ABSTRACT

Inequality is one of the biggest development challenge faced by countries across the world today. The Indian growth story has been full of exclusion; education is the only key in overcoming social inequality. But high dropout rate in schools at every level pose serious challenges. Dropout is very common in our education system and is much higher in socio-economically backward states and districts; especially among children belonging to the socially challenged groups such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class and minorities, among which girls tend to have higher dropout rates than boys. This has a negative implication on socio-economic and overall development processes. The government of India has shown commitment towards the elementary education of children in the age group 6 to 14 years by legislating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2011. In order to reduce dropouts the educational process must be inclusive and sensitive towards disadvantaged communities. And there is also need to improve the education system by bringing back these out of school children into mainstream formal education and attain high retention, to ripe the fruits of the demographic dividend. This paper is attempted to understand and identify the causes that make the children from these communities more vulnerable to dropout from schooling.

CONTEXT

In India, exclusion revolves around the societal processes and institutions that exclude, discriminate, isolate and deprive the socially marginalised groups from education on the basis of socio-economic identities and thereby from employment, mobility and dignity (Thorat and Kumar 2008). Education is a key for socio-economic progress, but at present, India has the largest illiterate population of any nation on earth and 19 percent of the children in the age group of 6-14 are still out of school (HDR 2011). In addition, India has the high dropout rates is 19.8 in primary level in 2013-14 which further increases 36.3 and 47.4 respectively at middle and secondary level (MoHRD 2015). The dropouts are high among girls comparing to boys at each step of education and worst in socially disadvantaged groups (ASER 2017). Increasing urbanization is emerging as the most pervasive and dominant challenge as well as opportunity facing our country today. Urban population in India has grown from 78.9 million in 1961 to 286 million in 2001 (Census 2011) and it is estimated to be doubled in next 25 years (Report of the Committee on Slum Statistics/Census 2011). India has been an active partner in the worldwide movement for Education for All (EFA) that began in 1990 in Jomtien (Thailand) with the adoption of the World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO 1990). India is a signatory to the 2000 Dakar Declaration and the framework for Action (UNESCO 2000). India is also a signatory to the Millennium Declaration 2000, and the Plan of Action of A World Fit For Children 2002, both of which envisage achieving universal access to free and compulsory primary education by 2015. As a follow-up to the Dakar Framework of Action for EFA, attempts were made to link national education development goals and targets with the global targets on EFA.

Education means expansion of cultural horizons and employment opportunities for an individual. But for nations, it means enhanced the prospect of social and economic development (Rani 2011). However, even after the universalization of education dropout is still a major concern. Delhi, the national capital, is most urbanised State/UT in the country with 11 million urban populations and some 1.8 million people live in slums (Census 2011). The low enrollment and high dropout are highly evident in slums and rural counterpart.

Educational Status of Delhi

The school education in Delhi consists of eight years of compulsory elementary education (Standard I – VIII), two years of high/secondary education (IX and X) and two years of senior secondary education (XI and XII). There are total 5796 schools in Delhi which includes Primary schools (2742), middle schools (940), secondary schools (393) and sr. secondary schools (1684) in which around 42.15 lakhs students are enrolled during the year 2015-16 (DES 2016). The dropout ratio for general education is 5.9 for classes I toV and 22.9 for classes 1 to 10 in the year 2010-11 (DES 2014). At primary level nearly 42% students getting free education while it is 49 per cent at upper primary level, and nearly 28 percent at secondary and higher secondary level (DES 2014).

Research Setting

The NWD is the biggest district of Delhi, in terms of population size, highly urban in nature with 96 percent population living in the urban area and has observed the second highest growth rate of 28 percent after South West District (31 percent) during the last two census periods (Census 2011). It has total population of 3656539 including 12 percent of child population in the age group of 0-6 years. The district was placed at the 6th rank in literacy rate with 81 percent and remained at the same rank after a decade with little improvement of 4 percent. According to 2011 Census, it has an overall sex ratio of 862 which was 820 in 2001.

Methodology: This paper attempts to find out linkages between socio-economic determinants and educational attainment of children of low-income communities living in slums of Delhi. The primary objective of the paper is to identify socio-economic determinants causing dropouts and to find out educational attainment of the children. This paper draws on baseline survey research conducted by SAKSHAM, a non-profit organisation. Focusing on three slums in Delhi, the study examines availability of various types of school options and challenges faced. Using the survey data from the three slums, it looks at how many children were never enrolled in school, how many dropped out from primary, and what are the determinants that these children are not able to make the transition to a further level. Finally, using statistical analysis and other information from interviews it also assesses what kind of household and individual factors are associated with dropouts.

For the purpose of this paper, the researcher used the survey data of a NGO working in the slums of North-West District (NWD) of Delhi. The NGO has collected the baseline data which is quantitative and qualitative in nature. The data was collected by using a detailed semi-structured interview schedule. The survey tools were canvassed in three slums i.e. Haidarpur, Jahangirpuri and Shahbad Dairy. This selection of slums was purposive since the organisation working in these slums and the census sampling method was adopted to collect the data and covered all the households from these slums. For the programmatic planning purpose of the organisation, it has deliberately considered child population in the age group of 6 to 18 years.

Slum Characteristics

The study covered 2768 households with 10558 population in three selected slums. The overall sex ratio in selected slums is 83. Sex ratio is lowest in Shahbad Dairy (81) and highest in Haiderpur (86) while it is 85 in Jahangirpuri. The majority of the households have a permanent structure (58 percent) while 42 percent have temporary structure. A Census definition is used for determining a permanent or temporary structure of a household. With regards to accessibility of health facilities all the households have well accessed to sub center and public health centers. Around 87 percent and 78 percent of households respectively have access to sub center and public health centers within range of 1.5 km. The ICDS centers are also within a range of 2 km range from households (93 percent). The slums have 6 primary schools, 3 secondary schools and 2 high schools, out of which 5 schools are run and managed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) while remaining are private schools. Most of the schools are within or near to the slums at an average distance of 1.3 to 1.9 km. There are a number of private institutions imparting education up to higher secondary including pre-schooling such as nursery, play school, kindergarten etc.

Household Characteristics

The study surveyed 2768 households in which 2449 households (88 percent) are male headed and 219 are female headed. 53 percent population is male while 47 percent is female. The Majority households are nuclear family (88 percent), while remaining households are joint family. Around 86 percent of households are Hindus and 14 percent are Muslims in the slum. The majority of the households belong to scheduled castes (48 percent), around 30 percent belongs to OBC and 22 percent belongs to Others category. The literacy rate in the age group 7 years and above is 58 percent in which male has 64 percent and female has 50 percent. Around 81 percent households own a house while 19 percent reported living in rented house. 73 percent households have reported MCD tap as a source of drinking water while 24 and 3 percent reported tanker and another source respectively. 41 percent households have a toilet within a house, 32 percent use public toilets while 27 percent reported other which indicates open defecation. The majority of the households do not have any type of ration card (52 percent) while around 23 percent hold Antodaya card and 12 percent each holds BPL and APL cards respectively.

UNRAVELING THE CONTEXTUAL REALITY

The dropout problem is pervasive in our education system. Many children, who enter school, are unable to complete secondary education and multiple factors are responsible for dropout. Risk factors begin to add up even before students enrol in school. In addition, family settings and disturbed domestic life create a negative environment which to a great extent affects the significance of education. A multitude of school factors further resulted in to dropout of students. When majority of students experience school failure, they become frustrated with lack of achievement and end up alienated and experience exclusion leading to eventual dropout.

There is around 24 percent population in the selected slums is the schooling age between 6 to 18 years. Total 2334 children (91 percent) go to a school of which 1282 are male and 1052 are female. There is around 9 percent (231) children are out of school in which 6 percent are the dropouts and around 3 percent never enrolled (68) in school out; the majority of them are girls. There were 361 children ever left the school majority of them were boys (193). Those students who were dropped out for any reason, more than half of them (55 percent) mainstreamed in school through the interventions of NGO by taking readmission of which 121 are male and 77 are female.

Table 1: Educational Status of Children in the Age Group 6 to 18 years
	Total	Male	Female
Schooling Age Population	2565 (100)	1379 (54)	1186 (46)
In School	2334 (91)	1282 (50)	1052 (41)
Currently Out of School	231 (9)	97 (4)	134 (5)
Never Enrolled	68 (3)	25 (1)	43 (2)
Currently Drop Out	163 (6)	73 (3)	90 (4)
Ever Left School	361 (14)	193 (8)	168 (7)
Mainstreamed in School	198 (8)	121 (5)	77 (3)
Numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage may not add to 100. Source: Field Data

Distribution of Dropout Students

The school dropouts in the age group of 6 to 18 in Haiderpur slum accounts for just 10 percent of total dropout children while it is very high in Jahangirpuri and Shahbad Dairy slums in which dropouts account for 48 and 42 percent respectively (refer table 2). The dropout rate is higher in girls comparing boys; that is 123 girls per 100 dropout boys. The dropout rate is highest in Jahangirpuri 78, while it is 16 and 69 respectively in Haidarpur and Shahbad Dairy. The girls are more frequently dropped out of school compared to boys; total 90 girls dropped out against 73 boys. Around 55 percent girls dropped out from education in compared to 45 percent of boys. The percentage of dropout in girls is 56, 58 and 52 percent respectively in Haiderpur, Jahangirpuri and Shahbad Dairy. The dropout percentage increases with the growing age, in both sex groups; except with the boys in the age group of 9 to 11 years where dropout percentage showed decreasing trends.

The data further suggests that poor understanding at the elementary level is the main factor contributing to low comprehension at the higher level. Those who reach a higher level with weak academic understanding find it difficult to sustain. The students, who had dropped out, reported many reasons for dropping out which include – not being able to identify with what is going on in the classroom, teachers teach too fast and give insufficient time to understand and complete homework. The similar findings also corroborate with the study of Chugh (2011) done in the slums of Delhi.

Table 2: Distribution of Dropout Students by Age and Sex
	Haidarpur	Jahangirpuri	Shahbad Dairy	Combined
BOYS
6 to 8 Years	1 (1)	8 (11)	7 (10)	16 (22)
9 to 11 Years	2 (3)	4 (5)	7 (10)	13 (18)
12 to 15 Years	2 (3)	9 (12)	8 (11)	19 (26)
16 to 18 Years	2 (3)	12 (16)	11 (15)	25 (34)
TOTAL	7 (10)	33 (45)	33 (45)	73 (100)
GIRLS
6 to 8 Years	2 (2)	8 (9)	9 (10)	19 (21)
9 to 11 Years	4 (4)	9 (10)	7 (8)	20 (22)
12 to 15 Years	1 (1)	13 (14)	8 (9)	22 (24)
16 to 18 Years	2 (2)	15 (17)	12 (13)	29 (32)
TOTAL	9 (10)	45 (50)	36 (40)	90 (100)
COMBINED
6 to 8 Years	3 (2)	16 (10)	16 (10)	35 (21
9 to 11 Years	6 (4)	13 (8)	14 (9)	33 (20)
12 to 15 Years	3 (2)	22 (13)	16 (10)	41 (25)
16 to 18 Years	4 (2)	27 (17)	23 (14)	54 (33)
TOTAL	16 (10)	78 (48)	69 (42)	163 (100)
Numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage. Source: Field Data

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Dropout Students:

Table 3 provides the distribution of the dropout students by age and sex with major socio-economic characteristics like mother’s literacy level, religion, social category and family income level. 35 percent of dropout students are children of illiterate mothers. While, 26 percent students’ mothers have education up to 5 years of schooling and 39 percent students mothers have education above 5 years. The percentage of dropout students having an illiterate mother is high in Jahangirpuri which is 18 percent. Low education of mother has influence over the dropout of girl students. Around 22 percent girls have an illiterate mother to 14 percent boys. This gap decreases with the growth in the level of mother’s education. Thus, this clearly indicates direct and close relationship and influence of mother’s education level on the educational attainment of children.

The percentage of dropout students from school belonged to Hindu religion is 74 while it is 26 percent is Muslims. 37 percent Hindu students dropped out in Jahangirpuri while it is 30 and 7 percent in Shahbad Dairy and Haidarpur respectively. 40 percent Hindu girls and 16 percent Muslim girls dropped out against the 34 percent Hindu boys and 10 percent Muslim boys. Jahangirpuri has highest dropout students comparing other two slums and account for 48 percent.

In the social category, the dropping out percentage is high amongst the SC students. Around 41 percent SC student dropout, while 25 percent are OBCs, 26 percent are minority and 7 percent are Other category students. SCs and Others have around an equal percentage of dropouts by sex category while every 3 girls dropping out for every 2 boys in OBC and minority. SC boys have higher dropping out comparing to SC girls in Haiderpur and Shahbad Dairy.

There are about 100 dropout students which amount to more than 61 percent belonged to the low-income group while 30 and 9 percent fall in middle and high-income group respectively. Girls have higher dropping out percentage than the boys regardless of the income level of the family. The only exception is the Jahangirpuri where 3 percent boys were dropped out against 1 percent of girls in high-income category.

Determinants and Causes of Dropout:

Many research studies have observed that low-achievers and students from low socio-economic backgrounds are at much higher risk of dropping out. Socio-economic and cultural background of the families is the most significant contributor to the continuation or discontinuation of the child in school. e poverty of the parents still remains one of the significant causes for the low participation of children in schooling. However, one of the key problems is that usually students don’t dropout for a single reason. Multiple factors are at play and no single risk factor can accurately predict who will dropout.

The data in table 4 indicates that 163 students are dropped out; around 6.3 percent of the total school-going children in the age group of 6 to 18 years. 19 percent students withdraw from school for financial reasons i.e. inability to meet or sustain the cost of schooling. Mushrooming of private tuition classes and socio-psycho pressure from others about its necessity makes low family income student vulnerable to withdraw from education, another 15 percent to attend domestic duties or to work for wages. The majority of them are girls; one-third is boys. Employment of children and education has inextricable linkages. Chugh’s (2011) study also corroborate that the children, who are not enrolled or dropped out, usually try to get jobs in the unorganised sector like small factories, garages, in dhabas or stay back to help in household activities.

Table 4: Reasons for Dropping Out from School
Reasons	Boys	Girls	Total
Financial	12 (7.4)	19 (11.7)	31 (19.0)
Safety Reasons	4 (2.5)	15 (9.2)	19 (11.7)
Bad Peer Group/Habit	13 (8.0)	3 (1.8)	16 (9.8)
Attitude of Teacher/School *	11 (6.7)	7 (4.3)	18 (11.0)
Poor Academic Performance	9 (5.5)	10 (6.1)	19 (11.7)
Lack of Interest in Study	6 (3.7)	4 (2.5)	10 (6.1)
To attend Domestic Duties/Work for Wages	8 (4.9)	17 (10.4)	25 (15.3)
Disability/ Health Issue	3 (1.8)	4 (2.5)	7 (4.3)
Other Issues #	6 (3.7)	12 (7.4)	18 (11.0)
TOTAL	72 (44)	91 (56)	163 (100)
* includes quality of education, infrastructure, attitude during and after admission. # Other issues include family background, parental problems

Security is the major concern for students not only in reaching school but also in the school premises itself. It becomes difficult for students to continue school in absence of security, especially for girls. Data analysis from the sample households makes it clear that around 9 percent girls are dropped out for this reason. In addition, 3 percent boys didn’t feel secure and left the school for safety reasons. The social composition of students in a school is a strong predictor of dropout rates. Dropout students living in slum areas may also influence the decision of others to discontinue school. Bad peer group or bad habits accounted for 10 percent of total dropout among which boys accounted four-fifth.

11 percent dropout students reported attitude of teacher or behaviour of school administration is responsible for discontinuing their education. The negative and discriminatory attitude of school forced a student to give up interest in the study and thereby poor performance resulting in dropping out. Around 12 percent students reported poor academic performance for their dropped out; the majority of them are girls. PROBE report (1999) also corroborate that infrastructural facilities, school environment and teachers’ attitude exert powerful influences on student’s interest or disinterest in studies including dropout rates. In the absence of sensitivity and support towards the disabled and ill around 4 percent students are dropped out in the selected slums.

The other reasons category caused drop out of around 11 percent students and it includes conjugal disputes between spouse, inebriated parents, lack of support for study at home etc reasons. The family environment in slum is also not encouraging due to numerous reasons. Financial constraints, job loss and chronic unemployment, addiction to alcohol and other substances can lead to frequent disruptions in the family. This becomes unbearable for several children and they lose interest in studies and attend school mechanically leading to low academic performance that may ultimately result in the dropout.

Educational Attainment of Children in Low-Income Families:

Out of total families in the slum, 11 percent has high family income i.e. above 5000 per month while 32 percent families fall in the mid-income category of 2500-5000 while 57 percent families have low income below 2500 per month. The low-income category has 63 percent population (1609) in the school going age of 7 to 18 years while mid-income category accommodates 36 percent such population and only 11 percent population in the school going age fall in the high-income category. Around 1609 students are in the low-income category.

A few research studies also indicate that the cost of schooling, including fees, is one of the main reasons for dropping out (Colclough et al 2000; Kember 1989; Chugh 2011). Therefore, it is important to see the educational attainment of children of low-income families to corroborate the above-mentioned studies and correlation between education attainment and family income level.

In low-income category, around 19 percent children are in the age group of 7 to 9 years while it 28 and 53 percent students are respectively in the age group between 10 to 14 years and 15 to 18 years. 13 percent children aged between 7 to 18 years are illiterate while 27 percent have the education of primary level and 31 percent have a secondary level and just 19 percent studied at least high school. Two percent children are illiterate in the age group of 7 to 9 years while it is 3 and 8 percent respectively in the age group between 10 to 14 and 15 to 18 years. Seventeen out of hundred children have the education of primary level in the age group 7 to 9 years. In the second category of age group between 10 to 14 years, 13 percent have the education of primary level and 12 percent have a secondary level. Just 15 percent children in the third category of age group between 15 to 18 years have education below secondary level while, both, secondary and high school level education amounts to 38 percent.

Out of total schooling age children, around 8 percent boys are illiterate while it is 5 percent with girls. The data suggests that the boys have low education compared to the girls. 29 percent boys have education below secondary level while it is 21 percent compared to girls. At the higher level, the girls have low percentage since only 15 and 8 percent are having a education of secondary and high school respectively. Boys have better education; 21 percent had education below secondary while 27 percent had above primary level.

Out of 82 percent Hindu children, 60 percent of total students have education up to primary or secondary level. 11 percent are illiterate while the same percentage has high school education. Muslim children are better than Hindu’s and just 2 percent children are illiterate while 3 percent have an education of primary level, 5 percent of secondary level and 8 percent of high school. Around one-fifth of the students use private schooling; while 79 percent children are dependent on public schools for their education. 33 percent primary, 27 percent secondary and 18 percent high school children are educated from public schools while there are 10 percent primary and 8 percent secondary students get education from a private school.

In social category Scheduled Castes (SC) accounts to 40 percent of total schooling age children while Other Backward Class, Minority and Others social category accounts to 27, 24 and 10 percent in the age group of 7 to 18. A total of 13 percent children are illiterate in which SC has 6 percent, OBC has 3 percent and Minority and Others have 4 and 1 percent respectively. 16 percent SC children have a primary education while 12 and 7 percent have secondary and high school education. 10 percent OBC children have a secondary level education while 8 and 6 percent have primary and high school level education respectively. Minority children also have a low educational level and just 6 and 5 percent children have secondary and high school level education respectively.

CONCLUSION:

This paper is a modest attempt to explore and understand the dropout phenomenon of children living in slums of Delhi. There are multiple complex factors intermingled that causes the dropout. The study was conducted in three slums covering a total population of 10558 from 2768 households. The preceding analyses suggest a variety of reasons for the dropout phenomenon. The findings reveal that both the family and school related factors were responsible and appeared to be highly correlated with each other. It was found that family background such as low socio-economic and educational status of the parents is significantly correlated with the phenomenon of dropping out with about one-fifth of the children dropping out due to financial constraints and another 15 percent to work for wages or to attend domestic duties. Poverty and financial constraints is an issue for many in getting an education but in 11 percent cases, the schools also failed or respond appropriately to encourage the students. A few children dropped out (about 18 percent) as they found difficult to comprehend the content as the curriculum too heavy, leading to disinterest in education and thereby to failure and repetition. In addition, social status also deters their education by restricting their mobility and educational support. The day to day family problems, along with financial constraint, surrounding, lack of motivation and support from the school, the safety of girls in and outside school, bad peer group etc also de-motivate them from education.

References & Bibliography

• Aggarwal Y.P. & Chugh Sunita (2003). Learning Achievement of Slum Children in Delhi, NIEPA Occasional Paper 34, NIEPA.
• ASER (2017). Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2016, ASER Center, New Delhi.
• Colclough, C., Rose, P., & Tembon, M. (2000). Gender inequalities in primary schooling: The roles of poverty and adverse cultural practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(1), 5-27.
• Banerji Rukmani & Surianarain Sharmi, (2005). City Children, City Schools Pratham/UNESCO, New Delhi.
• Boyle, S., Brock, A., Mace, J. and Sibbons, M. (2002). Reaching the Poor: The ‘Costs’ of Sending Children to School. Synthesis Report. London: DFID.
• Bray, Mark (2007). The Shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners, UNESCO, IIEP, Paris.
• Bruneforth, M. (2007). Characteristics of Children who Drop-out of School, Background paper for the EFA Global Monitoring Report.
• Census of India (2001). Census of India 1991- 2001. Final Population Totals, Series-1.
• Census of India (2011). The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, MHA, Government of India. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html
• Chugh, S (2011). Dropouts in Secondary Education: A Study of children living in Slums of Delhi, NUEPA Occasional Papers 37, NUEPA, New Delhi.
• ______(2008). Achieving Universalisation of Elementary Education in Slum areas: Problems and Issues, Journal of Indian Education, Number 4, February.
• DES (2016). Delhi Statistical Hand Book 2016. Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi accessed from http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/ab16f8004f8106d58588ddd87adfa114/Delhi+Statistical+Hand+Book+2016.ps++dt.09-12-2016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=1240964727&CACHEID=ab16f8004f8106d58588ddd87adfa114
• DES (2014). Social Consumption on Education, NSS 71st Round, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi accessed from http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/65b1618040eaf2868284839042744ed5/71st+round+report+on+education.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-1456776068&CACHEID=65b1618040eaf2868284839042744ed5
• Government of India (1992). Programme of Action on the National Education Policy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.
• ______(1986). National Policy on Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.
• MoHRD (2015). Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India accessed from https://www.indiastat.com/table/education/6370/dropout/366820/14741/data.aspx
• MoHRD (2001). Selected Educational Statistics 2000-01, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India accesses from http://infochangeindia.org/education/statistics/gross-drop-out-rate-in-primary-middle-and-secondary-schools-in-india.html)
• Kember, D. (1989). A longitudinal-process model of drop-out from distance education. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 278-301.
• Pong, S.-L., & Ju, D.B. (2000). Effects of change in family structure and income on dropping out of middle and high school. Journal of Family Issues, 21(2), 147-169.
• PROBE (1999). The Public Report on Basic Education in India (PROBE) Team, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
• Rani, R. U. (2011). Reasons for rising school dropout rates of rural girls in India – An analysis using Soft Computing Approach. International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 3 (9) 140-143
• Report of the CABE Committee (2005). Universalisation of Secondary Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development.
• Report of the Working Group on Secondary and Vocational Education for 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12), Planning Commission, Government of India.
• Uma R R. (2011). Reasons for rising school dropout rates of rural girls in india- an analysis using soft computing approach, International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 3(9), 140-143.
• UNESCO (2000). Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments (The Dakar Framework for Action), Office of the Assistant Director-General for Education, UNESCO, Paris accesses from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf
• UNESCO (1990). The World Declaration on Education for All and its companion Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs, Secretariat of the International Consultative Forum on Education for All, UNESCO, New York accesses from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001275/127583e.pdf