12 21 10 9 6 5 7 9 of children who do not have access to
radios, 27 percent of children who do
No radio
not have access to TVs, and 7 percent
of children who do not have access to a
6 13 11 24 9 9 6 6 7 8 radio nor a TV.
• More girls than boys live in households
No internet that have no access to remote learning
technologies.
7 16 12 21 9 9 6 5 6 8
• Rural areas are overrepresented for
areas that lack access to remote
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% technologies, particularly those areas
that do not have access to the internet
Butha-Buthe Leribe Berea Maseru Mafeteng Mohale's Hoek Quthing Qacha's Nek Mokhotlong Thaba-Tseka or whose access is very low.
• The two poorest wealth quintiles make
up the majority of those who do not
have access to a radio or the internet,
even though they only make up two-
FIGURE 142 Profiling of households with no access to remote learning tools, by the level of education, attended fifths of the population.
• Maseru is over-represented in all four
categories, and is followed by Leribe.
No TV and no radio
• Households where a child attends
9 66 18 5 3
primary school are over-represented
for all remote technologies. This is
No TV because of the higher share and
number of children attending the
9 65 18 5 2
primary level compared to other levels.
No radio
10 63 18 6 3
No internet
10 66 18 5 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher

TABLE 6: Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
Share (%) of 3 to 24-year-old children who have Headcount of 3 to 24-year-old children
No internet No radio No TV No radio No internet No radio No TV No radio

or TV or TV
Total 64 49 67 39 391 100 298 500 410 000 237 300
Male 65 47 67 38 188 000 138 000 195 100 110 200
Sex
Female 64 50 67 40 203 100 160 500 214 900 127 100
Urban 44 39 41 22 99 000 86 700 91 100 48 300

Area
Rural 75 54 82 49 292 000 211 800 318 900 188 900
Poorest 94 77 100 77 110 100 90 000 117 500 90 100
Second 83 59 98 58 99 400 69 900 117 400 68 700

Wealth Middle 64 48 95 44 78 300 59 100 116 600 54 900
quintile
Fourth 54 41 42 16 67 300 50 700 52 700 20 100
Richest 28 23 4 3 36 000 28 800 5 700 3 500
Butha-Buthe 78 54 85 50 28 100 19 200 30 600 17 900
Leribe 67 43 61 30 61 500 39 800 56 000 27 800
Berea 61 43 63 32 48 900 34 300 50 200 26 000
Maseru 50 42 51 29 84 100 71 600 87 300 49 600
Mafeteng 61 46 67 38 35 800 27 000 39 000 22 500

District
Mohale’s Hoek 72 51 78 42 36 000 25 700 38 800 21 000
Quthing 78 59 83 52 24 100 18 200 25 500 16 100
Quacha’s Nek 72 68 80 58 17 600 16 800 19 700 14 100
Mokhotlong 81 67 88 61 25 100 21 000 27 300 18 900
Thaba-Tseka 77 64 92 60 23 400 24 900 35 700 23 400

FIGURE 143 Share and headcount of children who lack access to radio or TV
100
90
80
Poorest
70 Mokhotlong
60 Quthing
Butha-Buthe
Thaba-Tseka
50 Mohale's Hoek Qacha's Nek
Rural
Second
40 Female Berea
Male
Middle
30 Mafeteng
Leribe
20 Maseru
Urban
10
Fourth
0
Richest
Findings
• These charts show the trade-off between shares and population size. The height of
the bubble represents the share of children who do not have access to a radio or a
TV. The higher the bubble, the larger the share. Population size is represented by
the size of the bubble.
• Qacha's Nek has the highest share of children who do not have access to either
a radio or a TV, whereas Butha-Buthe has the lowest share of children who do not
have access to either a radio or a TV.
• However, in terms of headcount, Maseru has the largest headcount of children
who do not have access to either a radio or a TV. These differences are because of
the differences in population size between the districts.
• The richest and poorest wealth quintile have similar shares of children who do
not have access to either a radio or a TV. This could be because households may
have access to one of these tools but not the either. For example, if a household
has access to a radio, they may not have access to a TV, or vice versa. However,
households in the middle wealth quintile have a larger share of children who do not
have access to a radio or TV.

LESOTHO FACT SHEET TOPIC 8new.indd 66 2021/09/20 13:09


UNICEF Lesotho
13 United Nations Road | Private Bag A171 | Maseru 100 | Lesotho

Lesotho MICS EAGLE Fact-Sheets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesotho MICS EAGLE Fact-Sheets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesotho Education

Fact Sheets | 2021

Analyses for learning and equity

Lesotho fact sheet.indb 1 2021/09/13 12:13

Lesotho fact sheet.indb 2 2021/09/13 12:13

Topic 1 Foundational Learning Skills ..................................................... 2

Topic 2 Completion Rates...................................................................... 14

Topic 3 Out-of-School Children ............................................................. 22

Topic 4 Early Childhood Development and Education ........................... 32

Topic 5 Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions ................................. 42

Topic 6 Child Protection ......................................................................... 48

Topic 7 Inclusive Education.................................................................... 52

Topic 8 Remote Learning....................................................................... 58

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 3 2021/09/20 13:01

What is MICS? What is MICS-EAGLE?

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 1 2021/09/20 13:01

FIGURE 1 Share of children with foundational skills by grade

Reading (both) Reading (Sesotho) Reading (English) Numeracy

Reading (English or Sesotho) Reading skill (Sesotho) Reading skill (English)

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 2 2021/09/20 13:01

Topic 1 I Foundational Learning Skills 3

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 3 2021/09/20 13:01

40 14 • However, trends between districts is similar to

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 4 2021/09/20 13:01

0 • This disparity gets particularly amplified in the

Topic 1 I Foundational Learning Skills 5

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 5 2021/09/20 13:01

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 6 2021/09/20 13:01

Numeracy Numeracy Numeracy

Reading Reading Reading

Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest

FIGURE 14 Profiling of children who are not learning, by district

Topic 1 I Foundational Learning Skills 7

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 7 2021/09/20 13:01

Numeracy skill Numeracy skill

Reading skill Reading skill

Male Female Male Female

Numeracy skill Numeracy skill

Reading skill Reading skill

Male Female Male Female

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 8 2021/09/20 13:01

Numeracy skill Numeracy skill

Reading skill Reading skill

Male Female Male Female

FIGURE 21 Area profiling of children not learning in Senqu River Valley

Topic 1 I Foundational Learning Skills 9

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 9 2021/09/20 13:02

Numeracy skills Numeracy skills

Reading skills Reading skills

Numeracy skills Numeracy skills

Reading skills Reading skills

Lesotho fact sheet_masterset.indb 10 2021/09/20 13:02

Shares (%) Headcount*

Reading Numeracy Reading Numeracy

Total 56 87 184 200 283 600

Urban 43 82 46 200 88 400

Poorest 73 93 54 800 69 800

Second 62 87 43 800 61 800

Wealth quintile Middle 51 84 33 800 55 400

Fourth 55 87 34 500 54 100

Richest 32 80 17 400 42 500

Butha-Buthe 56 91 11 800 19 200

Leribe 50 81 26 400 43 100

Berea 58 92 26 400 41 600