2022pakistan Factsheet 2022p11.28.22-1

Pakistan (Punjab) Education
Fact Sheets I 2022
Analyses for learning and equity

using MICS data
MICS-EAGLE
Topic #: Topic Title 1

Acknowledgements
The 2022 MICS-EAGLE Pakistan (Punjab) Education Fact Sheets were jointly developed Photocredits
by: the UNICEF Pakistan Country Office; UNICEF’s South Asia Regional Office; and Cover page: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 41: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Suguru Mizunoya, Yixin Wang, Peggy Kelly, and Sakshi Mishra of the Education team in Page 4: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 42: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
the Data and Analytics section, Division of Data, Analytics, Planning and Monitoring, Page 7: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 43: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
UNICEF Headquarters, with support from many helping hands. Page 9: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 44: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Page 10: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 45: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to the government ministers and their Page 16: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 47: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
representatives from Pakistan who provided inputs to the MICS-EAGLE factsheet, and Page 17: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 49: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
without whose support this initiative could not have advanced. Page 20: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 50: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
This work was supported by the Global Partnership for Education Knowledge and Page 23: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 53: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Innovation Exchange, a joint endeavour with the International Development Research Page 29: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 54: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Centre, Canada. Page 31: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 55: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Last but not least, the team would also like to thank Armen Antonyan for the design. Page 35: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi Page 57: © UNICEF/2018/Asad Zaidi
Table of contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
Topic 1: Completion ........................................................................................ 6
Topic 2: Skills ............................................................................................ 14
Topic 3: Out-of-School Children .................................................................... 22
Topic 4: Early learning ..................................................................................... 30
Topic 5: Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions ............................... 36
Topic 6: Child Protection ................................................................................. 42
Topic 7: Functional Difficulties ....................................................................... 46
Topic 8: Remote Learning .............................................................................. 52

Introduction
What is MICS? What is profiling? How are these fact sheets structured?
UNICEF launched Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys One of the characteristics of these fact sheets is
(MICS) in 1995 to monitor the status of children profiling. Profiling illustrates the demographic and
around the world. Over the past twenty-five years, this socioeconomic characteristics of children in a certain The MICS-EAGLE Initiative offers activities
household survey has become the largest source of category, and answers questions such as “what at the national, regional, and global level.
statistically sound and internationally comparable data percentage of a key population group is male and what The eight topics listed below are analyzed
on women and children worldwide, and more than 330 percentage is female?” or “what percentage of a key through an equity lens (gender, socio-
MICS surveys have been carried out in more than 115 population group lives in rural and what percentage lives economic status, ethnicity, etc.):
countries. in urban areas?” Because profiles examine all children
within a key population group, the sum of various
MICS surveys are conducted by trained fieldworkers characteristics always adds up to 100 per cent (although
who perform face-to-face interviews with household Access and Completion
rounding may affect this). For example, a profile of
members on a variety of topics. MICS was a major data children not completing primary education will highlight
source for the Millennium Development Goals indicators some of the main characteristics of children in the target
and continues to inform more than 150 Sustainable Skills
population group for this indicator. Primary completion
Development Goals (SDG) indicators in support of the (learning outcomes, ICT skills
rates look at children aged 3-5 years older than the entry
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. and literacy rate)
age for children for the last grade of primary school, so
the target population on this indicator will be children
MICS has been updated several times with new and aged 12-14 years who have not completed primary
improved questions. The current version, MICS6, Inclusive Education
education. In Pakistan (Punjab), 34 per cent of children
was deployed in 2017 and is being implemented in (with a focus on disability)
aged between 12 and 14 have not completed primary
58 countries. MICS6 includes new modules that education. Among this 34 percent who have not
track SDG4 indicators related to education such as completed primary education, 49 per cent are males and
learning (SDG4.1.1), Early Childhood Development and 51 per cent are females. Early Learning
Education (SDG4.2.1 and SDG4.2.2), information and
communication technology skills (ICT—SDG4.4.1), and
child functioning (child disability—SDG4.5.1), as well as MICS6 in Pakistan (Punjab)
parental involvement in education. Out-of-School Children
The Pakistan (Punjab) Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
(MICS) was carried out in 2017-18 by Bureau of
What is MICS-EAGLE? Statistic, Punjab, in collaboration with the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), as part of the Global Repetition and Dropouts
UNICEF launched the MICS-EAGLE (Education Analysis
MICS Programme. Technical support was provided by (internal efficiency)
for Global Learning and Equity) Initiative in 2018 with
the objective of improving learning outcomes and equity UNICEF, with government funding and financial support
issues in education by addressing two critical education of UNICEF. For all education questions, 2017-18 school
data problems – gaps in key education indicators, as well year is the current school year and 2016-17 school year Child Protection
as lack of effective data utilization by governments and is the previous school year. (child labour and child marriage)
education stakeholders. MICS-EAGLE is designed to:
• Support education sector situation analysis and sector Remote Learning

plan development by building national capacity, and
leveraging the vast wealth of education data collected
by MICS6; and
• Build on the global data foundation provided by MICS6
to yield insights at the national, regional, and global
level about ways to ensure each child can reach his or
her full potential by reducing barriers to opportunity.
Introduction 5
Topic 1 Completion
1. For which level of education 2. What districts have the 3. What is the profile of children 4. What are the socioeconomic
Guiding is the completion rate the lowest completion rates who do not complete each characteristics of children who do not
questions lowest? at each level? level of education? complete each level of education?
Overview
FIGURE 1 Overview of completion rates

What is completion rate?
100%
The completion rate reflects the percentage of a cohort of
children or young people three to five years older than the 90%
intended age for the last grade of each level of education 80%
(primary, lower secondary or upper secondary) who have
Richest 92% 87% 72% 63%
70%
completed that level of education. For example, the official Urban 77% 68% 51% 42% 60%
age of entry into primary school in Punjab is 5 years, and
50%
primary school has 5 grades, so the intended age for the last Total 66% 56% 39% 30%
grade of primary school is 9 years. In this case, the reference 40%
age group for calculation of the primary completion rate Rural 60% 49% 31% 22% 30%
would be 12-14 years (9 + 3 = 12 and 9 + 5 = 14). This 20%
indicator is used to calculate SDG 4.1.2 – Completion rate Poorest 33% 20% 10% 6%
10%
(primary education, secondary education). MIDDLE JUNIOR SENIOR
PRIMARY 0%
SCHOOL SECONDARY SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR SECONDARY SENIOR SECONDARY
FIGURE 2 Primary completion rates FIGURE 3 Middle school completion rates
100% 100%
92 87
90% 90%
82
80% 77 75 80%
68 71
70% 66 67 65 70%
60 60 60
60% 60% 56 57 56
50% 50% 49
43
40% 40%
33
30% 30%
20%
20
20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
TOTAL TOTAL
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE
6 Pakistan (Punjab) Education Fact Sheets 2022 I Analyses for learning and equity using MICS data
FIGURE 4 Junior secondary completion rates FIGURE 5 Senior secondary completion rates
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
72
70% 70% 63
60% 60%
51 49
50% 50%
39 39 42
40%
38 37 40% 37
31 30 31
28
30%
24 30%
22 24
20% 20%
10 13
10% 10% 6
0% 0%
TOTAL Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest TOTAL Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE
Findings
• The primary completion rate in Punjab is 66 per cent,
indicating that there is still a ways to go before
achieving universal primary completion. The
differences are notable by urban-rural location,
as well as along socio-economic lines.
• Completion rates decline for middle school to 56 per

cent, steeply for junior secondary education to just 39
per cent, and further drop to 30 per cent for senior
secondary level.
• At all levels, rural and poor children have completion

rates below the average for all of Punjab, whereas
urban and richer children have completion rates above
the average. In particular, children belonging to the
poorest quintile have much lower completion rates
than other groups.
• The gap between the completion rates of children

from the richest and poorest wealth quintiles remains
high at all levels of the education system. In primary,
92 per cent of the children from the wealthiest quintile
complete their education, compared to 33 per cent
from the poorest quintile. Furthermore, while 72 per
cent of children from the richest quintile complete
junior secondary education, only 10 per cent of
children from the poorest quintile do so.
Topic 1: Completion 7
Regional disaggregation – completion rates
FIGURE 6 Primary completion rate by district FIGURE 7 Middle school completion rate by district FIGURE 8 Junior secondary completion rate by district FIGURE 9 Senior secondary completion rate by district
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rajanpur 37 Rajanpur 30 Rajanpur 20 Rajanpur 14
DG Khan 41 DG Khan 33 Muzaffargarh 20 DG Khan 15
Muzaffargarh 46 Muzaffargarh 34 DG Khan 20 Muzaffargarh 15
RY Khan 47 RY Khan 37 RY Khan 25 Pakpattan 17
Lodhran 50 Bhakkar 40 Pakpattan 26 RY Khan 17
Bahawalnagar 55 Bahawalnagar 40 Lodhran 29 Lodhran 21
Bahawalpur 56 Pakpattan 46 Bahawalnagar 29 Bahawalnagar 22
Bhakkar 58 Okara 46 Layyah 29 Bhakkar 22
Okara 59 Bahawalpur 47 Okara 29 Okara 23
Vehari 61 Layyah 48 Kasur 30 Kasur 23
Pakpattan 62 Vehari 48 Bhakkar 30 Khushab 23
Layyah 62 Sahiwal 48 Bahawalpur 32 Vehari 24
Jhang 63 Khanewal 48 Khanewal 33 Khanewal 24
Sahiwal 63 Lodhran 49 Sahiwal 34 Attock 24
Kasur 63 Kasur 49 Jhang 34 Mianwali 24
Chiniot 64 Chiniot 51 Khushab 35 Sargodha 24
Multan 64 Multan 52 Sargodha 35 Layyah 25
Mianwali 64 Mianwali 54 Vehari 35 Jhang 25
Khanewal 65 Khushab 54 Mianwali 36 Bahawalpur 26
Sargodha 66 Sargodha 56 Sheikhupura 36 Sheikhupura 27
Khushab 67 Sheikhupura 56 Chiniot 37 Nankana Sahib 27
Nankana Sahib 69 Jhang 57 Multan 37 Multan 27
Hafizabad 69 Hafizabad 57 Hafizabad 38 Hafizabad 27
Sheikhupura 70 Attock 58 Nankana Sahib 40 Sahiwal 27
Attock 71 Nankana Sahib 58 Mandi Bahauddin 41 Mandi Bahauddin 29
TT Singh 71 Mandi Bahauddin 61 Attock 41 Chiniot 31
Faisalabad 73 TT Singh 62 Narowal 43 Narowal 31
Mandi Bahauddin 76 Faisalabad 65 TT Singh 44 TT Singh 32
Lahore 77 Lahore 68 Faisalabad 45 Sialkot 34
Gujranwala 79 Gujrat 70 Gujranwala 48 Faisalabad 35
Gujrat 80 Gujranwala 71 Sialkot 49 Gujranwala 36
Rawalpindi 82 Sialkot 72 Gujrat 50 Chakwal 38
Narowal 83 Jhelum 73 Lahore 54 Gujrat 41
Sialkot 84 Narowal 73 Rawalpindi 57 Jhelum 45
Chakwal 85 Rawalpindi 74 Jhelum 58 Lahore 45
Jhelum 86 Chakwal 76 Chakwal 58 Rawalpindi 48
Findings
• At primary level, completion
rates vary substantially by
district, with Ranjanpur having
the lowest, at 37 per cent, and
Jhelum having the highest at
86 per cent.
• For all districts, completion

rates decline at the middle
school level when compared
to primary level.
• At the middle school level

Chakwal has the highest
completion rate at 76 percent
and Rajanpur has the lowest
completion rate at 30 per cent.
Most districts experience a
drop in completion rates from
primary to middle school of 10
percentage points or more.
• At the junior secondary level,

for all districts the decline in
completion rate is substantial,
falling at least 10 percentage
points from middle school
completion rates, and by more
than 20 percentage points in
some districts. Three districts,
DG Khan, Muzaffargarh, and
Rajanpur had junior secondary
completion rates of 20 per
cent, and Chakwal and Jhelum
had the highest at 58 per cent.
• When it comes to senior

secondary school, the
completion rates continue to
drop across all districts, with
all districts having a lower than
50 per cent completion rate.
Profiles of children not completing school
These profiles are based on the share of children not completing each level of education in Punjab, where 34 per cent do not complete primary,
44 per cent do not complete middle school, 61 per cent do not complete junior secondary, and 70 per cent do not complete senior secondary education.
FIGURE 10 Profile of children who do not complete school, by sex FIGURE 11 Profile of children who do not complete school, by area
Findings
SENIOR SENIOR
SECONDARY 51% 49% SECONDARY 31% 69% • Among children who do not
complete primary, there are a
JUNIOR JUNIOR slightly higher share of girls. But
SECONDARY 51% 49% SECONDARY 29% 71% at the middle school and
secondary levels, the trend
reverses and there are slightly
MIDDLE
SCHOOL 52% 48% MIDDLE
SCHOOL 28% 72% more boys among those who do
not complete these levels.
PRIMARY 49% 51% PRIMARY 24% 76% • Across all four levels, among
children not completing the level,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% there more children are in rural
areas.
Male Female Urban Rural
• Children from the poorest two

wealth quintiles make up more
FIGURE 12 Profile of children who do not complete school, by wealth quintile than half of those who do not
complete middle school and junior
secondary levels, and 71 per cent
SENIOR
SECONDARY
21% 26% 23% 19% 11% of those who do not complete the
primary level.
Poorest
JUNIOR
SECONDARY 26% 27% 22% 17% 8% Second
Middle
MIDDLE
SCHOOL 34% 28% 19% 14% 6% Fourth
Richest
PRIMARY 45% 26% 14% 10% 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: numbers may not sum to 100 per cent due to rounding.
TABLE 1. Completion
Completion rates (%) Estimated number of children who did not complete
Rates & headcounts by various
socioeconomic characteristics Middle Junior Senior Middle Junior Senior
Primary Primary
school Secondary Secondary school Secondary Secondary
Total 34% 44% 61% 70% 2,433,000 1,999,000 4,080,000 4,537,000
Male 33 % 43 % 62 % 72 % 1,200,000 1,044,000 2,085,000 2,308,000
Sex
Female 35 % 44 % 61 % 69 % 1,233,000 955,000 1,995,000 2,228,000
Urban 23 % 32 % 49 % 58 % 595,000 556,000 1,193,000 1,410,000
Area
Rural 40 % 51 % 69 % 78 % 1,838,000 1,443,000 2,887,000 3,127,000
Poorest 67 % 80 % 90 % 94 % 1,091,000 674,000 1,051,000 940,000
Second 40 % 57 % 76 % 87 % 639,000 555,000 1,116,000 1,179,000
Wealth quintile Middle 25 % 40 % 63 % 76 % 352,000 382,000 894,000 1,066,000
Fourth 18 % 29 % 51 % 63 % 254,000 275,000 675,000 854,000
Richest 8% 13 % 28 % 37 % 97,000 113,000 344,000 499,000
Bahawalpur 44 % 53 % 68 % 74 % 95,000 69,000 145,000 145,000
Bahawalnagar 45 % 60 % 71 % 78 % 90,000 74,000 141,000 142,000
RY Khan 53 % 63 % 75 % 83 % 169,000 107,000 201,000 196,000
DG Khan 59 % 67 % 80 % 85 % 115,000 71,000 116,000 109,000
Layyah 38 % 52 % 71 % 75 % 50,000 41,000 72,000 78,000
Muzaffargarh 54 % 66 % 80 % 85 % 171,000 108,000 209,000 189,000
Rajanpur 63 % 70 % 80 % 86 % 83,000 50,000 88,000 79,000
Faisalabad 27 % 35 % 55 % 65 % 122,000 108,000 244,000 282,000
Chiniot 36 % 49 % 63 % 69 % 31,000 22,000 45,000 49,000
Jhang 37 % 43 % 66 % 75 % 65,000 50,000 102,000 116,000
TT Singh 29 % 38 % 56 % 68 % 40,000 37,000 81,000 92,000
Gujranwala 21 % 29 % 52 % 64 % 71,000 71,000 161,000 200,000
Gujrat 20 % 30 % 50 % 59 % 37,000 39,000 81,000 93,000
Hafizabad 31 % 43 % 62 % 73 % 25,000 20,000 40,000 48,000
Mandi Bahauddin 24 % 39 % 59 % 71 % 25,000 29,000 55,000 64,000
Narowal 17 % 27 % 57 % 69 % 21,000 22,000 65,000 82,000
Sialkot 16 % 28 % 51 % 66 % 43,000 50,000 117,000 153,000
District Lahore 23 % 32 % 46 % 55 % 149,000 145,000 303,000 370,000
Kasur 37 % 51 % 70 % 77 % 90,000 76,000 158,000 166,000
Nankana Sahib 31 % 42 % 60 % 73 % 25,000 22,000 43,000 52,000
Sheikhupura 30 % 44 % 64 % 73 % 73,000 68,000 136,000 159,000
Multan 36 % 48 % 63 % 73 % 116,000 88,000 198,000 216,000
Khanewal 35 % 52 % 67 % 76 % 74,000 73,000 141,000 153,000
Lodhran 50 % 51 % 71 % 79 % 56,000 31,000 72,000 75,000
Vehari 39 % 52 % 65 % 76 % 76,000 57,000 121,000 124,000
Rawalpindi 18 % 26 % 43 % 52 % 59,000 58,000 136,000 169,000
Attock 29 % 42 % 59 % 76 % 33,000 34,000 63,000 87,000
Chakwal 15 % 24 % 42 % 62 % 13,000 16,000 36,000 54,000
Jhelum 14 % 27 % 42 % 55 % 11,000 15,000 35,000 45,000
Sahiwal 37 % 52 % 66 % 73 % 61,000 53,000 98,000 96,000
Okara 41 % 54 % 71 % 77 % 85,000 72,000 137,000 145,000
Pakpattan 38 % 54 % 74 % 83 % 45,000 42,000 82,000 91,000
Sargodha 34 % 44 % 65 % 76 % 84,000 79,000 161,000 191,000
Bhakkar 42 % 60 % 70 % 78 % 57,000 49,000 82,000 85,000
Khushab 33 % 46 % 65 % 77 % 32,000 23,000 52,000 63,000
Mianwali 36 % 46 % 64 % 76 % 38,000 29,000 65,000 77,000
*Headcounts are based on UNSD statistics, but can be calculated using other data sources if the country requests.
Completion - Rates & headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number of children in various groups who did not complete their education
(represented by the size of the bubble) and the non-completion rates for each group (indicated on the y-axis).
FIGURE 13 Rates of incompletion and headcounts of children who do not complete primary
100%
90%
80%
70% 63%
67% 59%
60%
53% 54% 50%
50% 44% 45% 41% 42%
38% 37% 36% 35% 39%
40% 35% 40% 40% 36% 37% 37% 38%
34% 36%
31% 31% 30% 33%
TOTAL
30% 29% 29%
33% 27% 21% 24%
23% 25% 20% 18%
20% 17% 16% 23% 15% 14%
18%
8%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 14 Rates of incompletion and headcounts of children who do not complete middle school
100%
90%
80% 80%
70%
70% 67%
60% 66% 60%
63%
60% 53%
57% 52% 51% 52% 51% 52% 52% 54% 54%
49% 48%
50% 51% 44% 44% 46% 46%
43% 43% 42% 42%
44% TOTAL
40% 40% 38% 39%
43%
35% 29% 30%
30% 32% 27% 28% 32% 26%
29% 24% 27%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 15 Rates of incompletion and headcounts of children who do not complete junior secondary
100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
80% 80%
76% 71% 75% 71% 70% 71% 74%
68% 66% 67% 71% 65% 66% 65%
70%
70% 63% 64% 63% 65%
69% 62% 59% 64%
56% 57% 60% 59%
60% 62% 63%
52%
TOTAL
61% 55% 50% 51%
50% 51% 43%
49% 46% 42% 42%
40%
30%
28%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 16 Rates of incompletion and headcounts of children who do not complete senior secondary
100%
90% 94% 83% 85% 86%

83%
78% 85% 77% 76% 79% 76% 76% 77%
80% 87% 75% 75% 76% 78% 77% 76%
72%
74% 73% 71% 73% 73% 73%
78% 76% 69% 68% 64% 69% 66%
70% 73%
TOTAL
69% 62%
63% 65% 59%
60% 52% 55%
58% 55%
50%
40%
37%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Findings
• At all four levels of schooling, there is • Among districts, Muzaffargarth, Lahore, • Although inequities are present at all levels of • Among districts, Lahore and
little variation between groups by and RY Khan have the largest number of education by wealth quintile, they become most Faisalabahave a headcount of
gender; however, there is substantial children not completing primary school. visible at the junior and senior secondary level. While more than 200,000 children
variation in non-completion rates by These same districts, plus Faisalabad, 28 per cent of the children from the richest wealth not completing junior
urban-rural location and socio-economic have the highest number of children not quintile did not complete junior secondary school, 90 secondary school.
status, as rural children and poorer completing middle school. per cent of their peers coming from the poorest
children have higher non-completion household failed to complete junior secondary school.
rates at all four levels. At senior secondary level, almost none of the children
from the poorest household complete.
Topic 2 Skills
1. By which grade do most 2. Which characteristics are 3. What share of each group of young 4. What is the profile of
Guiding children acquire foundational linked to higher shares of people are literate, and what share children who are not
questions learning skills (measured at reading and numeracy skills? have ICT skills? learning?
the Grade 2/3 level)?
Foundational reading and numeracy skills (based on contents for grades 2 and 3)
What are foundational learning skills? FIGURE 17 Share of children aged 7 to 14 with foundational learning skills
Foundational learning skills in the MICS module are learning
outcomes expected for Grades 2 and 3 in numeracy and 100%
reading. They are measured for children aged 7 to 14 years. 90%
This data can be used to calculate SDG4.1.1.a to measure 80%
the proportion of children in Grade 2/3 achieving minimum 70%
proficiency in (i) reading and (ii) numeracy, by sex. 60% 59
50% 47 47
38 41
How are ICT skills measured? 40% 36 35 31 32
30%
ICT skills were based on the information of women and men 15 16 18
age 15-49 about whether they carried out at least one of nine
20% 12 13 11 10 11 13 13
10% 6
specific computer related activities in the last three months
0%
prior to the survey. Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
TOTAL
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE
Reading Numeracy
FIGURE 18 Share of children with foundational skills by grade
100%
90%
82
80% 77 77
71
70% 67
60% 55 24
50% 45
40%
29 30
30% 25 25
22
20% 17 18
9 12
10% 7 5
0 0 2
0%
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 1 Grade 2
Never attended shcool
PRIMARY LOWER SECONDARY UPPER SECONDARY
Findings
• The Foundational Learning module assesses
skills at the Grade 2/3 level. 32 per cent of
children who have Grade 3 as the highest
grade attended have the expected reading
skills for that grade, while 9 per cent of children
have the expected numeracy skills.
• Data indicates that children learn by staying in

school, as the share increases with each
highest grade attended, until reaching grade 2
of upper secondary. Foundational skills are very
low for children who never attended school.
• The share of children with Grade 2/3 level

reading skills increases from 32 per cent in
Grade 3 to 83 per cent in upper secondary
Grade 1, whereas the share of children with
numeracy skills at the Grade 2/3 level increases
from 9 per cent in Grade 3 to 30 per cent in
upper secondary Grade 1. It is important to
note that all children are assessed based on
contents of grade 2/3 and in Punjab, there are
children whose highest grade is upper
secondary Grade 2 who still do not have
foundational skills.
• In Punjab, overall, 36 per cent of children aged

7 to 14 have foundational reading skills and 12
per cent of children aged 7 to 14 have
foundational numeracy skills.
• Learning gaps along socioeconomic lines can

be seen in Punjab, where a higher share of
urban and wealthy children have foundational
reading and numeracy skills.
• The largest learning gap is associated with

household wealth: the share of children from
the richest quintile with foundational reading
skills is 43 percentage points higher than the
share of share of children from the poorest
wealth quintile. This gap is much narrower in
foundational numeracy skills, where the
percentage of children from the richest quintile
who have foundational numeracy skills is 18
compared to 6 per cent children from poorest
wealth quintile.
Topic 2: Skills 15
Literacy and ICT skills
FIGURE 19 Literacy rates among youth aged 15 to 24 years Findings
95 • 73 percent of 15 to 24 year olds • More males and urban youth

100%
in Punjab are literate. In MICS, have ICT skills than females or
90% 84 87 literacy is assessed on the ability rural youth. Strong inequities
75 78 78 of the respondent to read a short are observed in ICT skills
80% 72
67 simple statement or based on signaling the digital divide may
70% 63 school attendance i.e. those who exist along socio-economic
60% attended lower secondary or lines.
46 higher are counted as literate.
50%
However, those who only • The largest difference in ICT
40% 34 attended preschool have an skill is observed by the highest
30% extremely low literacy rate in level of education attained,
Punjab of 3 per cent. with 32 per cent of youth who
20%
have higher education having
10% 3 • Only 46 per cent of those whose ICT skills compared to 11 per
0% highest level of education is cent of youth with upper
Total Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest None Primary primary were able to read a short secondary education.
TOTAL simple statement.
HIGHEST LEVEL OF
EDUCATION ATTAINED
• 12 per cent of 15 to 24 year olds
have ICT skills in Nunjab. ICT
skills is calculated based on
responses to 9 ICT - related
activities in MICS.
FIGURE 20 ICT skill among youth aged 15 to 24 years
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
32
50%
40%
32
30%
20 19
20% 12 12 11
8 7
10% 7 2 4 4
1 1
0%
Total Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest None Primary Lower Upper Higher
TOTAL secondary secondary
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED
Profile of children not learning
These profiles are based on the 64 per cent of children in Punjab aged 7 to 14 years who do not have foundational reading skills and
the 88 per cent who do not have foundational numeracy skills.
Findings
FIGURE 21 Profile of children who are not learning, by sex FIGURE 22 Profile of children who are not learning, by area
• Equal proportions of boys and girls
lack foundational reading skills, and
slightly more girls lack foundational
numeracy skills.
READING
50% 50% READING
28% 72%
• Most children who are not learning
are in rural areas.
NUMERACY 49% 51% NUMERACY 32% 68% • The majority of those not learning
foundational skills are from the
poorer quintiles, as 49 per cent of
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 7 to 14 year olds who do not have
foundational numeracy skills and
Male Female Urban Rural 57 per cent of those who do not
have foundational reading skills
belong to the poorest 40 per cent
FIGURE 23 Profile of children who are not learning, by wealth quintile
of the population.
• Of the children not learning.

Poorest
Faisalabad has the largest share
READING 34% 23% 17% 15% 10% Second
of children not learning reading
Middle
among the districts, and Faisalabad
Fourth
and Lajore both have the largest
Richest
share of children not learning
NUMERACY 27% 22% 18% 18% 15% numeracy among the districts.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Topic 2: Skills 17
TABLE 2. Foundational skills
Share (%) of children without foundational skills Headcount of children without foundational skills
Shares & headcounts of children
aged 7 to 14 who are not learning,
by various socioeconomic characteristics Reading Numeracy Reading Numeracy
Total 64% 88% 11,872,000 16,525,000

Male 65 % 87 % 5,954,000 8,069,000
Sex
Female 62 % 89 % 5,918,000 8,456,000
Urban 53 % 85 % 3,315,000 5,289,000
Area
Rural 69 % 90 % 8,557,000 11,236,000
Poorest 84 % 94 % 4,019,000 4,499,000
Second 68 % 89 % 2,773,000 3,611,000
Wealth quintile Middle 59 % 87 % 2,039,000 3,009,000
Fourth 53 % 87 % 1,814,000 2,968,000
Richest 41 % 82 % 1,228,000 2,437,000
Bahawalpur 66 % 98 % 381,000 566,000
Bahawalnagar 68 % 98 % 319,000 457,000
RY Khan 72 % 92 % 624,000 794,000
DG Khan 75 % 92 % 351,000 430,000
Layyah 57 % 85 % 227,000 339,000
Muzaffargarh 74 % 87 % 728,000 853,000
Rajanpur 81 % 97 % 312,000 372,000
Faisalabad 62 % 90 % 807,000 1,162,000
Chiniot 72 % 83 % 183,000 211,000
Jhang 70 % 83 % 349,000 417,000
TT Singh 62 % 88 % 235,000 334,000
Gujranwala 61 % 95 % 403,000 629,000
Gujrat 53 % 96 % 243,000 442,000
Hafizabad 67 % 90 % 121,000 162,000
Mandi Bahauddin 61 % 89 % 140,000 203,000
Narowal 51 % 74 % 154,000 226,000
Sialkot 56 % 86 % 349,000 539,000
District Lahore 48 % 82 % 711,000 1,211,000
Kasur 63 % 92 % 398,000 576,000
Nankana Sahib 70 % 94 % 185,000 248,000
Sheikhupura 64 % 96 % 323,000 483,000
Multan 61 % 84 % 582,000 802,000
Khanewal 71 % 86 % 406,000 494,000
Lodhran 71 % 87 % 244,000 298,000
Vehari 65 % 85 % 363,000 475,000
Rawalpindi 52 % 90 % 422,000 739,000
Attock 76 % 98 % 198,000 255,000
Chakwal 48 % 86 % 115,000 203,000
Jhelum 55 % 82 % 108,000 163,000
Sahiwal 68 % 84 % 313,000 386,000
Okara 67 % 92 % 418,000 575,000
Pakpattan 62 % 89 % 214,000 307,000
Sargodha 69 % 92 % 424,000 560,000
Bhakkar 68 % 78 % 205,000 234,000
Khushab 71 % 91 % 169,000 216,000
Mianwali 58 % 64 % 148,000 164,000
Foundational skills Shares & headcounts of children aged 7 to 14 who are not learning, by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number (represented by the size of the bubble) and share (indicated on the y-axis) of children in various group who do not have foundational learning skills.
FIGURE 24 Headcounts and shares of children who do not have foundational reading skills
100%
90%
81%
80% 84% 75% 76%
72% 70% 71% 71%
68% 74% 70% 68% 67% 69% 68% 71%
70% 66% 72% 67% 64% 65%
69% 68% 62% 61% 61% 63% 61% 62%
65% 62% TOTAL
60% 57% 62% 53% 56% 52% 55% 58%
59% 51%
53% 48%
50% 53% 48%
40% 41%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 25 Headcounts and shares of children who do not have foundational numeracy skills
98% 98% 97% 96% 96% 98%
100% 90% 92% 92% 94% 92%
94% 88% 95% 90% 89% 86% 89% 92% 91%
92% 85% 84% 86% 87% 85% 86%
90% 90% 83% 83% 90% 82% 84%
85% 89% 87% TOTAL
87% 89% 87% 87%
80% 82% 74% 82%
78%
70% 64%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Topic 2: Skills 19
Findings
• In foundational reading skills, children from the • In foundational numeracy skills, a • Among districts, in foundation reading skills, Rajanpur has the
poorest wealth quintile have very high rates of different pattern emerges, as children highest share of children who do not have the skills and
children not learning, at 84 per cent. By at all wealth quintiles have very low Raisalabad has the largest headcount of children not having
contrast, children from the richest quintile have foundational numeracy skills, although foundational reading skills. In foundational numeracy skills,
lower shares of children who do not have the share of children not learning Bahawalput, Bahawalnagar, and Attock have the highest share
foundational reading skills, at 41 per cent, and numeracy is highest for the poorest of children who do not have the skill, but Lahore has the largest
a far smaller headcount of children not learning. children, at 94 per cent. headcount of children not learning foundational numeracy skills.
Topic 2: Skills 21
Topic 3 Out-of-School Children
1. Which level of education has 2. How many children are 3. Which regions have the 4. Where do most out-of-school
Guiding
the highest rate of out-of- out of school? highest out-of-school children live and what is their
questions school children? rates? background?
Overview
Who are out-of-school children? FIGURE 26 Overview of out-of-school rates

100%
Out-of-school children are children and young people in
the official age range for a given level of education who 90%
are not attending either pre-primary, primary, secondary 80%

or higher levels of education. The objective of the
Richest 3% 7% 10% 19%
70%
out-of-school children rate is to identify the part of the Urban 8% 14% 25% 37% 60%
population in the official age range for a given level of
50%
education not attending school, in order to formulate Total 13% 21% 34% 47%
targeted policies that can be put in place to ensure they 40%
have access to education. It is used to calculate SDG Rural 15% 25% 39% 53% 30%
4.1.4 – Out-of-school rate for different levels of education, 20%
including pre-primary, primary and secondary education. Poorest 30% 45% 64% 77%
10%
MIDDLE JUNIOR SENIOR
PRIMARY 0%
SCHOOL SECONDARY SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR SECONDARY SENIOR SECONDARY
FIGURE 27 Out-of-school population (estimated headcounts)
Findings
• In Punjab, 13 per cent of children of age to go to primary • Out-of-school rates for rural children are also
2.149,000 1,921,000 school are out of school. At the middle school level, the higher than the Punjab average at all levels of
percentage of out of school children increases to 21 per education.
cent, and at the junior and senior secondary level it
increases to 34 and 47 per cent of children. • In total about 1,921,000 primary school-age
children and 1,652,000 middle school-age
• At all levels, the poorest children have out-of-school children were out of school. At the secondary
rates that are about double the average for all of Punjab. level the number of out-of-school children is
The gap in out of school rates is extremely high 1,617,000 and 2,149,000 for junior and senior
between children from the poorest and richest wealth secondary.
quintile, with the difference 27 percentage points, 38
1,617,000 1,652,000
Primary percentage points, 54 percentage points, and 58
Middle school percentage points for primary, middle school, junior
Junior secondary secondary, and senior secondary levels respectively.
Senior secondary
Out-of-school children by level of education
FIGURE 28 Share of out-of-school children, by level of education
100%
90%
80% 77
70% 64 58
60%
53 40
50% 47 46 48 45 45
40% 36 37 39 36
34 32 30
30%
24 25 25 22 27
21 18 20 19
20%
13 11 15 14 15 12 14
10% 8 7 5 9 7 10
3
0%
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
TOTAL
Primary Middle school Junior secondary Senior secondary
Findings
• 13 per cent of children of age to go to primary • At all levels of education, out of school
school are not attending any form of education. rates vary substantially by district. At the
This means a fairly high share of primary aged primary level, Narowal has the lowest
children are not in school in Punjab. out of school children rate at 3 per cent
and Rajanpur has the largest, at 33 per
• At the middle school level, the out-of-school cent.
rate for Punjab increases to 21 per cent,
indicating that fewer children are in school • At the middle school level, out of school
as they progress through the levels. rates increase for all districts. Chakwali
and Gujrat have the lowest rate, with
• In all levels, data indicate substantial 7 per cent of lower secondary age
differences by socio-economic lines, with only children out of school, whereas
3 per cent of children belonging to the richest Rajanpur has 45 per cent of children
quintile of school at the primary level, who are out of school at this level.
compared to 30 per cent of the poorest
children being out of school. • At the junior secondary level, out of
school rates continue to increase for all
• At the secondary level, the out-of-school rate districts. In particular, Rajanpur has the
continues to increase, reaching 34 per cent and highest out of school rate at 64 per cent.
47 per cent for junior and senior secondary
throughout Punjab. Differences are observed • The out of school rates further increase
along urban and rural location, with a higher at the senior secondary level, with
share of rural children being out of school. The nearly 70 per cent of the children in
divide between out of school children in the Rajanpur, RY Khan, and Muzaffargarh
highest and lowest wealth quintile is remain being out of school.
particularly stark at the secondary level.
Topic 3: Out-of-School Children 23

Share of out-of-school children by district
FIGURE 29 Primary FIGURE 30 Middle school FIGURE 31 Junior secondary FIGURE 32 Senior secondary
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rajanpur 33 Rajanpur 45 Rajanpur 64 Rajanpur 69
RY Khan 29 RY Khan 40 Muzaffargarh 55 RY Khan 68
Bahawalpur 26 DG Khan 40 RY Khan 51 Muzaffargarh 67
DG Khan 23 Lodhran 36 Lodhran 50 DG Khan 64
Lodhran 23 Muzaffargarh 33 DG Khan 48 Bhakkar 61
Muzaffargarh 19 Bahawalpur 31 Bhakkar 47 Pakpattan 57
Khushab 17 Bahawalnagar 28 Layyah 44 Bahawalnagar 57
Bhakkar 15 Bhakkar 28 Multan 44 Multan 57
Multan 15 Pakpattan 27 Bahawalpur 44 Layyah 57
Sahiwal 14 Multan 26 Pakpattan 41 Lodhran 56
Vehari 14 Khushab 24 Okara 40 Bahawalpur 55
Bahawalnagar 13 Sahiwal 24 Bahawalnagar 39 Khanewal 54
Khanewal 12 Jhang 22 Chiniot 39 Chiniot 52
Pakpattan 12 Mianwali 22 Sahiwal 38 Sahiwal 52
Mianwali 12 Okara 21 Vehari 38 Okara 52
Sheikhupura 11 Khanewal 21 Sargodha 36 Kasur 52
Layyah 11 Chiniot 20 Khanewal 36 Vehari 51
Okara 11 Vehari 20 Jhang 35 Khushab 50
Kasur 10 Sargodha 20 Sheikhupura 35 Sheikhupura 49
Chiniot 10 Hafizabad 19 Hafizabad 35 Mianwali 49
Faisalabad 10 Kasur 18 Kasur 34 Jhang 49
Jhang 9 Layyah 18 Khushab 34 Sargodha 45
TT Singh 9 Nankana Sahib 18 Mianwali 33 Attock 44
Nankana Sahib 9 TT Singh 17 Nankana Sahib 31 Nankana Sahib 44
Lahore 9 Sheikhupura 16 Faisalabad 28 Hafizabad 43
Attock 9 Faisalabad 16 Attock 27 TT Singh 41
Mandi Bahauddin 9 Attock 16 TT Singh 27 Gujranwala 40
Rawalpindi 8 Mandi Bahauddin 15 Mandi Bahauddin 25 Mandi Bahauddin 40
Hafizabad 8 Lahore 14 Lahore 24 Faisalabad 37
Sargodha 7 Gujranwala 13 Gujranwala 23 Lahore 37
Sialkot 6 Rawalpindi 12 Narowal 20 Sialkot 36
Gujranwala 6 Sialkot 11 Gujrat 18 Narowal 35
Jhelum 6 Jhelum 9 Sialkot 17 Gujrat 33
Chakwal 5 Narowal 8 Chakwal 15 Chakwal 33
Gujrat 4 Chakwal 7 Jhelum 15 Jhelum 33
Narowal 3 Gujrat 7 Rawalpindi 15 Rawalpindi 27
Profiles of out-of-school children
These profiles are based on the share of children who are out of school in Punjab, where 13 per cent of children are out of school in primary,
21 per cent in middle school, 34 per cent in junior secondary, and 47 per cent in senior secondary.
Profile of children out of school, by area

Findings
FIGURE 33 Profile of children out of school, by sex FIGURE 34
• From primary to junior secondary

SENIOR SENIOR school, the majority of out-of-school
SECONDARY 52% 48% SECONDARY 30% 70% children are girls, with the proportion
of girls out of school similar at each
JUNIOR JUNIOR level of education.
SECONDARY 47% 53% SECONDARY 26% 74%
• At all levels, at least 70 per cent of
out-of-school children are in rural
MIDDLE
SCHOOL 45% 55% MIDDLE
SCHOOL 23% 77% areas.
• Children from the poorest quintile

PRIMARY 44% 56% PRIMARY 20% 80% comprise 60 per cent of out of school
children in at the primary level, and 52
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
per cent in middle school level,
Male Female Urban Rural
41 per cent in the junior secondary
level, and 30 per cent in the senior
secondary level.
FIGURE 35 Profile of children out of school, by wealth quintile
• At the primary level, of the children
who are out of school, the largest
SENIOR
SECONDARY
30% 26% 20% 16% 8% share are in RY Khan. At the middle
school level, among children who are
Poorest out of school, the largest share are in
JUNIOR
SECONDARY 41% 26% 16% 12% 5% Second RY Khan, followed by Muzaffargarh.
Middle At the junior secondary level, the
MIDDLE
52% 22% 12% 8% 6% Fourth largest share of out of school children
SCHOOL
Richest are in Muzaffargarh, Lahore, RY Khan,
and Multan.
PRIMARY 60% 19% 9% 7% 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

TABLE 3. Out-of-school
Out of school rates (%) Headcount of children out of school
Shares & headcounts of
out-of-school children by various
Middle Junior Senior Middle Junior Senior
socioeconomic characteristics Primary secondary secondary Primary secondary secondary
school school
Total 13% 21% 34% 47% 1,921,000 1,645,000 1,620,000 2,151,000
Male 11 % 18 % 32 % 46 % 842,000 741,000 762,000 1,110,000
Sex
Female 15 % 24 % 36 % 48 % 1,079,000 904,000 858,000 1,041,000
Urban 8% 14 % 25 % 37 % 393,000 386,000 423,000 636,000
Area
Rural 15 % 25 % 39 % 53 % 1,528,000 1,259,000 1,197,000 1,515,000
Poorest 30 % 45 % 64 % 77 % 1,161,000 851,000 669,000 654,000
Second 12 % 22 % 40 % 58 % 364,000 360,000 429,000 567,000
Wealth quintile Middle 7% 14 % 27 % 45 % 181,000 202,000 253,000 432,000
Fourth 5% 9% 20 % 36 % 135,000 139,000 188,000 337,000
Richest 3% 7% 10 % 19 % 80,000 93,000 81,000 162,000
Bahawalpur 26 % 31 % 44 % 55 % 138,000 74,000 61,000 72,000
Bahawalnagar 13 % 28 % 39 % 57 % 59,000 62,000 50,000 71,000
RY Khan 29 % 40 % 51 % 68 % 208,000 145,000 104,000 117,000
DG Khan 23 % 40 % 48 % 64 % 97,000 85,000 60,000 67,000
Layyah 11 % 18 % 44 % 57 % 31,000 26,000 38,000 44,000
Muzaffargarh 19 % 33 % 55 % 67 % 130,000 115,000 116,000 111,000
Rajanpur 33 % 45 % 64 % 69 % 110,000 68,000 54,000 50,000
Faisalabad 10 % 16 % 28 % 37 % 89,000 76,000 84,000 114,000
Chiniot 10 % 20 % 39 % 52 % 20,000 19,000 23,000 24,000
Jhang 9% 22 % 35 % 49 % 40,000 44,000 40,000 57,000
TT Singh 9% 17 % 27 % 41 % 25,000 26,000 24,000 40,000
Gujranwala 6% 13 % 23 % 40 % 38,000 47,000 51,000 96,000
Gujrat 4% 7% 18 % 33 % 14,000 13,000 23,000 43,000
Hafizabad 8% 19 % 35 % 43 % 13,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Mandi Bahauddin 9% 15 % 25 % 40 % 18,000 17,000 18,000 30,000
Narowal 3% 8% 20 % 35 % 8,000 11,000 17,000 29,000
Sialkot 6% 11 % 17 % 36 % 28,000 30,000 30,000 64,000
District Lahore 9% 14 % 24 % 37 % 118,000 103,000 107,000 166,000
Kasur 10 % 18 % 34 % 52 % 48,000 47,000 55,000 77,000
Nankana Sahib 9% 18 % 31 % 44 % 16,000 17,000 17,000 23,000
Sheikhupura 11 % 16 % 35 % 49 % 47,000 39,000 55,000 76,000
Multan 15 % 26 % 44 % 57 % 103,000 93,000 94,000 103,000
Khanewal 12 % 21 % 36 % 54 % 53,000 49,000 49,000 77,000
Lodhran 23 % 36 % 50 % 56 % 60,000 46,000 38,000 34,000
Vehari 14 % 20 % 38 % 51 % 59,000 42,000 51,000 56,000
Rawalpindi 8% 12 % 15 % 27 % 50,000 39,000 33,000 61,000
Attock 9% 16 % 27 % 44 % 22,000 20,000 20,000 36,000
Chakwal 5% 7% 15 % 33 % 9,000 6,000 9,000 22,000
Jhelum 6% 9% 15 % 33 % 8,000 7,000 8,000 18,000
Sahiwal 14 % 24 % 38 % 52 % 46,000 41,000 42,000 53,000
Okara 11 % 21 % 40 % 52 % 49,000 52,000 54,000 70,000
Pakpattan 12 % 27 % 41 % 57 % 31,000 34,000 33,000 45,000
Sargodha 7% 20 % 36 % 45 % 38,000 52,000 60,000 80,000
Bhakkar 15 % 28 % 47 % 61 % 43,000 37,000 42,000 50,000
Khushab 17 % 24 % 34 % 50 % 29,000 24,000 22,000 25,000
Mianwali 12 % 22 % 33 % 49 % 25,000 24,000 23,000 31,000
Out-of-school rates & headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number (represented by the size of the bubble) and rate (indicated on the y-axis) of out-of-school children in various groups.
FIGURE 36 Headcounts and shares out of school children, primary education

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 30% 33%

29% 23%
26% 17%
20% 13% 23% 14% 14% 15%
11% 19% 12% 11% 12% 12%
15% 15% 10% 9% 9% 6% 8% 9% 10% 9% 11% 15% 8% 9% 7%
10% 11% 12% TOTAL
8% 10% 4% 6% 9% 5% 6%
7% 5% 3% 3%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 37 Headcounts and shares out of school children, middle school education
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
45% 36%
40% 45% 40% 40%
33% 27% 28%
30% 31% 24%
28% 22% 26% 21% 20% 21% 20% 24% 22%
24% 25% 22% 18% 20% 17% 19% 18% 18% 16% 16%
20% TOTAL
18% 16% 13% 11% 14% 12%
14% 14% 7% 8% 9%
10% 15% 7%
9% 7%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 38 Headcounts and shares out of school children, junior secondary education
100%
90%
80%
70% 64%
64%
60%
48% 55% 50%
50% 44% 51% 44% 47%
39% 40% 41%
39% 44% 36% 38% 38% 36%
40% 40% 35% 35% 34% 35% 34%
36% 39% 31% 33%
TOTAL
30% 32% 27% 23% 27%
27% 28% 25%
25% 20%
20% 20%
18% 17% 24% 15% 15% 15%
10% 10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 39 Headcounts and shares out of school children, senior secondary education
100%
90%
80%
77%
64% 69%
70% 68% 67% 61%
57% 57% 57%
60% 55% 56%
58% 52% 51% 52% 52%
49% 57% 54% 50% 49%
50% 53% 52% 44% 45%
48% 41% 43% 44% 49%
45% TOTAL
40% 46% 40% 33% 35% 36% 33% 33%
37% 36% 37% 40% 37% 27%
30%
20%
19%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Findings
Primary level Middle school level Junior secondary level Senior secondary level
• At the primary level, among the different • At the middle school level, a trend similar • At the junior secondary level, the out of school • At the senior secondary level, children
socio-economic and demographic groups, to primary is observed with respect to rate and headcount of rural children is higher than from the poorest household stay
children belonging to the richest wealth difference along socio-economic lines. for urban children. Out of school rates and the disadvantaged as they have the highest
quintile have the lowest out of school Among districts, the same is true for number of children who are out of school is out-of-school rate across all subgroups
rates and headcount. Among districts, primary and lower secondary, with RY extremely high for children from the poorest wealth examined. Among districts, even though
children from the RY Khan have the Khan having the highest headcount and quintile compared to the richest wealth quintile. the headcount of out-of-school children is
largest headcount of out of school Rajanpur having the highest rate. Muzaffargarh has the highest headcount of out of similar in Rawalpindi and Khanewal, the
children and children from Rajanpur school children and Rajanpur has the highest rate out-of-school rate is much higher in
have the highest rates. at this level. Khanewal.
Topic 4 Early learning
1. Which children are 2. Which level(s) of 3. Do children attend 4. What is the profile of 5. What is the profile of children
Guiding developmentally on education do young Grade 1 at the right children not attending who are not developmentally
questions track (as measured children attend? age? preschool? on track (as measured by
by the ECDI)? the ECDI)?
Overview
What is the FIGURE 40 Age distribution at Grade 1 of primary education (%) FIGURE 41 Level of education attended by age
Early Child 100%

Development 2% 11%
90%
Index (ECDI)? 2% 32%
9% 80%
ECDI is a 10-item module 44%
70% 58%
implemented in MICS6 to
measure the percentage 60%
of children aged 3-4 who 38% 63%
22%
50%
are developmentally on
52%
track in 4 domains, namely: 40%
literacy-numeracy, physical, Two or more years 30%
social-emotional, and learning younger 54% 29%
domains. One year younger 20%
Out of school
Right age
10% 26% Preschool
29% One year older 16% 13%
0% Primary
Two or more years older
3 4 5 6
FIGURE 42 Early Childhood Development Index (ECDI) for children age 3 to 4 FIGURE 43 Percentage of children age 36-59 months attending early childhood education
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 74 80%
70% 66 65 70%
59 58 61
60% 56 54 52 60%
52
44 48
50% 50%
38 42
40% 40% 35 35 34 33 36
30% 30% 26
20% 20% 18
10% 10%
0% 0%
Male Female Urban Rural 3 4 No Yes Male Female Urban Rural 3 4 None Primary Lower Upper Higher
SEX AREA AGE ATTENDING PRESCHOOL TOTAL
SEX AREA AGE MOTHER'S LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Findings
• Around 59 per cent of Punjab's 3 to

4-year olds are developmentally on
track as measured by the ECDI.
• Higher shares of urban children are

developmentally on track as
measured by the ECDI.
• In Punjab, 35 per cent of children

aged 36 to 59 years attend preschool.
Moreover, preschool attendance
increases substantially with age:
18 per cent of 3-year olds attend
preschool compared with 52 per
cent of 4-year olds.
• Importantly, the share of children

attending preschool who are
developmentally on track is 22
percentage points higher than that
of children not attending preschool.
• Preschool attendance is lower for

children whose mothers have no
education or only preschool
education, at 26 per cent, compared
to 48 per cent for children whose
mothers have higher education.
• Among 5-year olds, which is the

official primary beginning age in
Punjab, 32 per cent are in primary
education. Over half of 3-year olds
are out of school, but the majority
of 4-year old attend preschool or
primary education.
• In grade 1, 22 percent of children are

the right age for the grade, but 67
percent are one or more years older.
11 per cent are younger than the
official starting age.
Topic 4: Early learning 31

Profile of children not developmentally on track or not attending preschool
These profiles are based on 3 to 4-year olds who are not attending preschool or are not developmentally on track as measured by the ECDI.
65 per cent of Punjab's 3 to 4-year olds are not attending preschool and 41 per cent are not developmentally on track as measured by the ECDI.
Findings
Profile of young children aged 3 to 4 years not attending Profile of young children aged 3 to 4 years not attending
FIGURE 44 FIGURE 45
preschool or not developmentally on track, by sex preschool or not developmentally on track, by area • Slightly more boys than girls are not
attending preschool and more boys
than girls are not developmentally
NOT NOT on track as measured by the ECDI.
ATTENDING
PRESCHOOL
51% 49% ATTENDING
PRESCHOOL
32% 68%
• Rural areas are home to more than
two-thirds of children who are not
NOT ON TRACK 54% 46% NOT ON TRACK 29% 71% measured by the ECDI and not
attending preschool.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Socio-economic background
impacts ECDI and preschool
Male Female Urban Rural attendance. Children from the two
poorest wealth quintiles comprise
half of children who are not
FIGURE 46
attending preschool and 54 per
Profile of young children aged 3 to 4 years not attending preschool or not developmentally on track, by wealth quintile
cent of children who are not
measured by ECDI.
NOT Poorest
ATTENDING
PRESCHOOL
29% 21% 18% 17% 15% Second • Of the children who are not
Middle developmentally on track, a
Fourth proportionally higher share are in
Richest Muzaffargarh and Lahore, and of
NOT ON TRACK 32% 22% 18% 17% 12% the children not attending
preschool, a proportionately higher
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% share are in Lahore and Faisalabad.
–
TABLE 4. Early learning
Share (%) of children (age 3-4) Headcount of children
Shares & headcounts by various
socioeconomic characteristics
Not on track on ECDI Not attending Preschool Not on track on ECDI Not attending Preschool
Total 41% 65% 2,473,000 3,964,000

Male 42 % 65 % 1,328,000 2,027,000
Sex
Female 39 % 66 % 1,146,000 1,937,000
Urban 34 % 62 % 703,000 1,275,000
Area
Rural 44 % 67 % 1,770,000 2,690,000
Poorest 53 % 79 % 786,000 1,156,000
Second 44 % 68 % 539,000 825,000
Wealth quintile Middle 39 % 62 % 453,000 714,000
Fourth 35 % 59 % 413,000 696,000
Richest 27 % 54 % 283,000 573,000
Bahawalpur 37 % 69 % 70,000 131,000
Bahawalnagar 36 % 75 % 63,000 129,000
RY Khan 44 % 78 % 125,000 220,000
DG Khan 63 % 78 % 113,000 138,000
Layyah 48 % 63 % 52,000 69,000
Muzaffargarh 57 % 75 % 153,000 200,000
Rajanpur 60 % 77 % 85,000 107,000
Faisalabad 32 % 68 % 126,000 264,000
Chiniot 33 % 67 % 26,000 52,000
Jhang 47 % 67 % 80,000 114,000
TT Singh 49 % 54 % 62,000 66,000
Gujranwala 47 % 57 % 134,000 162,000
Gujrat 31 % 60 % 46,000 90,000
Hafizabad 37 % 64 % 25,000 43,000
Mandi Bahauddin 31 % 68 % 29,000 63,000
Narowal 39 % 48 % 39,000 48,000
Sialkot 38 % 58 % 73,000 113,000
District Lahore 28 % 60 % 143,000 304,000
Kasur 49 % 59 % 93,000 109,000
Nankana Sahib 32 % 56 % 25,000 44,000
Sheikhupura 31 % 68 % 55,000 121,000
Multan 45 % 66 % 119,000 174,000
Khanewal 44 % 69 % 72,000 114,000
Lodhran 44 % 72 % 39,000 64,000
Vehari 51 % 72 % 87,000 124,000
Rawalpindi 30 % 57 % 81,000 155,000
Attock 35 % 67 % 38,000 72,000
Chakwal 30 % 56 % 23,000 42,000
Jhelum 31 % 57 % 17,000 31,000
Sahiwal 41 % 67 % 53,000 87,000
Okara 38 % 65 % 74,000 128,000
Pakpattan 37 % 65 % 39,000 68,000
Sargodha 44 % 64 % 95,000 137,000
Bhakkar 38 % 61 % 44,000 69,000
Khushab 45 % 65 % 36,000 51,000
Mianwali 45 % 69 % 39,000 60,000
Early childhood attendance and development - Shares & headcounts of children aged 3 to 4 years, by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number (represented by the size of the bubble) and share (indicated on the y-axis) of children in various groups who are not on track in terms
of the ECDI (top) and not attending preschool (bottom).
FIGURE 47 Headcounts and shares of children aged 3 to 4 who are not developmentally on track
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
63%
60%
57% 51%
53% 48% 47% 49% 49%
50% 44% 44% 45% 45%
44% 47% 41%
42% 44% 37% 36% 44% 37% 39% 38% 45% 38% 37% 44% 38%
40% TOTAL
39% 39% 33% 30%
35% 31% 31% 32% 31% 30% 31%
30% 34% 32%
28% 35%
27%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 48 Headcounts and shares of children aged 3 to 4 who are not attending ECE
100%
90%
75% 77%
80% 72%
78% 78%
79% 69% 75% 67% 67% 68% 68% 69% 72% 67% 67% 69%
70% 65% 65%
63% 68% 60% 64% 58% 66% 61%
65% 66% 67% 68% 65% 64% TOTAL
60% 62% 62% 54% 56% 57%
60% 59% 56% 57%
59% 57%
54% 48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Findings
• In Punjab, 41 per cent of 3 to 4-year • More rural children are not on track as measured by the ECDI than urban • DG Khan has the highest share of children aged 3 to 4
olds are not developmentally on track children, and about twice the share of poor children are not on track on ECDI who are not on track for ECDI and not attending
as measured by ECDI and 65 per cent as wealthy children. Similarly, a larger share of rural children are not attending preschool, but Muzaffargarh has the highest headcount
of 3 to 4-year olds are not attending preschool than urban children, and 79 per cent of the poorest children are not for children not on track and Lahore has the highest
preschool. attending preschool, compared to 54 per cent of the wealthiest children. headcount for children not attending preschool.

Topic 5 Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions
1. Which level or grade 2. What is the profile of 3. What is the profile of 4. What is the profile of children
Guiding has the highest rates of children who repeat a children who drop out of who do not transition to the
questions repetition, dropouts and non- grade? school? next level of education?
transitions?
Overview
What is the repetition rate?

The repetition rate measures the share of children in a given FIGURE 49 Repetition rate by grade
grade in a given school year who repeated that grade as
a percentage of total number of children who attended the
grade in the previous year. Information provided by household 60%
head on the grade attended by child in the previous and current
school year is used to calculate this indicator. 50%
What is the dropout rate? 40%
The dropout rate measures the proportion of children from 30%

a cohort attending a given grade in a given school year who
are no longer attending school in the following year. It is worth 20%
clarifying that children who repeat are still considered to be in
7 7 6 8
school and are therefore not included in the calculation for 10% 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
the dropout rate. 2
0%
Who is a non-transitioner? Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 1 Grade 2
PRIMARY MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR SECONDARY SENIOR SECONDARY

Non-transitioners refer to those children who attended
the last grade of a level but did not continue to the next
level of education.
FIGURE 50 Dropout rate by grade FIGURE 51 Non-transition by grade
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30% 28
23
20% 20%
10% 7 10% 9 6
2 3 3 3 4
1 1
0% 0%
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 1 Grade 1 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 2
JUNIOR SENIOR PRIMARY
PRIMARY MIDDLE SCHOOL MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR SECONDARY SENIOR SECONDARY
SECONDARY SECONDARY
FIGURE 52 Education attendance, by age
2 1 2 1 2
100%
6 4 5
11 8 12
14 19
90% 20 21
32 18
80%
44 36 34 32
70% 58 45 10
74 21 2
80 36
60%
63 4
50% 86 77 63 22 10 1
52 2
40%
22 11 5
30% 40
54 29 51
44 64
20%
14 32 36
26 7 4 25
22
10%
16 13 13 17
11 12
0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
OOS ECE Primary Middle school Junior secondary Senior secondary Higher
Findings
• Repetition rates vary by grade in • Junior secondary level is a point • In primary, the non-transition rate is 9 • Most children of primary school age
Punjab. At the primary level, they are where repetition and dropout rates percent. This means that these attend primary level. However, the
highest for grade 1 at 7 percent. For increase for children in Punjab. children attended the last grade of majority of 5 year olds are in
most other grades at this level, the primary but did not continue to middle preschool, and many middle school
repetition rate is around 4 per cent. • Non-transitioners are students who school. age children continue to attend
attended the last grade of a level but primary level. Most 10-year olds are in
• The lowest repetition rate is for middle did not continue to the next level of • Education attendance by age shows primary level when they should be in
school grade 3, which is 2 per cent. schooling. Non-transition rates in the majority of children aged 4 years middle school. 11 per cent of 13-year
At the junior secondary level, repetition junior secondary are relatively high at in preschool. olds, 5 per cent of 14-year olds and a
rates increase to 7 per cent in grade 23 per cent. This means that 23 per small minority of 15 and 16-year olds
1 and 6 per cent for grade 2. The cent of children who attended the last • The primary age bracket in Punjab is also attend primary level.
repetition rate is the highest for the grade of junior secondary did not 5 to 9, the middle school age bracket
second grade of senior secondary continue to senior secondary is 10 to 12, junior secondary is age • Starting age 10, out of school status
school (8 per cent). education. The non-transition rate 13 to 14, and senior secondary is age increases, with the out of school rate
further increase to 28 per cent at 15 to 16. reaching 64 per cent for 17-year olds.
• Dropout rates are low in Punjab for the the senior secondary level.
primary and middle school levels, but
in grade 1 of the junior secondary level,
the drop out increases to 7 per cent.
Topic 5: Repetition, dropouts and non-transitions 37

Profiles of repeaters, dropouts and non-transitioners
These findings are based on Punjab's children who repeated, dropped out from primary to senior secondary or those who did not transition
to the higher level. 5 per cent of Punjab students repeat and 4 per cent dropout overall and 2 per cent do not transition.
FIGURE 53 Profile of repeaters and dropouts, by sex FIGURE 54 Profile of repeaters and dropouts by area
Findings
NON- NON-
TRASITION 54% 46% TRASITION 35% 65% • More boys than girls repeat or do not
transition to the higher level, but an
equal share of boys and girls dropout.
DROPOUTS 50% 50% DROPOUTS 43% 57%
• Among children who repeat, dropout
or do not transition to the higher
REPETITION
53% 47% REPETITION
40% 60% level, rural children form the majority.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Of the children who repeat, dropout
or do not transition to the higher
Male Female Urban Rural level, there is no clear distinction by
wealth quintile, although the share of
dropouts from the richest wealth
quintile is comparatively high.
FIGURE 55 Profile of repeaters and dropouts, by wealth quintile
• Of the repeaters, 58 per cent repeat
primary level and 18 per cent repeat
NON-
TRASITION 15% 24% 26% 21% 14% Poorest junior secondary. Over 40 per cent of
Second the dropouts are in primary. Among
Middle the non-transitioners, 64 per cent are
in either junior or senior secondary.
DROPOUTS 17% 16% 19% 21% 26% Fourth
Richest
REPETITION 18% 19% 20% 21% 22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 56 Profile of repeaters and dropouts, by grade
NON- Primary
TRASITION 20% 16% 37% 27% Middle school
Junior secondary
Senior secondary
DROPOUTS 43% 23% 25% 10%
REPETITION 58% 16% 18% 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TABLE 5 Repetition, dropouts
and non-transitions Rate (%) Headcount of children
Shares & headcounts by various
socioeconomic characteristics Repetition Dropout Non-transition Repetition Dropout Non-transition
Total 5% 4% 2% 1,181,000 999,000 553,000

Male 5% 4% 3% 613,000 501,000 298,000
Sex
Female 5% 4% 2% 568,000 498,000 255,000
Urban 6% 4% 2% 543,000 428,000 192,000
Area
Rural 5% 3% 3% 638,000 572,000 361,000
Poorest 5% 4% 3% 146,000 172,000 83,000
Second 5% 3% 3% 217,000 163,000 134,000
Wealth quintile Middle 5% 3% 3% 236,000 194,000 145,000
Fourth 5% 4% 2% 275,000 208,000 115,000
Richest 6% 4% 1% 307,000 264,000 76,000
Bahawalpur 6% 4% 2% 36,000 27,000 10,000
Bahawalnagar 4% 2% 2% 22,000 17,000 12,000
RY Khan 4% 2% 2% 30,000 21,000 14,000
DG Khan 3% 3% 2% 12,000 22,000 9,000
Layyah 3% 3% 2% 11,000 13,000 7,000
Muzaffargarh 3% 3% 3% 25,000 33,000 19,000
Rajanpur 6% 6% 2% 16,000 22,000 6,000
Faisalabad 6% 3% 3% 105,000 70,000 48,000
Chiniot 4% 4% 3% 11,000 11,000 8,000
Jhang 6% 4% 3% 34,000 29,000 16,000
TT Singh 6% 4% 3% 29,000 24,000 14,000
Gujranwala 3% 2% 2% 38,000 33,000 18,000
Gujrat 4% 5% 2% 25,000 36,000 17,000
Hafizabad 4% 3% 2% 11,000 11,000 6,000
Mandi Bahauddin 10% 3% 2% 35,000 15,000 7,000
Narowal 3% 3% 2% 16,000 18,000 8,000
Sialkot 2% 4% 2% 22,000 35,000 19,000
District Lahore 8% 4% 2% 192,000 122,000 57,000
Kasur 6% 4% 2% 40,000 34,000 17,000
Nankana Sahib 3% 3% 2% 10,000 12,000 6,000
Sheikhupura 18% 3% 2% 122,000 25,000 15,000
Multan 2% 4% 3% 24,000 46,000 27,000
Khanewal 4% 3% 2% 28,000 22,000 16,000
Lodhran 2% 4% 1% 7,000 12,000 4,000
Vehari 4% 3% 3% 26,000 23,000 18,000
Rawalpindi 6% 4% 2% 82,000 64,000 29,000
Attock 5% 3% 3% 20,000 14,000 11,000
Chakwal 3% 4% 3% 12,000 14,000 11,000
Jhelum 8% 4% 3% 23,000 15,000 10,000
Sahiwal 3% 5% 2% 16,000 24,000 11,000
Okara 2% 4% 3% 15,000 34,000 17,000
Pakpattan 2% 4% 2% 5,000 14,000 6,000
Sargodha 3% 4% 3% 28,000 40,000 24,000
Bhakkar 4% 5% 3% 15,000 20,000 12,000
Khushab 8% 4% 4% 21,000 14,000 10,000
Mianwali 5% 4% 5% 15,000 13,000 16,000
Repetition, dropouts and non-transitions - Rates & headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number (represented by the size of the bubble) and rates (indicated on the y-axis) of children in various groups who repeat (top), dropout (middle) or do not transition (bottom).
FIGURE 57 Repetition rates and headcounts

20%
18%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10% 10%
8% 8%
8% 8%
6%
6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5%
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% TOTAL
4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3%
3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 4%
4%
2% 2%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 58 Dropout rates and headcounts
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6% 6% 5% 5%
4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
3% 3% 3%
4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% TOTAL
3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
3% 3% 3%
2% 2% 2% 2% 3%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 59 Non transition rates and headcounts
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6% 2% 4% 5%
3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
4% 2% 2% 2% 3%
3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3%
2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% TOTAL
1%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Findings
• There is little difference in
repetition, dropout, and
non-transition rates between
girls and boy, urban and rural
dwellers, and by wealth quintile.
Among districts, Sheikhupura
has a noticeably higher
repetition rate, at 18 per cent,
but Lahore has the largest
headcount of children who
repeat.
• Dropout rates show less

variation by district than
repetition rates. However,
Ranjanpur has the highest
dropout rate and Lahore has
the highest headcount of
dropouts.
• Non-transition rates are the

lowest for children in the
richest wealth quintile. Little
district variation is observed in
non-transition rates, although
Mianwali has the highest rate
at 5 per cent.

Topic 6 Child Protection
1. Which groups have higher 2. Which groups of 3. How is child labour linked 4. How does child labour explain
Guiding rates of early marriage and children are more to education attendance the profile of children out of
questions how does it impact literacy frequently involved in and foundational learning school or not learning in school?
and ICT skills? child labour? skills?
Child marriage and education
What is child marriage? FIGURE 60 Literacy rate and ICT skills of youth age 20 to 24 by marriage status
Child Marriage is a marriage of a girl 100%
or boy before the age of 18 and refers 90%
to both formal marriages and informal 80% 77 74
unions in which children under the 70%
age of 18 live with a partner as if 60% 58
married. 50% 42
40%
30% 26 22
20%
10 6 10
10% 1 1
0%
Men Women Men Women
LITERACY RATE ICT
NO EARLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN 15 AND 18 BEFORE 15
FIGURE 61 Prevalence of child marriage among youth aged 20 to 24 years-old
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% 22 22
20%
14 16
15%
11 13 12 13
10%
9 9 7 8 9 7 8
5 4 6
3 3 2 2
4 4
2 3 4 4 5 3
0 2 1 2 2 2
5%
1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
0%
Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest None Primary Junior Senior Higher
secondary secondary
TOTAL
AREA WEALTH QUINTILE HIGHERS LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED
Males Before 15 Males Between 15 and 18 Females Before 15 Females Between 15 and 18
Child labor and education
ANAR per school age group, Foundational skills by child labor status
What is child labour? FIGURE 62
by child labor status
FIGURE 63
(children age 7 to 14)
Findings
70% 66 70%
In the MICS module, children are
considered to be in child labor if 60% 55 60% • In Punjab, 15 per cent of children
they engage in at least one of two 50% 50% ages 5 to 17 are in child labour.
categories: economic activities 41 39 A greater share of boys are in child
and household chores. For each
40% 34 40%
labour than girls, as are more
category, there is a time threshold 30% 30% 23 children from rural areas. Poorer
based on different age groups. 18 children are far more likely to be
20% 20%
12 12 in child labour than rich children.
10% 10% 9
0% 0% • The prevalence of child labour
5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 17 Reading Numeracy increases with age. Whereas 8 per
cent of children ages 5 to 11 are
Not in child labour Child labour
working, this increases to 28 per
cent among 15 to 17-year olds.
• School attendance among children

FIGURE 64 Prevalence of child labor for children age 5 to 17 in child labour also declines with
age and the corresponding level
of schooling, as only 12 per cent
70%
of children 15 to 17, who are of
60% upper secondary school age,
50%
attend school.
40%
• Foundational reading and
28 30 numeracy skills are lower for
30%
18 19 21 children who are in child labour
20% 15 18 compared to those who are not.
11 7 8 11
10% 6 3
0%
Male Female Urban Rural 5 to 11 12 to 14 15 to 17 Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
TOTAL
SEX AREA AGE WEALTH QUINTILE
Topic 6: Child Protection 43

Profile of children not learning and out of school by child labor and uneducated or unskilled youth by early marriage
FIGURE 65 Profile of children out of school or not learning by child labor status Not in child labor Child labor
Findings
NUMERACY 86% 14% • The share of children in child labour
NOT
who are out of school increases
LEARNING from primary to upper secondary.
READING 83% 17% By upper secondary, 31 per cent of
children out of school are in child
UPPER labour.
SECONDARY 69% 31%
• Of children who are not learning
LOWER reading, 17 per cent are in child
OUT OF
SCHOOL
SECONDARY 77% 23% labour, and of children who are not
learning numeracy, 14 per cent are
in child labour.
PRIMARY 91% 9%
• A disproportionate share of children
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
who married between age 15 and
18 either did not attend school or
are illiterate.
FIGURE 66 Profile of uneducated or unskilled youth (20-24 years old) by date of marriage No early marriage Married between 15 and 18 Married before 15
DID NOT ATTEND SCHOOL 73% 19% 8%
ILLITERATE 76% 2
18% 6%
NO ICT SKILLS
87% 10% 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Topic 6: Child Protection 45
Topic 7 Functional difficulties
1. Which groups of 2. What are the most 3. How is functional 4. How is functional 5. How does functional difficulty
Guiding children have higher common functional difficulty linked to difficulty linked explain the profile of children
questions rates of functional difficulties among school attendance to repetition and who are out of school or not
difficulty?
children? and learning? dropouts? learning in school?
Children with functional difficulties
FIGURE 67 Prevalence of functional difficulties (children age 5 to 17)

What are functional
difficulties? 20% 19 19 19
18 18 18 18
MICS collected data on child functioning for all children under 18 through 18% 17 17 17 17 17
either the questionnaire for children under 5 or the questionnaire for children 16%
16
aged 5–17 years. 14%
12%
In the case of children under 5, data on functional difficulties are collected 10%
on the following functional domains: seeing, hearing, walking, fine motor, 8%
communication, learning, playing, and controlling behaviour. 6%
4%
For children aged 5–17 years, data on functional difficulties are collected 2%
on the following functional domains: seeing, hearing, walking, self-care, 0%
communication, learning, remembering, concentrating, accepting change, Male Female Urban Rural 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 17 Poorest Second Middel Fourth Richest
controlling behaviour, making friends, and affect (or children with difficulties TOTAL SEX AREA AGE WEALTH QUINTILE
controlling their emotions, which is calculated using metrics for anxiety and
depression).
FIGURE 68 Prevalence of types of disabilities (children age 5 to 17)

Male Female
20% 19
18% 17
16%
14%
12%
10% 10
8% 8
6%
4% 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3
2 2
2%
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0%
Seeing Hearing Selfcare Communication Concentrating Learning Remembering Make friend Depression Walking Anxiety Accepting Controlling Any FD
FIGURE 69 Prevalence of functional difficulties (children age 5 to 17), by district
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Jhelum 32
Rawalpindi 30
Multan 27
Okara 26
Jhang 26
Sheikhupura 24
Khanewal 23
RY Khan 22
Lodhran 22
Faisalabad 22
Bhakkar 21
Chakwal 21
TT Singh 20
Gujranwala 20
Bahawalnagar 20
Layyah 20
Khushab 19
Attock 19
Bahawalpur 17
Vehari 16
Chiniot 16
Sargodha 14
Mandi Bahauddin 14
Nankana Sahib 14
Sialkot 13
Mianwali 13
Pakpattan 13
Gujrat 12
Rajanpur 11
Lahore 11
Kasur 10
Hafizabad 10
DG Khan 9
Muzaffargarh 9
Sahiwal 8
Narowal 6
Topic 7: Functional difficulties 47

Foundational learning and functional difficulties
All findings presented here are for children aged 5 to 17 and therefore use the 13 functional domains presented in the earlier section.
FIGURE 70 Foundational reading skills by functional difficulties
40%
36
35% 33 34
31 32
30% 29
25
25%
21
20%
16
15%
11
10% 8
5 6
5%
2
0%
Communication Learning Remembering Concentrating Hearing Selfcare Make friend Walking Accepting Any FD Anxiety Controlling Depression No fiuncional
difficulity
FIGURE 71 Foundational numeracy skills by functional difficulties
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
11 12 12
9 9 10
10%
7 8 8
5 5 6
5% 4
1
0%
Remembering Communication Concentrating Learning Make friend Hearing Walking Selfcare Depression Anxiety Any FD Accepting Controlling No fiuncional
difficulity
Findings
• A lower share of children with functional • Children who have difficulty remembering, • However, children with functional
difficulties have foundational reading and communicating, concentrating, and learning difficulties are overrepresented among
numeracy skills than children without any have especially low rates of foundational children who are out of school at the
functional difficulties. numeracy skills. primary level.
• Fewer than 10 per cent of children who • Profiling data indicate that children with
have difficulty communicating, learning, functional difficulties are out of school and
remembering, or concentrating have founda- not learning in about equal proportion to
tional reading skills, compared to 36 per cent their representation among all children
of children without any functional difficulty. ages 5 to 17, at roughly 18 per cent.
Inclusive education (5 to 17 years old)
All findings presented here are for children aged 5 to 14 and therefore use the 13 functional domains presented in the earlier section.
FIGURE 72 ANAR by type of functional difficulty
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
46 47 47 48 49
40%
40 43
30% 24 25 27 29
19 21 21
20% 14
10%
0%
Learning Communication Concetrating Hearing Remembering Self care Make friend Seeing Walking Depression Anxiety Accepting Any functional Controlling Total
difficulty
FIGURE 73 ANAR by functional difficulty status by level of education FIGURE 74 Dropout by functional difficulty status
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
67
70% 62 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 38 33 40%
30%
29 26 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
1 2 3 4 4 3
0% 0%
PRIMARY LOWER SECONDARY UPPER SECONDARY PRIMARY LOWER SECONDARY UPPER SECONDARY
FIGURE 75 Repetition by functional difficulty status
Findings
100%
• At the primary level, lower secondary, and • Current school attendance is particularly low for
90%
upper secondary level, children without any children who have difficulty learning and difficulty
80%
functional difficulties have higher adjusted communicating. In addition, children with difficulties
70%
net attendance rates (ANAR) than children concentrating, hearing, remembering, making friends,
60%
with any functional difficulty. and self-care also have lower current attendance
50%
compared to their counterparts with no functional
40%
• Current school attendance for children difficulty. These differences are statistically significant.
30%
22 23 with different functional difficulty uses
20%
data for children who attended any level • The differences in dropout and repetition by children
10% 4 7 4 5 of education and disaggregates the with and without functional difficulties are not
0%
PRIMARY LOWER SECONDARY UPPER SECONDARY information by functional difficulty domains. statistically significant in the primary, lower secondary,
or upper secondary level.
No functional difficulity Any functional difficulity

Profile of children not learning or out of school by functional difficulty
FIGURE 76 Profile of children not learning by functional disability
NUMERACY 83% 17%

NOT
LEARNING
READING 82% 18%
Does not have a functional difficulty
UPPER
SECONDARY 83% 17% Has functional difficulty
LOWER
OUT OF
SCHOOL
SECONDARY 82% 18%
PRIMARY
79% 21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Topic 8 Remote Learning
1. What share of students live in 2. How is remote learning associated 3. What are the profiles of children
Guiding households with access to remote with foundational learning? who do not have access to remote
questions learning tools? learning tools?
Overview
What are remote

learning tools?
MICS collected data on the availability of tools in the household that could be used to support remote learning. These include having access to radio,
television, and computers with internet. Of note, however, not all members of a given household may in fact have access to whatever devices may be present.
FIGURE 77 Share of students aged 3 to 14 years with access to remote learning tools Radio Television Electricity
98 97 98 100 97 100 100 100 97 100 98 99 99 100

100%
90 96
89 87 86
90% 82 79 83
80% 76 74 77 73
67 66 70
70%
60%
50%
40% 32
30%
20%
10% 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4
0%
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Preschool Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher
TOTAL
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTENDING
FIGURE 78 Share of students aged 3 to 14 years with access to remote learning tools Mobile Computer Internet
100% 96 96 96 98 95 96 97 98 99 95 96 97 98 99
90
90%
80%
70% 64
60% 54 55
50%
49
40 37
40%
30 31 35
29 29 24 29 29
30%
20 20 20 22 22 21 23 21
20% 13 12 11 12 14
10% 1 5 5
0%
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Preschool Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher
TOTAL
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTENDING
Findings
• In the period from March to August 2020, • It is important to note that the data here only • This analysis reveals that while many
schools in Punjab were fully closed for 16 shows if a child has access to these tools as part students in Punjab could have been reached
weeks, which represents 34 per cent of total of the household. There is no information on by broadcast and digital remote learning
instruction weeks. In addition, from September whether students are or will be allowed to use tools, some students, especially the poorest,
2020 to May 2021, schools were partially closed these tools for remote learning. did not have access to these tools, with the
for 22 weeks, which represents nearly half of exception of mobile devices. This means
total instructional weeks. During periods in • As for digital based remote learning tools, they remained at least potentially unreached
which schools are under full or partial closure, relatively few students in Punjab have access and aside from the use of mobile devices,
remote learning provides students with an to computers (20 per cent) or the internet (29 per would not have been able to access any
opportunity to continue learning. Remote cent), or both (14 per cent). education during school closures, if
learning tools examined in Punjab include radio, mitigation approaches targeting these
television, mobile devices, computers, and the • The divides in access to remote learning tools are students were not introduced.
internet. notable by urban-rural location, wealth quintile,
and level of education. The divide is greatest with • Foundational reading and numeracy skills
• In Punjab, the remote learning tool with the respect to wealth quintile. Whereas only 5 per among children aged 7 to 14 years are lower
highest prevalence of availability was mobile cent of the poorest students have access to the for those children who did not have access
devices, as they were available to 96 per cent internet, 64 per cent of students from the richest to remote learning tools. This is true for all
of students aged 3 to 14 years. Prevalence of quintile do so. As for television, 32 per cent of remote learning tools, from the most basic
mobile devices was high even among the students from the poorest quintile have access to tools such as mobile devices, to the more
poorest, at 90 per cent. Although many television, compared to 97 per cent of students advanced of computers and the internet. The
students may rely on mobile devices to deliver from the wealthiest quintile. difference in foundational learning skills are
remote learning, it should be acknowledged particularly striking between children with
that this is not the most effective and efficient • There are also differences in access to digital and without access to computers, as well as
learning platform, and should not be considered based remote learning tools by current level of between those with and without access to
a viable substitute for other means of remote education attended by the student. Whereas 38 computers and the internet. The share of
learning such as computers and the internet. per cent of students in higher education have children with foundational reading skills is 20
access to both the internet and computers, just percentage points higher for those with
• In terms of broadcast based remote learning, 9 per cent of preschool and primary school access to computers and the internet as
far more students had access to television than children do so. This is important because while compared to those without such access,
radio. Given that 76 per cent of students aged 3 some education can be imparted using television, demonstrating the important role that
to 14 had access to television, compared to just emulation of classroom instruction through the remote learning devices can play in learning.
3 per cent with access to radio, television-based internet is more important, specifically in highest
curriculum appears to be a more viable option. education where students may be engaging in
more complex learning.
Topic 8: Remote Learning 53

Foundational skills among children aged 7 to 14 years, by access to remote learning tools
FIGURE 79 Percentage of students aged 7-14 with foundational reading skills, by access to remote learning tools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
59 61
50% 54
47 47 44 44
40% 43 43 40 40 41
33
30% 28
20%
22
10%
0%
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
TOTAL
RADIO TV ELECTRICITY MOBILE COMPUTER INTERNET INTERNET+COMPUTER
FIGURE 80 Percentage of students aged 7-14 with foundational numeracy skills, by access to remote learning tools
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
22 24
20% 19
14 14 14 11 15 14 14 13 12 13
10% 6 7
0%
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
TOTAL
RADIO TV ELECTRICITY MOBILE COMPUTER INTERNET INTERNET+COMPUTER
Home learning environment for children aged 7 to 14 years
FIGURE 81 Share of children with no child-oriented books in the household
98 99 97 98
100%
94 95 94 96 93 95 93 95 93
91 88
90%
83
80% 77
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male Female Urban Rural Out of school In school Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Pre-primary Primary Lower Upper Higher
secondary secondary
TOTAL
SEX AREA ATTENDANCE STATUS WEALTH QUINTILE MOTHER/CARETAKER'S LEVEL OF EDUCATION
FIGURE 82 Share of students where a parent or caretaker helped child with homework
100%
90%
80% 79
70% 67 64
60% 57 55 55
50% 47 47 47 46 46
41 39
40% 35
30%
22
20%
10%
0%
Male Female Urban Rural Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Pre-primary Primary Lower Upper Higher
SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE MOTHER/CARETAKER'S LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Findings
• 94 per cent of children aged 5 to 14 • Access to child-oriented books varies by • Mother's level of education is negatively • 47 per cent of students aged 5 to 14
years live in a household with no wealth quintile and mother's level of correlated with the absence of years receive help with homework from
child-oriented books. This means education. Among children in the poorest child-oriented books in the household. a parent or caretaker in Punjab. However,
they do not have access to additional quintile 99 per cent do not have access 77 per cent of children whose mother has more than twice as many children whose
age-appropriate materials to read to additional child-oriented books higher education do not have a child-oriented mother has higher education receive help
and learn. whereas among children from the richest book at home; this share rises to 98 percent with homework as compared to children
quintile, it is 83 per cent. among children whose mother attended only whose mother attended only preschool
preschool or has no education. or has no education.

Profile of children aged 3 to 14 years with no access to remote learning tools
'These profiles are based on 71 per cent of students age 3 to 14 who do not have access to the internet, 24 per cent who do not have
access to television, and 65 per cent who do not have access to either the internet or computer.
Findings
• Among children ages 3 to 14 with

no access to remote learning tools,
FIGURE 83 Profile of students who do not have access to remote learning FIGURE 84 Profile of students who do not have access to remote learning
tools, by area
boys are over-represented.
tools, by sex
No TV, No Radio, No TV, No Radio,

• Rural areas are over-represented in
No computer, No internet 55% 45% No computer, No internet 15% 85% having no access to remote
learning tools, as rural children
comprise 69 per cent of those with
No internet and No internet and
No computer 53% 47% No computer 31% 69% neither internet nor computer.
• Children belonging to the poorest

No TV and mobile 55% 45% No TV and mobile 18% 82% quintile represent 45 per cent of
children who have access to
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% neither television nor radio,
whereas 3 per cent of these
Male Female Urban Rural children are from the wealthiest
quintile.
• The majority of children who do not

FIGURE 85 Profile of students who do not have access to remote learning tools, by wealth quintile
have access to remote learning
tools are either at the preschool or
Primary level, although this can
partly be explained by the fact that
No TV, No Radio, Poorest
No computer, No internet 52% 28% 13% 6% 1% Second
there are more children at these
levels than at higher levels of
Middle
schooling in Punjab.
No internet and
No computer
24% 26% 23% 19% 9% Fourth
Richest
No TV and mobile 45% 28% 15% 9% 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 86 Profile of students who do not have access to remote learning tools, by level of education
Preschool
No TV, No Radio,
No computer, No internet 28% 49% 12% 6% 4% Primary
Junior secondary
Senior secondary
No internet and
No computer 24% 47% 14% 8% 6% Higher
No TV and mobile 27% 47% 12% 7% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Costing to expand access to remote learning tools
The table provides the costing

(in US dollars) to ensure all
Findings
children in Punjab have remote
learning tools. The costing does
• In Punjab, providing
not include other utility costs mobile phones to children
such as cost of electricity, data, without access can be
batteries, or other components the most cost-effective
that may be incurred. way to reach all children,
but it is not the preferred
This costing can be expanded method of remote
according to the needs of learning.
Punjab. For example, the costs
of remote learning tools can • Nearly half a million
change, or priority can be given children in Punjab do not
to other tools. have any remote learning
tools.
• Providing computers to all

children in Punjab who
need them could cost
nearly $3.5 billion.
Increasing access by 1 percent
Share of students age Number of students* Number of students Costing to increase Costing to increase
3 to 14 who don't that do not have access Per unit cost (USD) to be reached to access by 1 per cent access to all students
have access to remote to remote learning increase access by
learning tools 1 per cent
Radio 97 28,393,000 $20 283,930 $5,678,600 $567,860,000
Televeision 24 6,855,000 $150 68,550 $10,282,500 $1,028,250,000
Mobile phone 4 1,032,000 $20 10,320 $206,400 $20,640,000
Computer 80 23,040,000 $150 230,400 $34,560,000 $3,456,000,000
Any 2 451,000 $20 4,510 $90,200 $9,020,000
*unit costs are suggestive and can be modified based on local knowledge.

TABLE 6 Remote Learning Share (%) of students age 3 to 14 Headcount students (ages 3 to 14)
Shares and headcounts by various
socioeconomic characteristics Neither TV Neither computer No tv, no radio, no Neither TV Neither computer No tv, no radio, no
nor radio nor internet computer, no internet nor radio nor internet computer, no internet
Total 24% 65% 20% 8,143,000 22,714,000 6,775,000

Male 25% 65% 21% 4,498,000 11,935,000 3,741,000
Sex
Female 22% 65% 18% 3,645,000 10,777,000 3,034,000
Urban 11% 52% 8% 1,455,000 6,818,000 1,031,000
Area
Rural 32% 73% 27% 6,563,000 15,233,000 5,647,000
Poorest 66% 95% 63% 3,632,000 5,213,000 3,443,000
Second 33% 85% 28% 2,253,000 5,816,000 1,928,000
Wealth quintile Middle 18% 72% 13% 1,268,000 5,151,000 906,000
Fourth 10% 57% 6% 732,000 4,374,000 422,000
Richest 3% 25% 1% 236,000 1,934,000 56,000
Preschool 29% 73% 26% 2,161,000 5,449,000 1,904,000
Primary 26% 72% 23% 3,891,000 10,854,000 3,381,000
Current level of
Lower secondary 20% 64% 16% 1,013,000 3,247,000 812,000
education attending
Upper secondary 17% 53% 12% 596,000 1,908,000 434,000
Higher 13% 33% 7% 482,000 1,256,000 244,000
Bahawalpur 36% 80% 32% 334,000 749,000 297,000
Bahawalnagar 35% 84% 33% 291,000 707,000 273,000
RY Khan 25% 82% 22% 277,000 924,000 249,000
DG Khan 50% 72% 44% 351,000 503,000 304,000
Layyah 44% 74% 37% 257,000 432,000 216,000
Muzaffargarh 46% 78% 40% 529,000 890,000 463,000
Rajanpur 48% 78% 41% 216,000 350,000 183,000
Faisalabad 15% 56% 11% 317,000 1,209,000 239,000
Chiniot 32% 83% 29% 128,000 331,000 113,000
Jhang 45% 72% 40% 390,000 614,000 342,000
TT Singh 21% 55% 16% 139,000 376,000 111,000
Gujranwala 14% 68% 11% 243,000 1,159,000 186,000
Gujrat 13% 46% 10% 124,000 442,000 91,000
Hafizabad 25% 61% 20% 94,000 232,000 75,000
Mandi Bahauddin 18% 60% 14% 87,000 284,000 65,000
District Narowal 21% 59% 17% 137,000 379,000 109,000
Sialkot 11% 44% 6% 130,000 560,000 78,000
Lahore 8% 54% 6% 254,000 1,767,000 198,000
Kasur 36% 82% 32% 377,000 875,000 340,000
Nankana Sahib 22% 69% 18% 89,000 280,000 74,000
Sheikhupura 14% 64% 11% 137,000 659,000 112,000
Multan 20% 61% 16% 268,000 826,000 222,000
Khanewal 35% 62% 26% 317,000 557,000 233,000
Lodhran 39% 75% 33% 170,000 327,000 144,000
Vehari 28% 72% 23% 238,000 618,000 199,000
Rawalpindi 11% 45% 8% 191,000 808,000 136,000
Attock 22% 59% 17% 124,000 324,000 94,000
Chakwal 19% 66% 15% 84,000 299,000 69,000
Jhelum 11% 65% 10% 44,000 261,000 38,000
Sahiwal 21% 68% 19% 142,000 458,000 127,000
Okara 30% 80% 27% 287,000 763,000 256,000
Pakpattan 29% 82% 27% 142,000 406,000 135,000
Sargodha 24% 61% 17% 280,000 700,000 198,000
Bhakkar 41% 68% 34% 226,000 377,000 190,000
Khushab 29% 69% 26% 107,000 252,000 94,000
Mianwali 24% 73% 22% 108,000 330,000 97,000
Pakistan (Punjab) Education Fact Sheets 2022 I Analyses for learning and equity using MICS data *Question for current school attendance is asked to the age group 3 to 24 years
58
Remote learning - Shares and headcounts by various socioeconomic characteristics
These charts show the number (represented by the size of the bubble) and rates (indicated on the y-axis) of children in various groups who lack access to broadcast based (television
and radio (top)), digital based (computer and internet (middle)), and both broadcast based and digital based remote learning tools (bottom).
FIGURE 87 Headcounts and shares of students who lack access to broadcast based remote learning tools (No tv and no radio)
100%
90%
80%
70%
66%
60%
48%
50% 50% 41%
44% 46% 45% 39%
40%
36% 35% 32% 36% 35% 28% 29% 29%
32% 33% 30%
30% 25% 29% 26% 21%
25%
21% 22% 22% 21% 24%
22% 25% 24% TOTAL
20% 20% 14% 14% 20%
18% 17% 13% 11% 11%
13% 15% 18% 8% 19% 11%
10% 11% 10%
3%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Preschool
Primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Higher
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 88 Headcounts and shares of students who lack access to digital based remote learning tools (No computer and no internet)
100%
95%
90% 83%
85% 82%
84% 82% 78% 82%
80% 80% 74% 78% 75% 80% 73%
72% 72% 72%
73% 73% 69% 68% 68% 69%
70% 72% 72% 66% 65%
68% 61% 60% 59%
65% 65% 64% 64% 61% 62% TOTAL
60% 55% 61%
57% 56% 59%
52% 53% 46% 54%
50%
45%
40% 44%
33%
30%
25%
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Preschool
Primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Higher
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
FIGURE 89 Headcounts and shares of students who lack access to both broadcast based and digital based remote learning tools
100%
90%
80%
70%
63%
60%
50%
44% 41%
40% 40% 40% 34%
37%
32% 33% 29% 32% 27%
30% 26%
21% 27% 28% 26%
23% 20% 26% 33% 27% 22%
16% 17% 18% 17% 15% 19% 17%
22% TOTAL
20%
18% 16% 11% 10% 11% 16% 10%
13% 12% 11% 6% 23% 8%
10% 8% 7% 14%
6% 1% 6%
0%
Male
Female
Urban
Rural
Poorest
Second
Middle
Fourth
Richest
Preschool
Primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Higher
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
RY Khan
DG Khan
Layyah
Muzaffargarh
Rajanpur
Faisalabad
Chiniot
Jhang
TT Singh
Gujranwala
Gujrat
Hafizabad
Mandi Bahauddin
Narowal
Sialkot
Lahore
Kasur
Nankana Sahib
Sheikhupura
Multan
Khanewal
Lodhran
Vehari
Rawalpindi
Attock
Chakwal
Jhelum
Sahiwal
Okara
Pakpattan
Sargodha
Bhakkar
Khushab
Mianwali
Findings
• There is little difference in
access to either broadcast
based, digital based, or both
remote learning tools between
girls and boy, although a larger
share of rural dwellers, poorer
children, and students in lower
levels of education lack access
to these remote learning tools.
• Among students age 3 to 14

without access to television,
radio, computer or the internet,
there are substantial differences
by wealth quintile. Whereas 63
per cent of the poorest students
lack access to any of these
remote learning tools, just 1 per
cent of the richest students lack
this access.
UNICEF Pakistan

2022pakistan Factsheet 2022p11.28.22-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

2022pakistan Factsheet 2022p11.28.22-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan (Punjab) Education

Fact Sheets I 2022

Analyses for learning and equity

Topic #: Topic Title 1

Topic 1: Completion ........................................................................................ 6

Topic 2: Skills ............................................................................................ 14

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

Topic 4: Early learning ..................................................................................... 30

Topic 5: Repetition, Dropouts and Non-Transitions ............................... 36

Topic 6: Child Protection ................................................................................. 42

Topic 7: Functional Difficulties ....................................................................... 46

Topic 8: Remote Learning .............................................................................. 52

• Support education sector situation analysis and sector Remote Learning

FIGURE 1 Overview of completion rates

FIGURE 2 Primary completion rates FIGURE 3 Middle school completion rates

SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE

• Completion rates decline for middle school to 56 per

• At all levels, rural and poor children have completion

• The gap between the completion rates of children

• For all districts, completion

• At the middle school level

• At the junior secondary level,

• When it comes to senior

• Children from the poorest two

PRIMARY 45% 26% 14% 10% 4%

90% 94% 83% 85% 86%

• Data indicates that children learn by staying in

• The share of children with Grade 2/3 level

• In Punjab, overall, 36 per cent of children aged

• Learning gaps along socioeconomic lines can

• The largest learning gap is associated with

FIGURE 19 Literacy rates among youth aged 15 to 24 years Findings

95 • 73 percent of 15 to 24 year olds • More males and urban youth

FIGURE 20 ICT skill among youth aged 15 to 24 years

SEX AREA WEALTH QUINTILE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED

• Of the children not learning.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total 64% 88% 11,872,000 16,525,000

Who are out-of-school children? FIGURE 26 Overview of out-of-school rates

are not attending either pre-primary, primary, secondary 80%

FIGURE 27 Out-of-school population (estimated headcounts)

FIGURE 28 Share of out-of-school children, by level of education

Primary Middle school Junior secondary Senior secondary

Topic 3: Out-of-School Children 23

Profile of children out of school, by area

• From primary to junior secondary

• Children from the poorest quintile

Topic 3: Out-of-School Children 25

FIGURE 36 Headcounts and shares out of school children, primary education

30% 30% 33%

Early Child 100%

• Around 59 per cent of Punjab's 3 to

• Higher shares of urban children are

• In Punjab, 35 per cent of children

• Importantly, the share of children

• Preschool attendance is lower for

• Among 5-year olds, which is the

• In grade 1, 22 percent of children are

Topic 4: Early learning 31

Total 41% 65% 2,473,000 3,964,000

Topic 4: Early learning 35

What is the repetition rate?

What is the dropout rate? 40%