Financing for equity in primary and secondary education

PEER icon financing education - primary and secondary education

Transfers to subnational governments with an equity orientation are less prevalent than other approaches, since not all countries allocate educational funding through these channels. Only around half of those that do so incorporate specific equity provisions.
The use of direct transfers to schools is rapidly becoming the most popular method for promoting equity. Globally, 76% of countries redistribute resources to help disadvantaged schools, with these practices being more widespread in high-income countries (91%) compared to low-income countries (52%).
Although primary and secondary education is freely provided in most countries, many governments also offer scholarships, subsidies, or grants to lessen costs for students and their families. In total, 62% of education ministries provide such support—ranging from 38% in Oceania and 44% in Sub-Saharan Africa up to 82% in Europe and Northern America. By income level 44% of low-income countries and 76% of high-income countries offer these forms of assistance, highlighting differences including those concerning resource availability and fiscal contexts
Social protection programmes linked to school attendance (Conditional cash transfers) contribute to keeping students enrolled. Worldwide, 73% of countries have policies supporting learners and their families, with coverage varying from 36% in low-income countries to 87% in high-income regions. These programmes primarily address poverty and geographic inequalities.
School meal programmes remain the most widespread mechanism, reaching 84% of countries and experiencing significant growth since 2000.
An index has been developed to assess how education and social protection financing reflect equity. It evaluates variations in policy intent and reflects differences in design, funding efforts, and coverage. Based on this measure: 20% of countries demonstrate a “latent” commitment to equity (score ≤6), characterized by minimal or loosely organized actions; 33% exhibit an “emerging” focus (score 7–12), engaging in multiple equity strategies but lacking consistent execution; 39% present an “established” orientation (score 13–18), combining ample funding with additional support systems; and 8% achieve an “advanced” focus, signifying fully cohesive and systematic equity efforts across government departments.

Explore the policies in your country using the menu on the right.

Countries pursue different routes of varying form and intensity to mitigate the education impact of factors such as poverty, gender, ethnicity, disability or remoteness. As part of its 2020 edition on inclusion and 2026 edition on access and equity, the GEM Report compiled information on the extent to which education and social financing policies are designed to address disadvantages in primary and secondary education. The profiles were primarily prepared through desk review by the GEM Report team, complemented by commissioned research to add subnational examples for selected countries with complex institutional structures. For all profiles on the website, when they are drafted, countries are invited through their delegation at UNESCO to review and update the information. When this step of the process is complete, it is indicated on the website on the relevant page of the country’s profile with a blue tick.

Available countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, P.S., Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Republic of Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czechia, D.R. Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, DPR Korea, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macao (China), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, F.S., Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, State of Palestine, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sint Maarten, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, B. R., Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

CONTENT: FINANCING FOR EQUITY IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

The profiles on financing for equity in primary and secondary education aim to describe the efforts of countries in improving equity and ensuring access to quality education to all by looking at four categories of financing policies:

1. Education resources to subnational governments

This section captures resource allocation mechanisms from the central government to the lower tiers based on the school-age population and a unit cost per student programme. Such per capita formulas and budget lines may take factors such as poverty and location into account.

2. Education resources to schools

This section includes policies or programmes that compensate schools for being in a disadvantaged area and/or have disadvantaged students. They tend to be block grants, in addition to the capitation grants, and may be nation- or region-wide.

3. Education resources to students and families

The section refers to education ministry policies and programmes that directly benefit disadvantaged students and their households as the final defined beneficiaries. These may be in the form of cash, exemption from payment or in-kind.

4. Social policies and family support programmes

The section is about other ministry policies and programmes that directly benefit disadvantaged students and their households. These tend to be social protection programmes, such as conditional cash transfers or child grants with an education component that aim to address poverty occasionally with a gender dimension.

5. School meal programmes

This section provides an overview of the national initiatives aimed at supporting equitable access to education through nutrition.

Related resources

The Profiles Enhancing Education Reviews (PEER) platform has moved to a new website, https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/peer, where it now provides updated, indicator-based analysis and continuous monitoring. The current website, https://education-profiles.org/, remains available for reference but will be progressively archived; its profiles, linked to earlier GEM Reports, are no longer being updated.