XCI REGULAR MEETING



THIRD MEETING OF MINISTERS OF EDUCATION OEA/Ser.K/V.6.1

August 11 - 13, 2003 CIDI/RME/doc. 8/03

Washington, D. C. 6 August 2003

Original: Spanish

Education in the Hemisphere: Current Challenges

Education in the Hemisphere: Current Challenges

1. Introduction and background

This presentation on the education situation in all the 34 countries and five regions that make up the Organization of American States (OAS) provides a general overview by means of a summary and an attempt to provide updated figures from extremely valuable projects carried out by agencies with close ties to the Organization. A few background details are in order:

▪ In April 1998, in Santiago, Chile, the heads of state and government, meeting at the Second Summit of the Americas, agreed to create the systems of indicators necessary to monitor and evaluate compliance with the goals set in the programs of action.

▪ In July of that year, the First Meeting of Ministers of Education (Brasilia, Brazil) decided that the Ministry of Education of Chile would coordinate the design and implementation of the system of indicators covering the education sector’s goals. That system is now known as the Regional Education Indicator Project (PRIE).

▪ In January 2002 the PRIE published a regional report entitled “Educational Panorama of the Americas,” the preliminary version of which had been discussed at the Second Meeting of Ministers of Education (Punta del Este, Uruguay, September 2001).

The PRIE’s work combines efforts and contributions from the nations of the OAS and from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), through the offices of its Institute for Statistics and its Regional Office for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (OREALC). The information covering Canada, the United States, and the non-Latin nations of the Caribbean was gathered from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Education Indicators project (WEI), and from those countries’ own statistics offices.

▪ Funding for the PRIE came from the governments of Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and the United States, and from a number of international bodies including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), UNESCO, the Andrés Bello Convention, and the World Bank.

The information provided below largely follows the concept and structure of the PRIE, recognizing the value of those efforts and reflecting the desire to continue using the 25 indicators and five analysis categories that are already in operation.

These analysis categories, which were adopted by the PRIE to provide an integrated outlook capable of achieving political relevance and influencing the decision-making processes of all the governments and societies concerned, are the following:

(a) Demographic, social, and economic context.

(b) Access, participation, and progress in the education system.

(c) Human and financial resources for education.

(d) Education quality.

(e) Social impact of education.

Within these categories, the PRIE obtained figures for 1998 for the 25 indicators from each country.

This presentation is based on the data from that year’s indicators; it also provides some more recent information, although this was not possible in all cases. The aim is to offer an update of the figures that describe the education situation in the OAS nations (second section).

Based on this information, the third part of the presentation offers a series of remarks and comments of relevance to the analysis. The presentation concludes with a proposal for guidelines to enable the ministers to identify the main challenges during the dialogue to be held immediately afterwards (fourth section).

2. Data for the comparative analysis (charts with indicators)

3. Remarks and comments (challenges)

• The first comment – and the first warning sign – relates to the figures shown on the preceding tables that are either obsolescent or absent.

Continuing with and constantly improving the PRIE is a necessity, and one that we cannot delay. Each country has, to varying extents, a job to do: updating its educational statistics and bringing them into line with the PRIE.

• The concept of the Americas entails more than different geographical regions: there are still socioeconomic and cultural grounds for speaking of “several Americas.”

Heterogeneity and the presence of contrasts (painful ones, in some cases) are the defining characteristics of education in the Americas. Here, having a variety of circumstances is not enriching, as is the case with cultural diversity and plurality.

It is thus appropriate to identify signs, measure the distances between the rankings, evaluate the position of each country, and define its levels of risk, backwardness, and progress with respect to the most important indicators:

3.1 Demographic and economic context

The 34 countries that make up the OAS are currently home to 840 million people and, by the year 2010, the total will be 930 million (the figures are, of course, approximate).

Population growth rates are decreasing in all our countries; during the present five-year period (2000-2005), they range from around 2.6% per annum in Guatemala and Nicaragua to -0.7% in St. Kitts and Nevis. Over the next half-decade (2005-2010), five countries will still have rates in excess of two percentage points.

In Central America, half the population lives in rural areas; in contrast, in the Southern Cone the corresponding figure is around 18% and, through 2005, this figure is expected to decrease more rapidly than in the Central American region.

The proportion of the populace in the age groups that demand education is of particular importance. Those aged between 5 and 14 years (basic education) range between extremes of 25% of the total in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Paraguay and 13% in Canada and the United States. The 15-19 age group bracket (high-school education) covers between 10 and 12% of the population in most of our countries; in Canada, the United States, and Uruguay, however, the members of this age group account for less than 8% of the total population.

Economic indicators clearly show the existence of “other borders” in the Americas and within each country. All the countries reported relative rates of growth between 1998 and 2000, but the differences among them are still enormous.

Per capita GDP (gross domestic product) in PPP dollars (purchasing power parity), as reported by the PRIE for 1998, varied between $29,605 and $1,383. In 2000, the figures ranged between $34,142 and $1,467. The difference is truly vast: for 1998 and 2000, respectively, the top figures are 21 and 23 times greater than the lowest.

With the exception of three countries, growth in per capita GDP between 1998 and 2000 ranged from 44.5% in Costa Rica and 3% in Argentina. The most succinct and eloquent fact is that the northern region has levels of per capita income that are six times higher than those of Central America and the Caribbean.

Other relevant indicators are the index of demographic dependence and the Gini coefficient. The former indicates the number of people who, on account of their youth or advanced age, depend on those who make up the workforce. Trends indicate a gradual improvement in all the countries between 1998 and 2000, as do the projections for 2005 and 2010. Nevertheless, there are still numerous countries where there are six or seven children or old folk who depend on each ten people in the 15 to 64 age group.

The Gini coefficient measures inequalities in income distribution within a given country. The figures changed only marginally between 1998 and 2000. On a scale from zero (best distribution) to 100 (maximum income concentration), they show that highest concentration of incomes in two countries, with scores of over 60 points, while the best income distribution is found in Canada, with a result of 31.5 points.

The current figures add nothing new to this. The substantive problem they indicate is not only the imbalances and contrasts among the nations and regions of the Americas, but the apparent inequalities that exist internally within most of the hemisphere’s countries.

There are doubtless some challenges that could be met through the alliances and cooperation that exist within the OAS and among its member states, but other problems are related to internal decisions within each country. We must review the lessons of history and analyze the evolution of economic models.

3.2 Access to education

Societies are obliged to guarantee that all citizens receive the opportunity to study. This commitment, which has a lengthy history, is now accompanied by a commitment to improving the quality of education; this will legitimize and validate educational opportunities, allow students to remain enrolled in schools, and generate a natural expectation of ongoing, lifelong study.

Combining equality with quality also means balancing the learning results of all students, irrespective of their starting points; providing relevant bilingual education options; and supporting and strengthening the education system in rural areas so that those who complete primary education have the opportunity to continue studying. In sum, the goal is to “ensure that everyone has the same opportunities for developing their human potential, while not identifying this equality of opportunities as a mere supply of heterogeneous education for all,” as was defined at the preparatory meeting held in Argentina four months ago.

The duration of obligatory education, the number of hours that children attend school in each educational cycle, the rates of entry into each level, the gender breakdown of students, the coverage of different age groups, and other similar information show that the countries of the hemisphere continue to advance toward their goals, albeit at different rhythms which are, in some instances, inadequate. Half-a-dozen countries could well fail to meet the goal of providing primary education for all by the year 2015. A similar danger exists with respect to the Dakar goal of halving illiteracy rates by 2015.

Of greater importance is the dual goal of expanding the education supply and, at the same time, ensuring that the education services provided offer higher standards of quality: in other words, making curriculums more relevant and establishing courses of learning that are more in accord with social and cultural realities and with advances in knowledge and technological developments. The effectiveness and efficiency of educational systems and school facilities must be judged not only in terms of general economic data, because gender inequalities still need to be resolved, as do the inequalities that affect the most vulnerable groups (the poorest children, the inhabitants of remote rural areas, etc.) in most of our countries.

As is the case with almost all the indicators, differentials persist in the figures for obligatory duration, coverage, school timetables, and other data. Obligatory basic schooling ranges in duration from six to 13 years; the number of classroom hours in primary education varies from 1,560 hours per annum down to 800 or less; and with respect to secondary education, three countries offer 1,500 hours or more, while nine give less than 1,000 hours per year.

Failure rates within basic education improved only slightly between 1998 and 2000, and they also vary greatly: from 2% (Chile, Ecuador, and Dominica) to 25% (Brazil).

The pupil-to-teacher ratio in primary education ranges from 16 to 40, although most countries have figures of around 25 children to each teacher. In all instances, the ratios decrease as students progress into secondary and tertiary education.

3.3 Financial resources for education

The indicators adopted by the PRIE to quantify the funds that countries allocate to education are expressed in relative terms or as a proportion of GDP or a nation’s total public spending. Attempts have also been made to measure per-pupil spending levels within different educational cycles.

These indicators tell us something about each country’s efforts to promote education on a priority basis within the context of its general economic situation and its many other national spending commitments. However, with respect to this set of indicators, which are so sensitive to interpretation (not always objective or disinterested), it is particularly important to treat the data included in this presentation with caution and reservation, on account of the limitations described above.

The first major hurdle to assessing the economic variable is the paucity of the information available about private education spending in each country. Only information related to public spending is included here: this is the main source of funding in all our countries, but it does not fully reflect the efforts of each.

The most recent review and an analysis of the indicators – such as public education spending as a proportion of GDP, the percentage of the total public budged allocated to education, the amount invested per pupil in each educational cycle, and other information reported by the PRIE, UNESCO, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and other sources – confirm the judgments and conclusions derived from the trends that we have been observing since 1998. The conclusion is that almost all the countries report progress year after year, but that the magnitude of those increases reflects the difficult economic circumstances prevailing in the international context. Of course, the education spending figures also indicate the gaps and contrasts that exist among the hemisphere’s regions and countries. Some of these are particularly eloquent:

Public education spending as a percentage of GDP (year 2000) ranges from 1.1% (difficult to believe) in Haiti to the 9.3% reported by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (which is also dubious since two years earlier, the reported figure was 4.8%).

The figures indicate that in several countries, the percentage fell between 1998 and 2000. Such situations do not necessarily reflect reductions in those countries’ education efforts: increased domestic production would be enough for the funds invested in education – even if they were higher in 2000 – to represent a smaller percentage of GDP.

During 2000, most of the countries also increased the proportion of total public spending on education. The hemisphere’s figures range from 22.8% in Mexico to 8.0% in Ecuador (dubious because of the 14.2% reported in 1998), 10.4% in Brazil, and 10.9% in Haiti.

For the other indicators from this analysis category the information is even more scarce, since most of the countries failed to report figures. All that can be offered are some numbers from North America and the Southern Cone which, as a general reference, indicate that the United States spends an average of $6,500 (PPP dollars) per pupil, and that the closest country to that figure is Chile with $1,700 PPP dollars. In tertiary education (CINE97 classification), average per pupil spending ranges from $19,219 PPP dollars (United States) to $1,414 (Peru) and $2,200 (Uruguay).

Teachers’ wages and the different incentives they receive as they improve their academic training and increase their professional performance are the factors with the largest impact on countries’ education spending. Not only does this information give indications about economic circumstances, it also points to the quality standards of the teaching personnel.

The only information available refers to seven or eight countries. One of these, the United States, is obviously not representative of the prevailing situation in the Americas, since average annual primary teacher salaries there (year 2000) begin at $27,600 PPP dollars and can rise to $40,000 with 15 years’ experience. The figures from Mexico for that same year range from $11,200 for those starting out to $14,800 after 15 years. Uruguay and Peru report annual salaries lower than USD $7,000 for teachers who have been on the job for 15 years.

3.4 Education quality

We, the education ministers of the Americas, have assumed the commitment of improving the quality of education in our countries. The aim is to attain high levels of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency – and not just in certain sectors of our education system, since the real impact would lie in offering good quality education to all our children and young people, irrespective of where they live and of their social, economic, or cultural situations.

The coverage rates attained by school services will lose all relevance if they are not accompanied by intense and sustained compensatory actions in the economic, cultural, pedagogical, and linguistic fields. Only by implementing policies of equality will we be able to implant elements and indicators of good quality in all schools. This is the magnitude of the challenge we face if we are to raise the standard of living in all of our communities.

The issue of education quality is complex and clearly controversial. The circumstances under which this presentation is being given do not allow detailed comments on the shortcomings and the restrictions detected to date within education quality, not only by the PRIE but by different regional and hemispheric programs. All we can note, therefore, is that the scant evidence and few experiences with standard evaluation processes that are available indicate that the levels of achievement in pupils’ learning and the conditions of the physical and technological school infrastructure in most of the nations of the Americas are far from satisfactory, in spite of the great efforts that have been made.

The wide range of variables with an impact on what we call educational quality (some of which have already been identified in this presentation), the need to sustain the compensatory education efforts already made (with the inevitable risk of inequalities not only returning, but worsening, if we neglect that task), the sensible idea permeating the mood of this meeting that new actions should be built on the models that have been put to the test and have borne positive fruit – all this provides the backdrop to the debate about improving the quality of education and sets a challenge for the governments we represent.

There are multiple angles and aspects involved in the challenge of improving educational quality, and they are not being addressed in a systematic and ordered fashion in all of our countries. Perhaps the first issue to be tackled (since it is both basic and elementary) should be the consolidation of the indicators and information for measuring and assessing the quality of each school, each district, and each education system. Such a set of indicators would ensure that the results obtained were regularly followed up on, in accordance with previously established quality guidelines and achievement standards or parameters defined in terms of the concept or paradigm for quality followed. This has only begun in a few countries, and what prevails is a variety of conceptions and interpretations that adapt to the circumstances found in each place.

There have been some isolated experiences that we could use – the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS), International Adult Literacy Survey, OECD, the Latin American Education Quality Evaluation Laboratory – particularly as regards assessing such fundamental skills as reading, numeracy, and problem solving. Such traditional indicators as illiteracy rates and average schooling levels among the population provide very clear signs:

In the nations of the hemisphere, the illiteracy rate among those aged over 14 ranges from 0.3% in Barbados to 50.2% in Haiti (year 2000 figures). The Central American region is, without a doubt, the one with the greatest challenges facing it. In the nations of the Southern Cone, with the exception of Brazil, adult illiteracy is minimal. Illiteracy rates among young people aged between 15 and 24 are more encouraging, although in 2000 there were still half-a-dozen countries with figures of between 11% and 35%. This situation is compounded by one particularly harsh reality: the high proportion of women who, particularly in rural areas, have had no exposure to reading and writing skills.

But the way of measuring illiteracy and of counting those who are literate does not correspond to the criteria and demands of modern day life, which is characterized by high levels of competitiveness, the need for permanent training and skill refreshing, and the scarcity of opportunities, including employment openings. The ability to read underpins all educational activities and all independent learning, and so therefore deserves to be addressed with greater vigor and to a broader extent.

As regards the population’s average years of schooling, the only figures available are those for 1998 that were published by the PRIE.

The educational profile of the new generation – those aged between 15 and 24 – has a similar shape to that of those aged from 25 to 59 years, if the figures are compared between countries. In both age groups, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Ecuador are the Latin American countries with the highest number of schooling years.

According to data from the PRIE, the proportion of people with less than six years of schooling decreased in all the countries.

4. Dialogue proposals

This last section could well go on for ever. Proposing what should be done is always easy, particularly after giving an overview of the challenges and problems facing us. However, we have so much pending work that we would do best to set priorities, establish some sort of order, and select the most viable actions and those with the greatest strategic value. One congruent proposal would therefore be to concentrate the available resources and focus our efforts, since there is nothing that leads to greater ineffectiveness that the fragmentation of funding and the dispersion that arises from attempting to manage a countless number of projects. It would thus be recommendable to select the priority areas by common accord.

With that in mind, we have already done part of the work: at the meetings of heads of state and of education ministers that preceded this event, decisions were taken regarding “Priority Issues” and “Hemispheric Projects” for the immediate future. These include the following:

• Actions to consolidate the two sides of the “quality and equality” equation in the education received by everyone.

• Programs to train new generations of teachers and to update those currently at work, in order to consolidate, through the actions of teachers, the new strategy for managing school facilities, thereby strengthening the decentralization of decision-making and participation by the sector of society located closest to each school.

• Programs to attain the “Americas” goals, not only with respect to basic education, but also with regard to secondary education, paying particular attention to the development and certification of job skills.

• In light of the shortcomings of traditional educational models, strategies for the intensive use of information and communications technologies will be of major importance.

• Of equal relevance will be the actions adopted to continue with and improve the Regional Education Indicator Project (PRIE), which must be tied in closely with the necessary promotion of an inter-American program for evaluating education quality.

With respect to this particular issue, specific proposals have already been made:

- Incorporating into the collection a number of educational indicators that allow the progress of each country and region in the fields of research and technological development to be monitored and assessed.

- Additionally, including indicators to allow evaluations of actions and achievements related to preserving and enriching each country’s culture.

These proposals will allow us identify and assess, as already takes place in certain places, our researchers and technologists, institutes and centers dedicated to creating and applying knowledge, scientific academies, patents secured, etc.

This description of the educational panorama would be incomplete if it did not make mention of access to the goods and services of culture, such as books, information and documentation centers, museums, libraries, educational materials, and resources for telecommunications and data processing.

Neither would we be starting from zero here, since major steps have already been taken within UNESCO and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The report “We the Chileans: A Cultural Challenge 2002” is another novel contribution.

To summarize, in establishing educational indicators we should remember the words of Sakiko Fakuda, the director of the UNDP’s Human Development Report Office: “culture is the basis, the social context, and the true goal of development (…) culture is present in what we cherish the most and in the way in which we value living in society.”

To conclude, the following are a number of issues (and some questions) to encourage our participation in the forthcoming dialogue.

The hemispheric projects and priority issues suggest that it would be useful to establish a clear distinction between the actions undertaken as a part of international cooperation and those that relate exclusively to each country, its society, and its government. We must of course assume that solving the challenges of education does not fall exclusively to the ministries of education, since they are not immune to the economic and political circumstances of their own national and international context. We have already spoken about learning from the lessons of history and reviewing economic models.

There can be no doubt that the benefits from the programs carried out by multilateral agencies – with all their value and importance – will never be comparable to the definitive effect of internal efforts within each society and each nation.

It is also true that the high level of wealth and the greater technological development of certain nations of the American continent obliges them – an expression of generosity and solidarity – to increase their participation and continue with their support efforts. In establishing programs for education based on principles of equality, we cannot expect unequal partners to participate equally.

In this context, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

Should we carry out priority joint actions under the aegis of the OAS?

What actions are most viable in the context of international collaboration?

Is resolving inequalities among genders, ethnic groups, and races and reducing high concentrations of wealth in each country a matter for international agencies?

Can we come together and design strategies to extend access to education and make sure that all our children and young people conclude educational programs of good quality?

Should we encourage our countries’ heads of state and government to continue maintaining education as a priority matter within their government programs?

Obviously, the answers are in the affirmative. The details and the strategies will be addressed during our dialogue.

Epilogue

Nothing new under the sun. Nothing new has been presented; perhaps the odd clarification and reminder about problems that are familiar to us all, within our own particular circumstances. Perhaps our familiarity with these issues and challenges will help us find new solutions and explore new paths – or, if we choose, old shortcuts – so long as they are effective and viable and we can truly make them our own in order to improve our reality.

|1.1 TOTAL POPULATION | | |

|(2) Source: ECLAC: Anuario Estadístico de América Latina 2002 (April 2003) |  |  | |

|(3) Source: Statistics Canada: CANSIM II (June 2003) |: |  |  |  | |

|(6) Source: UN: World Population Prospects. The 2002 |  |

|  | |  |  |  |

|  | |1995 - 2000 (1) |2000 - 2005 (1) |2005 - 2010 (1) |

|TOTAL | |  |  |  |

|Regions/Countries | |  |  |  |

| North America | |  |  |  |

| Canada (2) | |  |0.77 |0.67 |

| United States (2) | |  |1.03 |0.97 |

| Mexico (3) | |1.6 |1.4 |1.0 |

| Central America | |  |  |  |

| Belize | |2.2 |1.9 |1.5 |

| Costa Rica | |2.5 |2.0 |1.7 |

| El Salvador | |2.0 |1.8 |1.6 |

| Guatemala | |2.6 |2.6 |2.4 |

| Honduras | |2.7 |2.5 |2.2 |

| Nicaragua | |2.7 |2.6 |2.3 |

| Panama | |1.6 |1.4 |1.3 |

| Caribe | |  |  |  |

| Antigua and Barbuda | |0.3 |0.3 |0.3 |

| The Bahamas | |1.4 |1.2 |1.0 |

| Barbados | |0.4 |0.4 |0.3 |

| Dominica | |-0.1 |-0.1 |-0.1 |

| Grenada | |0.3 |0.3 |0.3 |

| Guyana | |0.5 |0.2 |-0.1 |

| Haiti | |1.8 |1.8 |1.8 |

| Jamaica | |0.8 |0.9 |0.9 |

| Dominican Republic | |1.7 |1.6 |1.5 |

| Saint Kitts and Nevis | |-0.8 |-0.7 |-0.6 |

| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | |0.7 |0.6 |0.6 |

| Saint Lucia | |1.1 |1.1 |0.9 |

| Suriname | |0.4 |0.4 |0.3 |

| Trinidad and Tobago | |0.5 |0.5 |0.5 |

| Andean countries | |  |  |  |

| Bolivia | |2.3 |2.2 |2.0 |

| Colombia | |1.9 |1.7 |1.5 |

| Ecuador | |2.0 |1.7 |1.5 |

| Peru | |1.7 |1.6 |1.4 |

| Venezuela | |2.0 |1.8 |1.6 |

| Southern Cone | |  |  |  |

| Argentina | |1.3 |1.2 |1.1 |

| Brazil | |1.3 |1.2 |1.1 |

| Chile | |1.4 |1.2 |1.1 |

| Paraguay | |2.6 |2.5 |2.3 |

| Uruguay | |2.0 |1.8 |1.6 |

|(1) Source: ECLAC: Anuario Estadístico de América Latina 2002 (April 2003) |

|(2) Source: UN. World Population Prospects. The 2002 Revision (United States, July 2003) |

|(3) Source: Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO) (Mexico, November 2002) |

|1.3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY AREA OF RESIDENCE |  |

| (% of total population) |  |  |  |  |  |  |

| Barbados |

|(2) Source: ECLAC: Anuario Estadístico de América Latina 2002 (April, 2003) |  |  |

|(3) Source: UN. World Urbanization Prospects. 2001 Revision (United States, July 2003) |  |

|1.4 DEMOGRAPHIC DEPENDENCE INDEX* |

|(1) Source: Informe Regional. Panorama Educativo de las Américas (Santiago, Chile, January 2002) |  |  |  |  |

|(2) Source: ECLAC: Boletín demográfico No. 69 (January 2002) |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|(3) Source: Index prepared with data from World Population Prospects, 2002 Revision (United States, July 2003) |  |  |  |  |

|1.5 POTENTIAL DEMAND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS |

|(porcentages of total population) |  |

|(2) Source: CELADE: Estimaciones y proyecciones de población por país (2002) |  |(Mexico, November 2002) |  |  |  |

|(3) Source: ECLAC: Anuario Estadístico de América Latina 2002 (April, 2003) |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|(5) Source: Statistics Canada: CANSIM II (June 2003) |

|(By purchasing power parity - PPP) |  |  |  |

|  | |1998 |1999 |2000 |1998-2000 |

|  | |Per capita GDP |Per capita GDP |Per capita GDP |Growth |

|  | |(PPP in US$) |(PPP in US$) |(PPP in US$) |% |

|TOTAL | |  |  |17,333 |  |

|Regions/Countries | |  |  |  |  |

| North America | |  |  |27,563 |  |

| Canada | |23,582 |  |27,840 |18.10 |

| United States | |29,605 |  |34,142 |15.30 |

| Mexico | |7,704 |  |9,023 |17.10 |

| Central America | |  |  |4,152 |  |

| Belize | |4,566 |  |5,606 |22.80 |

| Costa Rica | |5,987 |  |8,650 |44.50 |

| El Salvador | |4,036 |  |4,497 |11.40 |

| Guatemala | |3,505 |  |3,821 |9.00 |

| Honduras | |2,433 |  |2,453 |0.01 |

| Nicaragua | |2,142 |  |2,366 |10.50 |

| Panama | |5,249 |  |6,000 |14.30 |

| Caribbean | |  |  |4,419 |  |

| Antigua and Barbuda | |9,277 |  |10,541 |13.60 |

| The Bahamas | |14,614 |  |17,012 |16.40 |

| Barbados | |12,001 |  |15,494 |29.10 |

| Dominica | |5,102 |  |5,880 |15.20 |

| Grenada | |5,838 |  |7,580 |29.80 |

| Guyana | |3,403 |  |3,963 |16.50 |

| Haiti | |1,383 |  |1,467 |6.10 |

| Jamaica | |3,389 |  |3,639 |7.40 |

| Dominican Republic | |4,598 |  |6,033 |31.20 |

| Saint Kitts and Nevis | |10,672 |  |12,510 |17.20 |

| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | |4,692 |  |5,555 |18.40 |

| Saint Lucia | |5,183 |  |5,703 |10.00 |

| Suriname | |5,161 |  |3,799 |-26.40 |

| Trinidad and Tobago | |7,485 |  |8,964 |19.80 |

| Andean countries | |  |  |5,187 |  |

| Bolivia | |2,269 |  |2,424 |6.80 |

| Colombia | |6,006 |  |6,248 |4.00 |

| Ecuador | |3,003 |  |3,203 |6.70 |

| Peru | |4,282 |  |4,799 |12.10 |

| Venezuela | |5,808 |  |5,794 |0.00 |

| Southern Cone | |  |  |8,436 |  |

| Argentina | |12,013 |  |12,377 |3.00 |

| Brazil | |6,625 |  |7,625 |15.10 |

| Chile | |8,787 |  |9,417 |7.20 |

| Paraguay | |4,228 |  |4,426 |4.70 |

| Uruguay | |8,623 |  |9,035 |4.80 |

|(1) Source: Informe Regional. Panorama Educativo de las Américas (Santiago, Chile, January 2002) |  |

|(2) Source: World Bank, cited in UNDP: Informe de Desarrollo Humano 2002 |  |  |

| |  |  |  |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|1.7 INEQUALITY COEFFICIENT | | | |

|(Gini coefficient)* |  |  |  |

|  | |1998 (1) |1999 |2000 (2) |

|TOTAL | |  |  |  |

|Regions/Countries | |  |  |  |

| North America | |  |  |  |

| Canada | |31.5 |  |31.5 |

| United States | |40.8 |  |40.8 |

| Mexico | |53.7 |  |53.1 |

| Central America | |  |  |  |

| Belize | |ND |  |ND |

| Costa Rica | |47.0 |  |45.9 |

| El Salvador | |52.3 |  |52.2 |

| Guatemala | |59.6 |  |55.8 |

| Honduras | |53.7 |  |56.3 |

| Nicaragua | |50.3 |  |60.3 |

| Panama | |48.5 |  |48.5 |

| Caribbean | |  |  |  |

| Antigua and Barbuda | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| The Bahamas |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Barbados | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Dominica | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Grenada | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Guyana | |n.d. |  |40.2 |

| Haiti | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Jamaica | |36.4 |  |37.9 |

| Dominican Republic | |48.7 |  |47.4 |

| Saint Kitts and Nevis | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | |n.d. |  |42.6 |

| Saint Lucia | |n.d. |  |42.6 |

| Suriname | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Trinidad and Tobago | |n.d. |  |40.3 |

| Andean countries |  |  |  |

| Bolivia | |42.0 |  |44.7 |

| Colombia | |57.1 |  |57.1 |

| Ecuador | |43.7 |  |43.7 |

| Peru | |46.2 |  |46.2 |

| Venezuela | |48.8 |  |49.5 |

| Southern Cone |  |  |  |

| Argentina | |n.d. |  |n.d. |

| Brazil | |60.0 |  |60.7 |

| Chile | |56.5 |  |56.6 |

| Paraguay | |59.1 |  |57.7 |

| Uruguay | |42.3 |  |42.3 |

|* The Gini coefficient is the most widely used indicator to measure inequality of income distribution within a |

|country |

|This indicator is measured on a scale of 100, where zero represents perfectly equitable income |

|distribution and 100 represents total concentration of income, that is, (contd. below) |

|(1) Source: Informe Regional. Panorama Educativo de las Américas (Santiago, Chile, January 2002) |

|(2) Source: World Bank, cited in UNDP: Informe de Desarrollo Humano 2002 |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|2.1 NUMBER OF YEARS OF COMPULSORY EDUCATION AND AGE RANGE |

| | | | | | | | | |

|Region/Country |Number of years |  |Age range | |

| |1998/1999 |1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1998/1999 |1999/2000 |2000/2001 | |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |

|North America |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |

|Canada |11 |  |11 |  |N/A |  |N/A | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics | | | | | | |

|(1) Information provided by the embassies of the countries in Mexico | | | |

|2.2.a HOURS IN SCHOOL WEEK, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

| | | | | | |

| |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |99 | | | |

|2.2.b HOURS IN SCHOOL YEAR, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

| | | | | | |

| |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |99 | | | |

|2.3.a GROSS RATE OF ENROLLMENT IN FIRST YEAR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BY SEX |

| | | | | | |

| |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |99 | | | |99 | | | |

|(*) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.3.b NET RATE OF ENROLLMENT IN FIRST YEAR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BY SEX |

|Region/Country |Total |  |Male |  |Female |

| |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1998/19|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |99 | | | |99 | | | |

|(*) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.a GROSS RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|a). EARLY CHILDHOOD (CINE 97) |

|Region/Country |Total |  |Male |  |Female |

| |1998/1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1998/1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |999 | | | |999 | | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS |

|b). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

|Region/Country |Total | |Male | |Female |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.a GROSS RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|c). SECONDARY (CINE 97) |

|Region/Country |Total | |Male | |Female |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.a GROSS RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|d). TERTIARY (CINE 97) |

|Region/Country |Total | |Male | |Female |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.b NET RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|a). EARLY CHILDHOOD (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(1) Data taken from the Regional Education Indicators Project (PRIE) | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.b NET RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|b). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.4.b NET RATE OF ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND SEX |

|c). SECONDARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|2.5 SPECIFIC NET SCHOOLING RATE BY AGE (*) |

| | |

| |5 |6 |7 |8 |

|(*) Indicator prepared by the PRIE on the basis of enrollment data provided by UNESCO. | | | | |

|2.6 PERCENTAGE OF REPEATERS |

|PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |1|1999/2000 |2000/2001 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

| |/| | | |/| | | |

| |1| | | |1| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | | | | | | | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS | | | | | | | | | | |

|3.1 CLASSROOM PUPIL-TO-TEACHER RATIO, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

| | | | | | | | |

| |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Public Expenditure on Education as % of GDP |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |5.6 |5.3 |5.4 |

|United States |5.0 |  |4.8 |

|Mexico |4.8 |  |4.9 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |(**) 5.9 |  |6.2 |

|Costa Rica |  |4.9 |4.4 |

|El Salvador |2.3 |(**) 2.3 |  |

|Guatemala |1.4 |  |1.7 |

|Honduras |(**) 4.0 |  |  |

|Nicaragua |5.0 |  |  |

|Panama |(**) 5.9 |  |5.9 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |3.2 |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |5.2 |  |7.1 |

|Dominica |7.2 |(**) 5.1 |  |

|Grenada |  |(**) 4.2 |  |

|Guyana |(**) 4.6 |(**) 4.1 |  |

|Haiti |  |  |(**) 1.1 |

|Jamaica |6.4 |  |6.3 |

|Dominican Republic |(**) 2.5 |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |(**) 3.3 |  |(**) 3.0 |

|Saint Lucia |8.0 |  |5.8 |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |(**) 4.8 |  |9.3 |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |3.2 |  |(**) 4.0 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |5.6 |  |5.5 |

|Colombia |(*) 4.9 |  |(*) 5.1 |

|Ecuador |3.1 |  |1.6 |

|Peru |3.2 |3.3 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |4.0 |  |4.6 |

|Brazil |  |5.0 |3.8 |

|Chile |3.7 |  |4.2 |

|Paraguay |4.5 |  |(**) 5.0 |

|Uruguay |2.5 |  |2.8 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | |

|(**) Data estimated by the UIS | | |

|3.2.b PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION AS % OF TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Public Expenditure on Education as % of Total |

| |Public Expenditure |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |  |  |15.5 |

|Mexico |  |22.6 |22.8 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |(**) 17.1 |  |20.9 |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |14.0 |(**) 13.4 |  |

|Guatemala |  |17.2 |11.4 |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |8.2 |  |13.8 |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |15.4 |  |18.5 |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |(**) 8.6 |(**) 8.6 |  |

|Haiti |  |  |(**) 10.9 |

|Jamaica |  |10.8 |11.1 |

|Dominican Republic |(**) 15.7 |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |(**) 15.6 |  |(**) 16.0 |

|Saint Lucia |21.3 |  |16.9 |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |(**) 6.5 |  |(**) 13.4 |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |(**) 19.8 |(**) 16.7 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |25.0 |  |23.1 |

|Colombia |(*) 18.1 |  |(*) 17.4 |

|Ecuador |14.2 |  |8.0 |

|Peru |  |21.1 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |13.3 |13.6 |

|Brazil |  |12.3 |10.4 |

|Chile |16.1 |  |17.5 |

|Paraguay |  |8.8 |(**) 11.2 |

|Uruguay |  |  |11.8 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS. | | |

|3.3 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

|a). EARLY CHILDHOOD (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Public Expenditure on Early Childhood |

| |Education as % of Total Public |

| |Expenditure on Education |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |4.0 |  |3.9 |

|United States |6.9 |6.8 |  |

|Mexico |7.6 |9.9 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |(*) 1.0 |  |(*) 0.7 |

|Costa Rica |  |5.6 |5.3 |

|El Salvador |(*) 2.9 |(*) 2.9 |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |(*) 3.0 |  |(*) 3.1 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |(*) 3.8 |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |(*) 6.5 |  |(*) 6.6 |

|Dominica |0.1 |(*) 12 |  |

|Grenada |  |(*) 12.6 |  |

|Guyana |  |(*) 1.8 |  |

|Haiti |  |  |(*) 4.8 |

|Jamaica |  |  |(*) 5 |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |(*) 25 |  |(*) 24.6 |

|Saint Lucia |  |(*) 0.3 |0.3 |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |(*) 0.1 |  |(*) 0.3 |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |0.7 |  |(*) 10.9 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(*) 4.6 |(*) 5.3 |  |

|Colombia |(*) 10.5 |  |(*) 10.2 |

|Ecuador |(*) 5.1 |  |(*) 6.9 |

|Peru |98 |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |7.3 |  |7.8 |

|Brazil |  |8.1 |9.3 |

|Chile |8.6 |  |8.2 |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |9.2 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS. | | |

|3.3 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

|b). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Public Expenditure on Primary Education |

| |as % of Total Public Expenditure on |

| |Education |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |30.7 |31.4 |  |

|Mexico |35.4 |40.4 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |(**) 59.5 |  |(**) 46.0 |

|Costa Rica |  |47.3 |46.5 |

|El Salvador |(**) 13.0 |(**) 13.0 |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |66.9 |  |74.2 |

|Panama |(**) 39.1 |  |(**) 37.6 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |(**) 33.1 |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |(**) 21.6 |  |(**) 29.3 |

|Dominica |47.3 |(**) 52.4 |  |

|Grenada |  |(**) 59.7 |  |

|Guyana |  |(**) 3.4 |  |

|Haiti |  |  |(**) 33.5 |

|Jamaica |  |  |(**) 31.3 |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |(**) 34.9 |  |(**) 34.6 |

|Saint Lucia |  |(**) 31.3 |39.8 |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |(**) 63.5 |  |(**) 56.3 |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |41.8 |  |(**) 48.7 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(**) 44.0 |(**) 46.9 |  |

|Colombia |(*) 43.3 |  |(*) 43.1 |

|Ecuador |(*) 35.4 |  |(*) 42.5 |

|Peru |40.3 |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |35.1 |  |35.9 |

|Brazil |  |32.9 |34 |

|Chile |41.5 |  |43 |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |32.6 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) Data estimated by countries themselves | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS. | | |

|3.3 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

|c). SECONDARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |1|1999 |2000 |  |1|1999 |2000 |  |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |9| | | |9| | | |

| |8| | | |8| | | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS. | | | | | | | | | | |

|3.3 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL |

|d). TERTIARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Public expenditure on tertiary education|

| |as % of total public expenditure on |

| |education |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |31.0 |  |35.7 |

|United States |26.3 |26.2 |  |

|Mexico |20.2 |20.6 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |(*) 6.4 |  |(*) 4.9 |

|Costa Rica |  |17.3 |  |

|El Salvador |(*) 8.8 |(*) 8.8 |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |(*) 26.2 |  |(*) 25.3 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |(*) 15.1 |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |(*) 32.1 |  |(*) 29.1 |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |(*) 0.7 |  |

|Haiti |  |  |(*) 0.8 |

|Jamaica |  |  |(*) 21.3 |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |(*) 12.7 |11.6 |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |(*) 6.0 |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |20.4 |  |(*) 30.7 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(*) 26.6 |(*) 23.8 |  |

|Colombia |(*) 15.4 |  |(*) 16.4 |

|Ecuador |(*) 24.5 |  |(*) 6.9 |

|Peru |20.3 |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |21.2 |  |17.6 |

|Brazil |21.4 |  |31 |

|Chile |16.5 |  |14.5 |

|Paraguay |  |  |(*) 17.3 |

|Uruguay |  |  |20.5 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(**) Data estimated by UIS. | | |

|3.4.a PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP |

|a). EARLY CHILDHOOD (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Early Childhood (age 3 and above) |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |16.9 |  |

|United States |  |20.0 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 9.2 |14.4 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) 17.0 |  |  |

|El Salvador |(2) (3) 6.1 |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica |  |10.8 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(2) (3) 5.9 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |(3) 7.5 |9.6 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |(3) 9.0 |11.5 |  |

|Brazil (1) |(3) 13.7 |17.5 |  |

|Chile |(3) 11.0 |16.5 |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |

|Uruguay (1) |(3) 7.7 |13.8 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|2. Current charges only | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. |

|3.4.a PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY |

|EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP |

|b). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Primary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |  |20.1 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 9.7 |13.1 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) |  |  |

| |20.1 | | |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |21.5 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(2) (3) |  |  |

| |10.9 | | |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |  |10.5 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |13.3 |  |

|Brazil (1) |  |13.7 |  |

|Chile |  |19.7 |  |

|Paraguay |  |20.0 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |  |11.3 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|2. Current charges only | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education |  | | |

|Indicators Project. Second Summit of the | | | |

|Americas, 1998. | | | |

|3.4.a PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER |

|CAPITA GDP |

|c). SECONDARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Secondary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |22.6 |  |

|United States |  |24.2 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 17.0 |17.7 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) 31.7 |  |  |

|El Salvador |(2) (3) 7.4 |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |30.4 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(3) 10.0 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |(3) 10.6 |12.5 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |(3) 13.7 |19.0 |  |

|Brazil (1) |(3) 11.4 |15.8 |  |

|Chile |(3) 13.8 |22.4 |  |

|Paraguay |(3) 18.5 |35.2 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |(3) 11.0 |14.4 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|2. Current charges only | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. |  | | |

|Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | | | |

|3.4.a PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL,|

|AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP |

|d). TERTIARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Tertiary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |57.5 |  |

|United States |  |57.0 |  |

|Mexico |  |57.3 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |182.1 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |  |30.6 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |45.7 |  |

|Brazil (1) |194.8 |  |  |

|Chile |  |79.9 |  |

|Paraguay |  |124.6 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |  |25.2 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|3.4.b PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP* DOLLARS |

|a). EARLY CHILDHOOD (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Early Childhood |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |4,465.8 |  |

|United States |  |6,692.4 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 707.0 |1,203.8 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) 1,019.0 |  |  |

|El Salvador |(2) (3) 245.0 |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |386.2 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(2) (3) 135.0 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |(3) 320.0 |441.5 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |(3) 1,085.0 |1,409.3 |  |

|Brazil (1) |1,221.5 |  |  |

|Chile |(3) 970.0 |1,431.0 |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |

|Uruguay (1) |(3) 666.0 |1,133.8 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|2. Current charges only | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. |

|3.4.b PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP* DOLLARS |

|b). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

|Region/Country |Primary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |  |6,582.0 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 749.0 |1,096.1 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) 1,204.0 |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |764.0 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(2) (3) 247.0 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |(3) 317.0 |483.3 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |(3) 1,279.0 |1,628.7 |  |

|Brazil (1) |956.3 |  |  |

|Chile |(3) 1,106.0 |1,700.9 |  |

|Paraguay |(3) 459.0 |876.8 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |(3) 651.0 |999.7 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|2. Current charges only | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. |

|3.4.b PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP* DOLLARS |

|c). SECONDARY (CINE 97) | | | |

| | | | |

|Region/Country |Secondary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |5,980.8 |  |

|United States |  |8,156.7 |  |

|Mexico |(3) 1,310.0 |1,480.4 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |(2) (3) 1,898.0 |  |  |

|El Salvador |(2) (3) 300.0 |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |1,082.1 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |(2) (3) 227.0 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |(3) 453.0 |579.2 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |(3) 1,642.0 |2,327.4 |  |

|Brazil (1) |1,100.3 |  |  |

|Chile |(3) 1,216.0 |1,941.0 |  |

|Paraguay |(3) 783.0 |1,545.2 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |(3) 951.0 |1,275.1 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | | |

|2. Current charges only | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. |

| | | | |

|1. Only public institutions are included. | | |

|2. Year of reference 1998. | | | |

|3. Year of reference 2000. | | | |

|4. Following the inauguration of decentralization in 2000, expenditure for some| | |

|district offices have not been reported. It is estimated by the Indonesian | | |

|authorities that the real expenditure is probably 15% higher than the figures | | |

|reported in the WEI in | | |

|5. Public and government-dependent private institutions only are included. | | |

|6. Column 9 refers only to tertiary, Type A education. | | |

|7. Public and independent private institutions only are included. | | |

|* See Annex 3 of Education at a Glance, 2002, for notes (els/education/eag2002). |

|Source: OECD/UIS WEI. | | | |

|3.4.b PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, PER PUPIL AND BY EDUCATIONAL |

|LEVEL, IN PPP* DOLLARS |

|d). TERTIARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | |

|Region / Country |Secondary |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |15,211.2 |  |

|United States |  |19,219.7 |  |

|Mexico |  |4,788.9 |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica (1) |  |6,484.1 |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |  |1,414.0 |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |5,605.9 |  |

|Brazil (1) |13,567.3 |  |  |

|Chile |  |6,911.2 |  |

|Paraguay |  |5,464.5 |  |

|Uruguay (1) |  |2,238.7 |  |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | |

|1. Public expenditure only | | |

|3.5 PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION AS % OF GDP |

| |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|Region / Country | | | |

| | | | |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |0.7 |  |  |

|United States |1.6 |  |2.2 |

|Mexico |1.1 |  |1.2 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |

|Jamaica |  |  |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |

|Peru |2.1 |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |0.8 |  |  |

|Brazil |  |  |  |

|Chile |2.6 |  |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |  |

| | | | |

|3. Source: Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. |

|3.6 STARTING SALARY OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP, IN PPP (*) |

|DOLLARS |

|a). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

|Region / Country |1998 | |1999 | |2000 |

| |% of per capita|PPP dollars | |% of per capita|PPP dollars | |% of per capita|PPP dollars |

| |GDP | | |GDP | | |GDP | |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|North America |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Canada |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Belize |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  | |0.8 |8,906.0 | |  |  |

|3. Source: Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | |

|3.6 STARTING SALARY OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP, IN PPP (*) |

|DOLLARS |

|b.1). LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | | | | |

|Region / Country |1998 | |1999 | |2000 |

| |% of per |PPP | |% of per |PPP | |% of per |PPP |

| |capita |dollars | |capita |dollars | |capita |dollars |

| |GDP | | |GDP | | |GDP | |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|North America |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Canada |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Belize |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  | |1.3 |14,426.0 | |  |  |

|3. Source: Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | |

|3.6 STARTING SALARY OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, AS % OF PER CAPITA GDP, IN PPP (*) |

|DOLLARS |

|b.2). UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | | | | |

|Region / Country |1998 | |1999 | |2000 |

| |% of per |PPP | |% of per |PPP | |% of per |PPP |

| |capita |dollars | |capita |dollars | |capita |dollars |

| |GDP | | |GDP | | |GDP | |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|North America |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Canada |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Belize |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  | |  |  | |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  | |1.3 |14,426.0 | |  |  |

|3. Source: Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | |

|3.7 CHANGE IN SALARIES OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, ACCORDING TO EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP (*) DOLLARS |

|a). PRIMARY (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |Starting |1|Top salary |  |Starting |1|Top salary |  |Starting |

| | |5| | | |5| | | |

| | |y| | | |y| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |a| | | |a| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |s| | | |s| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |x| | | |x| | | |

| | |p| | | |p| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |i| | | |i| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |n| | | |n| | | |

| | |c| | | |c| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | | | | |

|3.7 CHANGE IN SALARIES OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, ACCORDING TO EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP (*) DOLLARS |

|b.1). LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |Startin|1|Top salary |  |Starting |1|Top salary|  |Starting |

| |g |5| | | |5| | | |

| | |y| | | |y| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |a| | | |a| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |s| | | |s| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |x| | | |x| | | |

| | |p| | | |p| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |i| | | |i| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |n| | | |n| | | |

| | |c| | | |c| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | | | | |

|3.7 CHANGE IN SALARIES OF TEACHERS (PUBLIC SECTOR) WITH MINIMAL TRAINING, ACCORDING TO EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, IN PPP (*) DOLLARS |

|b.2). UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL (CINE 97) |

| | | | | | |

| |Startin|1|Top salary |  |Starting |1|Top salary|  |Starting |

| |g |5| | | |5| | | |

| | |y| | | |y| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |a| | | |a| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |s| | | |s| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |x| | | |x| | | |

| | |p| | | |p| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |r| | | |r| | | |

| | |i| | | |i| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

| | |n| | | |n| | | |

| | |c| | | |c| | | |

| | |e| | | |e| | | |

|(*) PPP: purchasing power parity | | | | | | | | | | |

|3. Data taken from Regional Education Indicators Project. Second Summit of the Americas, 1998. | | | | |

|1. Year of reference 1999. | | | | | | | | | | |

|2. Includes additional bonuses. | | | | | | | | | | |

|3. Salaries are for a position of 20 hours per week; most teachers hold two |

|positions. |

|Source: OECD/UIS WEI |

| | | | |

|Region / Country |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |  |  |  |

|Mexico |  |  |8.8 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |6.8 |

|Costa Rica |  |  |4.4 |

|El Salvador |  |  |21.3 |

|Guatemala |  |  |31.5 |

|Honduras |  |  |25.0 |

|Nicaragua |  |  |33.5 |

|Panama |  |  |8.1 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |4.6 |

|Barbados |  |  |0.3 |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |1.5 |

|Haiti |  |  |50.2 |

|Jamaica |  |  |13.1 |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |16.3 |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the |  |  |  |

|Grenadines | | | |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |1.7 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |14.6 |

|Colombia |  |  |8.4 |

|Ecuador |  |  |8.4 |

|Peru |  |  |10.1 |

|Venezuela |  |  |7.5 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |3.2 |

|Brazil |  |  |13.1 |

|Chile |  |  |4.2 |

|Paraguay |  |  |6.7 |

|Uruguay |  |  |2.4 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|4.1.b RATE OF ILLITERACY IN POPULATION AGE 15 TO 24 |

| | | | |

|Region / Country |1998 |1999 |2000 |

|TOTAL AMERICAS |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |

|United States |  |  |  |

|Mexico |  |  |3.0 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |2.0 |

|Costa Rica |  |  |1.7 |

|El Salvador |  |  |11.8 |

|Guatemala |  |  |20.9 |

|Honduras |  |  |14.9 |

|Nicaragua |  |  |28.4 |

|Panama |  |  |3.3 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |

|Bahamas |  |  |2.8 |

|Barbados |  |  |0.2 |

|Dominica |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |0.2 |

|Haiti |  |  |35.6 |

|Jamaica |  |  |6.0 |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |8.9 |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the |  |  |  |

|Grenadines | | | |

|Suriname |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |0.2 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Andean Region |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |4.2 |

|Colombia |  |  |3.1 |

|Ecuador |  |  |2.8 |

|Peru |  |  |3.3 |

|Venezuela |  |  |2.0 |

|  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |1.4 |

|Brazil |  |  |4.7 |

|Chile |  |  |1.1 |

|Paraguay |  |  |2.9 |

|Uruguay |  |  |0.9 |

| | | | |

|Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) | |

|4.2.a EDUCATIONAL PROFILE OF POPULATION AGE 15 TO 24 |

| | | | | | |

| |0 to 5 |6|10 to 12 |13 or more |  |0 to 5 |

| | |t| | | | |

| | |o| | | | |

| | |9| | | | |

|1. Data from 1997 |

| | | | | | |

| |0 to 5 |6|10 to 12 |13 or more |  |0 to 5 |

| | |t| | | | |

| | |o| | | | |

| | |9| | | | |

|RESEARCHERS PER MILLION INHABITANTS |

|Region / Country |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |

|TOTAL THE AMERICAS |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |3,009 |  |  |

|United States |  |  |  |4,103 |  |  |

|Mexico |  |  |  |213 |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |533 |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |19 |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |124 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|The Bahamas |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Jamaica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |  |  |  |145 |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Andean countries |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |171 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |360 |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |  |140 |  |  |

|Peru |  |  |  |229 |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |194 |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |  |713 |  |  |

|Brazil |  |  |  |323 |  |  |

|Chile |  |  |  |370 |  |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |  |219 |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Explanatory notes: |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Principal source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIE) |  |  |  |

|OECD country indicators are calculated based on OECD data. |  |  |

|Indicators from RICYT countries are calculated based on data published by that organization. |

|In all cases, the data corresponds to the most recent year for which it is available. |  |

|TECHNICIANS PER MILLION INHABITANTS |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Region / Country |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |

|TOTAL THE AMERICAS |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|United States |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Mexico |  |  |183 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |33 |  |  |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |244 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|The Bahamas |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Guyana |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Jamaica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |258 |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Andean countries |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |72 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |  |72 |  |  |  |

|Peru |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |  |158 |  |  |

|Brazil |  |  |  |129 |  |  |

|Chile |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |  |21 |  |  |

|Explanatory notes: |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Principal source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIE) |  |  |  |

|OECD country indicators are calculated based on OECD data. |  |  |

|RICYT country indicators are calculated based on data published by that organization. |  |

|In all cases, data corresponds to the most recent year for which it is available. |  |

| |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|NUMBER OF TECHNICIANS PER RESEARCHER |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Region / Country |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |

|TOTAL THE AMERICAS |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|United States |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Mexico |  |  |0.8 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Central America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Costa Rica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|El Salvador |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Guatemala |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Honduras |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Nicaragua |0.5 |  |  |  |  |  |

|Panama |  |  |2.0 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Caribbean |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|The Bahamas |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Barbados |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Dominican Republic |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Grenada |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Guayana |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Haiti |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Jamaica |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Kitts and Nevis |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Lucia |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Suriname |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Trinidad and Tobago |1.8 |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Andean countries |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |0.3 |  |  |

|Colombia |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Ecuador |  |0.9 |  |  |  |  |

|Peru |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Venezuela |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Southern Cone |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |  |0.2 |  |  |

|Brazil |  |  |  |0.4 |  |  |

|Chile |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Paraguay |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Uruguay |  |  |0.1 |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Explanatory notes: |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Principal source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIE) |  |  |  |

|OECD country indicators are calculated based on OECD data. |  |  |

|RICTY country indicators are calculated based on data published by that organization. |  |

|In all cases, data corresponds the most recent year for which it is available. |  |

|EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Region / Country |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |

|TOTAL THE AMERICAS |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|North America |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Canada |  |  |  |1.84 |  |  |

|Belize |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Antigua and Barbuda |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Bolivia |  |  |  |0.29 |  |  |

|Argentina |  |  |  |0.45 |  |  |

|Explanatory notes: |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Principal source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIE) |  |  |  |

|OECD country indicators are calculated based on OECD data. |  |  |

|RICYT country indicators are calculated based on data published by that organization. |  |

|In all cases, data corresponds to the most recent year for which it is available. |  |

-----------------------

cidi01157e01

CIDI01094S01

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download