School dropout rate reaches 27% across Latin America
June 4 (UPI) -- Latin America is facing an escalating education crisis as school dropout rates continue to climb, affecting not only the region's poorest countries but also those with historically strong public education systems, such as Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay. In Argentina, despite its educational potential, nearly 40% of the population -- about 17.9 million people -- lives in poverty, a factor that directly impacts school attendance and completion.
Statistics show that roughly 160 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean are of school age -- nearly a quarter of the region's total population. About half of them do not complete their education, and many are considering leaving their home countries for the United States, Spain or other developed nations in search of better opportunities.
The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and other international organizations have warned that the region's dropout crisis poses a serious threat to its development.
A report by the Inter-American Development Bank found that 27% of students drop out before completing their education. UNESCO estimates that around 23 million children and teenagers in the region are not enrolled in school.
Countries with the lowest dropout rates include Chile (7%), Peru (10%) and Bolivia (16%). The highest rates are in Guatemala (57%), Honduras (53%) and Uruguay (37%). Venezuela's rate is estimated at 27%, while Paraguay and Ecuador report dropout rates of 32% and 28%, respectively.
In Mexico, more than 4 million children and teenagers are not in school, and another 600,000 are at risk of dropping out, according to a UNICEF report. The problem becomes more pronounced with age: three in 10 teens aged 15 to 17 are no longer attending school.
ECLAC attributes part of the crisis to extended school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which lasted more than 70 weeks on average. These interruptions severely disrupted schooling and widened existing inequalities, particularly at the secondary level.
Experts agree that school dropout is a multifaceted issue. While the pandemic worsened the situation, studies show the trend predates COVID-19 and is rooted in deep structural problems.
Contributing factors include poverty, single-parent or broken families and low parental education levels, all of which push many students to leave school to work or care for family members. Teenage pregnancy is another key factor.
Other factors are student disengagement, lack of motivation, disruptive classroom environments and the inability of youth to see education as a path to a better future. Drug use and recruitment by drug trafficking gangs further undermine student retention.
Although less prevalent today, the traditional lack of value placed on technical education in the region has also contributed to the problem. Stronger connections between vocational training and the job market could provide a path forward for many young people.
Early school dropout significantly undermines economic development across Latin America. Young people who leave school early are less likely to find formal, stable or well-paying jobs, leading to a less skilled workforce and lower productivity. This, in turn, slows national economic growth, reduces competitiveness and hampers innovation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?
The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure reckons. There have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending Review. As I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to spend. But the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant investment. On Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do it. Now, with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's review. It's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure Limit. In other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects. But it doesn't include costs that government can't set in advance – like pensions and benefits, or debt interest. The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during Covid. And then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary term. The total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took office. The pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last year. The government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean years. The political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were coming. You can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi Sunak. The government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control". This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS today. And a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are struggling. The overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain. A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper deal. So observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will make. But it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by decision. It's worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be received. Until we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be clear. There will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the aftermath. But bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time. "We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different. A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were." Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that experience. The "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" . So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an argument. Stick a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain". Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term projects. Next week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy costs. And it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence review. In government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to do. One Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?" Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down." That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make cuts. There is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them mutinous. Don't forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs too. This time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the City. One year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn budget. According to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky high. So too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally". "There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through." Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not pretty. But politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it badly. This week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would make. And Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election. A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee. 'It's going to be ugly': Westminster braces for Spending Review The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them? The country where the left (not the far right) made hardline immigration laws BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bank of Canada head Tiff Macklem says mandate should evolve in a ‘shock-prone' world
OTTAWA - Tiff Macklem is wearing an Edmonton Oilers pin as he reflects on coming very close to beating big odds. It's a significant day for the governor of the Bank of Canada: he's just laid out his reasons to the entire country and a global audience for keeping the central bank's benchmark interest rate steady for a second straight time. That night is also Game 1 of the NHL's Stanley Cup finals; Macklem ends his press conference with a hearty 'Go Oilers!' It's a rematch from last year's heartbreak, when the Oilers came oh-so-close to mounting a seemingly impossible four-game comeback against the Florida Panthers, only to fall short by a single goal in Game 7. Macklem, too, was almost safe to declare victory last year. He had just about secured a coveted 'soft landing' for Canada's economy — a rare feat that sees restrictive monetary policy bring down surging levels of inflation without tipping the economy into a prolonged downturn. 'We got inflation down. We didn't cause a recession,' Macklem said in an interview with The Canadian Press after the rate announcement Wednesday. 'And, to be frank, until President (Donald) Trump started threatening the economy with new tariffs, we were actually seeing growth pick up.' Fresh out of one crisis, the central bank now must contend with another in U.S. tariffs. Five years into his tenure as head of the Bank of Canada, Macklem said he sees the central bank's role in stickhandling the economy — as well as Canada's role on the world stage — evolving. Many Canadians have become more familiar with the Bank of Canada in recent years. After the COVID-19 pandemic recovery ignited inflation, the central bank's rapid tightening cycle and subsequent rate cuts were top-line news for anxious Canadians stressed about rising prices and borrowing costs. That was all in pursuit of meeting the central bank's inflation target of two per cent, part of a mandate from the federal government that's up for review next year. Macklem said the past few years have led the Bank of Canada to scrutinize some of its metrics, like core inflation and how it responds to supply shocks in the economy. But he defends keeping the bank's inflation target, particularly at a time of global upheaval. 'Our flexible inflation targeting framework has just been through the biggest test it's ever had in the 30 years since we announced the inflation target,' he said. 'I'm not going to pretend it's been an easy few years for anybody. But I think the framework has performed well.' Macklem said, however, that he sees room to build out the mandate to address other areas of concern from Canadians, such as housing affordability. Whether it's the high cost of rent or a mortgage, or surging prices for groceries and vehicles, Macklem said the past few years have been eye-opening to Canadians who weren't around the last time inflation hit double digits in the 1980s. 'Unfortunately, a whole new generation of Canadians now know what inflation feels like, and they didn't like it one bit,' he said. Monetary policy itself can't make homes more affordable, he noted — in a nutshell, high interest rates make mortgages more expensive while low rates can push up the price of housing itself because they stoke demand. But Macklem said one of the things he's reflecting on is that inflation can get worse when the economy isn't operating at its potential or when it's facing great disruption. 'There is a role for monetary policy to smooth out some of that adjustment — support the economy while ensuring that inflation is well-controlled.' He didn't offer suggestions on how the mandate might expand to address housing affordability specifically, but said 'the work is ongoing' and will be settled in meetings with the federal government next year. Right now, he's trying to make sure that the economic impacts from Canada's tariff dispute with the United States don't result in prolonged inflation. The Bank of Canada is not alone in debating how monetary policy ought to respond in what Macklem called a more 'shock-prone' world. The G7 Finance Ministers' Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., last month also featured roundtables with the bloc's central bankers. Conversations at the summit were 'candid,' Macklem said, and though the nations issued a joint statement at the close of the event, that doesn't mean they agreed on everything. 'International co-operation, to be honest, has never been easy. It is particularly difficult right now, but that doesn't make it less important. That makes it more important,' he said. 'I do think Canada, as the chair of the G7, has a leadership role to play.' The Bank of Canada is also changing the way it has conversations with Canadians and the kind of data it considers. A day after the June interest rate decision, deputy governor Sharon Kozicki told a Toronto business crowd how the central bank is using data more nimbly, relying heavily on surveys and more granular information to make monetary policy decisions in an uncertain time. These sources offer a faster way to see what's happening on the ground in the economy than traditional statistical models allow. Macklem said the central bank would previously have dismissed most supply shocks as transitory — likely to pass without the need for central bank adjustments, such as rising and falling oil prices. But he said the Bank of Canada needs to be running a more 'nuanced playbook' now to respond to some increasingly common shocks: supply chain disruptions, trade conflicts and extreme weather to name a few. An overheating economy running up against a supply disruption is the kind of inflationary fire Macklem is trying to avoid in this latest crisis. 'The economy does not work well when inflation is high,' he said. 'And the primary role of the Bank of Canada is to ensure that Canadians maintain confidence in price stability. That's all we can do for the Canadian economy. That's what we can do for Canadians. And that's what we're focused on.' Later in the day on Wednesday, the Edmonton Oilers took Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals. The Canadian team was down but roared back to win 4-3 in overtime. It's still early in the Bank of Canada's response to the latest global shock. But with any luck, Macklem's team might also get a leg up with lessons learned the last time they faced big odds. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
