Middle School Students Studying in Their Home Language by Country (2026)

Home language instruction in middle school measures the percentage of students in lower secondary education (typically grades 7-9) who have their first or home language as the language of instruction. This indicator reflects educational policies that support learning in students' native languages during the middle school years. In countries with diverse linguistic populations, home language instruction during middle school supports continued academic development, subject comprehension, and cultural identity preservation during the transition from primary to secondary education.

Why Home Language Instruction Matters in Middle School

Learning in one's home language during middle school provides significant cognitive and educational benefits. Research demonstrates that students develop stronger comprehension of complex academic subjects, better engagement with learning, and improved academic achievement when instruction occurs in their first language. Home language instruction during middle school supports better understanding of mathematics, science, and social studies concepts, stronger critical thinking skills, and more effective learning during the transition to secondary education. Beyond academic benefits, home language instruction preserves cultural identity and linguistic diversity. Students who learn in their home language during middle school maintain connection to their cultural heritage, family communication patterns, and community traditions. This cultural continuity supports psychological well-being, family engagement in education, and stronger community bonds during the important middle school years.

Middle School Students Studying in Their Home Language by Country (2026)

Export

Excel (.xlsx) CSV Document PDF Document PNG Image

#	Country	2026 Estimate (%)
1	Costa Rica CR	98.9%
2	Guyana GY	98.9%
3	Haiti HT	98.9%
4	India IN	98.9%
5	Sri Lanka LK	98.9%
6	Dominican Republic DO	98.8%
7	Colombia CO	98.7%
8	Honduras HN	98.7%
9	Panama PA	98.7%
10	China CN	98.5%
11	El Salvador SV	98.5%
12	Japan JP	98.5%
13	Nicaragua NI	98.5%
14	Taiwan TW	98.5%
15	Guatemala GT	98.3%
16	Ecuador EC	98.1%
17	Mexico MX	98.1%
18	Paraguay PY	98.1%
19	Peru PE	98.1%
20	Uruguay UY	98.1%
21	Venezuela VE	98.1%
22	Armenia AM	96.5%
23	Belarus BY	95.7%
24	Poland PL	95.1%
25	Albania AL	94.4%
26	Serbia RS	94.3%
27	Cambodia KH	94%
28	Fiji FJ	94%
29	Laos LA	94%
30	Myanmar MM	94%
31	Papua New Guinea PG	94%
32	Thailand TH	94%
33	Timor-Leste TL	94%
34	Vietnam VN	94%
35	Brazil BR	93.9%
36	Bosnia and Herzegovina BA	93.5%
37	Chile CL	91.5%
38	Mongolia MN	91.5%
39	Russia RU	91.5%
40	Hungary HU	91.2%
41	Croatia HR	90.6%
42	Azerbaijan AZ	90%
43	Czech Republic CZ	89.9%
44	Iceland IS	89.7%
45	Norway NO	89.7%
46	Portugal PT	89.6%
47	Australia AU	89.3%
48	Grenada GD	88.9%
49	Jamaica JM	88.9%
50	Lithuania LT	88.9%
51	Suriname SR	88.9%
52	Trinidad and Tobago TT	88.9%
53	Algeria DZ	88.4%
54	Estonia EE	88%
55	Finland FI	88%
56	Georgia GE	87.4%
57	Ukraine UA	87.4%
58	Moldova MD	87%
59	North Macedonia MK	87%
60	Romania RO	87%
61	Denmark DK	86.9%
62	Italy IT	86.8%
63	Jordan JO	86.8%
64	Türkiye TR	85.7%
65	Latvia LV	85.5%
66	Slovakia SK	85.5%
67	South Korea KR	85.5%
68	Bulgaria BG	84.6%
69	Slovenia SI	84.3%
70	Kazakhstan KZ	83.9%
71	Kyrgyzstan KG	83.3%
72	Tajikistan TJ	83.3%
73	Uzbekistan UZ	83.3%
74	Montenegro ME	83%
75	Israel IL	82%
76	New Zealand NZ	81.8%
77	Ireland IE	81.5%
78	United Kingdom GB	81.5%
79	Luxembourg LU	81%
80	Netherlands NL	81%
81	Switzerland CH	81%
82	France FR	80.7%
83	Monaco MC	80.7%
84	Sweden SE	80.6%
85	Belgium BE	80.5%
86	Austria AT	80%
87	Germany DE	79.4%
88	Canada CA	79.2%
89	United States US	77.8%
90	Egypt EG	77.6%
91	Bahrain BH	76.4%
92	Libya LY	74.6%
93	Saudi Arabia SA	74.6%
94	Greece GR	74.5%
95	Spain ES	74.5%
96	Oman OM	72.1%
97	Macau MO	71.3%
98	Cyprus CY	70.7%
99	Hong Kong HK	69.5%
100	Iran IR	68.6%
101	Lebanon LB	68.6%
102	Syria SY	68.6%
103	United Arab Emirates AE	58.7%
104	Singapore SG	58.6%
105	Cameroon CM	56.8%
106	Qatar QA	51.9%
107	Mauritius MU	51.3%
108	Morocco MA	47.3%
109	Tunisia TN	47.3%
110	Indonesia ID	43.8%
111	South Africa ZA	34.7%
112	Malta MT	33.6%
113	Nepal NP	32.4%
114	Pakistan PK	32.4%
115	Philippines PH	25.2%
116	Brunei BN	16.7%
117	Botswana BW	12.6%
118	Gabon GA	7%
119	Congo CG	6.4%
120	Burundi BI	5.3%
121	Central African Republic CF	3.5%
122	Ghana GH	3.3%
123	Ethiopia ET	2.8%
124	Chad TD	2.3%
125	Kenya KE	1.9%
126	Comoros KM	1.5%
127	Nigeria NG	1.5%
128	Guinea GN	1.2%
129	Gambia GM	0.9%
130	Lesotho LS	0.9%
131	Mali ML	0.9%
132	Namibia NA	0.9%
133	Togo TG	0.9%
134	Guinea-Bissau GW	0.7%
135	Mozambique MZ	0.7%
136	Liberia LR	0.6%
137	Niger NE	0.6%
138	Rwanda RW	0.6%
139	Burkina Faso BF	0.4%
140	Madagascar MG	0.4%
141	Malawi MW	0.4%
142	Mauritania MR	0.4%
143	Senegal SN	0.4%
144	Sudan SD	0.4%
145	Tanzania TZ	0.4%
146	Uganda UG	0.4%
147	Yemen YE	0.4%
148	Zambia ZM	0.4%
149	Zimbabwe ZW	0.4%

Global Leaders in Home Language Instruction

Countries with strong commitments to mother tongue education achieve the highest middle school home language instruction rates, with Albania leading at 95.3%, followed by Belarus (95.7%), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (93.5%). These countries prioritize home language instruction as a fundamental educational right and recognize the cognitive benefits of learning in students' native languages during middle school. European countries demonstrate high home language instruction rates, with Austria (81.9%), Bulgaria (86.0%), and Croatia showing strong commitment to mother tongue education. These countries have developed educational policies that support home language instruction while gradually introducing additional languages as students progress through school. Multilingual countries show varied approaches to home language instruction, with some prioritizing mother tongue education and others emphasizing national or international languages. The variation reflects different educational philosophies, linguistic diversity, and policy priorities regarding language of instruction in middle school.

Regional Patterns in Home Language Instruction

European Union members generally maintain high home language instruction rates, reflecting educational policies that recognize the importance of mother tongue education during middle school. The variation across EU countries reflects different linguistic compositions, minority language policies, and educational traditions regarding language of instruction. African countries show diverse patterns in home language instruction, with some prioritizing indigenous languages and others emphasizing colonial or regional languages. The variation reflects different approaches to linguistic diversity, educational resources, and policy decisions regarding language of instruction in middle school. Asian countries demonstrate varied approaches to home language instruction, with some emphasizing national languages and others supporting regional or minority languages. The variation reflects different linguistic policies, educational philosophies, and decisions about language of instruction during middle school education.

Language Policy and Educational Access

Home language instruction policies significantly influence educational access and equity in middle school. Students who receive instruction in their home language experience better comprehension, higher engagement, and stronger academic outcomes compared to students learning in unfamiliar languages. Educational policies that support home language instruction promote educational equity and ensure all students can access quality middle school education regardless of linguistic background. Multilingual education approaches that maintain home language instruction and gradually introduce additional languages support both linguistic development and academic achievement. Students develop stronger subject comprehension in their home language, which transfers to additional language learning. This approach supports cognitive development, multilingualism, and educational success across diverse linguistic populations. Language transition policies determine when and how students transition from home language instruction to instruction in additional languages. Effective transition policies maintain home language instruction long enough to establish strong subject comprehension and academic skills while gradually introducing additional languages. The timing and approach to language transition significantly influence student outcomes and educational success.

Cultural Identity and Community Engagement

Home language instruction strengthens cultural identity and community engagement in middle school education. Students who learn in their home language maintain stronger connections to family, community, and cultural traditions. Parents and community members more actively engage in education when instruction occurs in languages they understand, supporting family involvement and community-school partnerships during the middle school years. Linguistic diversity in schools reflects the diversity of communities and societies. Home language instruction policies that support diverse languages recognize and value the linguistic resources present in communities. This approach promotes inclusive education, celebrates linguistic diversity, and ensures all students feel welcomed and valued in educational settings. Language preservation through education supports the maintenance of minority and indigenous languages. Home language instruction in middle school provides opportunities for younger generations to develop academic skills in languages that might otherwise be lost. Educational policies that support home language instruction contribute to language preservation and cultural continuity.

2026 Projections and Home Language Instruction Trends

The projections reflect gradual changes in home language instruction policies across countries. Some countries are increasing home language instruction as they recognize cognitive and educational benefits, while others are maintaining current policies. The trends reflect evolving educational philosophies regarding language of instruction and recognition of the importance of mother tongue education during middle school. Global recognition of the importance of home language instruction for academic achievement and educational equity is influencing policy changes in some countries. International education frameworks increasingly emphasize the value of mother tongue instruction during middle school. These trends suggest gradual increases in home language instruction in countries adopting these educational approaches.

Middle School Students Studying in Their Home Language by Country (2026)

Download

Excel (.xlsx) CSV PDF PNG

#	Country	2012 (%)	2015 (%)	2018 (%)	2019 (%)	2022 (%)	2026 Estimate (%)
1	Costa Rica	-	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
2	Guyana	-	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
3	Haiti	-	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
4	India	-	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
5	Sri Lanka	-	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
6	Dominican Republic	-	-	-	-	98.8%	98.8%
7	Colombia	-	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
8	Honduras	-	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
9	Panama	-	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
10	China	-	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
11	El Salvador	-	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
12	Japan	-	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
13	Nicaragua	-	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
14	Taiwan	-	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
15	Guatemala	-	-	-	-	98.3%	98.3%
16	Ecuador	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
17	Mexico	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
18	Paraguay	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
19	Peru	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
20	Uruguay	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
21	Venezuela	-	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
22	Armenia	-	-	-	-	-	96.5%
23	Belarus	-	-	95.7%	-	-	95.7%
24	Poland	-	-	-	-	95.1%	95.1%
25	Albania	97.4%	-	96%	-	95.3%	94.4%
26	Serbia	-	-	-	-	94.3%	94.3%
27	Cambodia	-	-	-	-	-	94%
28	Fiji	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
29	Laos	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
30	Myanmar	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
31	Papua New Guinea	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
32	Thailand	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
33	Timor-Leste	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
34	Vietnam	-	-	-	-	94%	94%
35	Brazil	-	-	-	-	-	93.9%
36	Bosnia and Herzegovina	-	-	93.5%	-	-	93.5%
37	Chile	-	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
38	Mongolia	-	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
39	Russia	-	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
40	Hungary	-	-	-	-	91.2%	91.2%
41	Croatia	-	-	90.6%	-	-	90.6%
42	Azerbaijan	-	-	-	-	-	90%
43	Czech Republic	-	-	-	-	89.9%	89.9%
44	Iceland	-	-	-	-	89.7%	89.7%
45	Norway	-	-	-	-	89.7%	89.7%
46	Portugal	-	-	-	-	89.6%	89.6%
47	Australia	90.2%	90.7%	86.7%	91.2%	86%	89.3%
48	Grenada	-	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
49	Jamaica	-	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
50	Lithuania	-	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
51	Suriname	-	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
52	Trinidad and Tobago	-	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
53	Algeria	-	88.4%	-	-	-	88.4%
54	Estonia	-	-	-	-	88%	88%
55	Finland	-	-	-	-	88%	88%
56	Georgia	-	-	-	-	87.4%	87.4%
57	Ukraine	-	-	-	-	87.4%	87.4%
58	Moldova	-	-	-	-	87%	87%
59	North Macedonia	-	-	-	-	87%	87%
60	Romania	-	-	-	-	87%	87%
61	Denmark	-	-	-	-	86.9%	86.9%
62	Italy	-	-	-	-	86.8%	86.8%
63	Jordan	-	-	-	-	86.8%	86.8%
64	Türkiye	-	-	-	-	85.7%	85.7%
65	Latvia	-	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
66	Slovakia	-	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
67	South Korea	-	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
68	Bulgaria	-	-	-	-	86%	84.6%
69	Slovenia	-	-	-	-	84.3%	84.3%
70	Kazakhstan	-	-	-	-	83.9%	83.9%
71	Kyrgyzstan	-	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
72	Tajikistan	-	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
73	Uzbekistan	-	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
74	Montenegro	-	-	-	-	83%	83%
75	Israel	-	-	-	-	82%	82%
76	New Zealand	-	-	-	-	81.8%	81.8%
77	Ireland	-	-	-	-	81.5%	81.5%
78	United Kingdom	-	-	-	-	81.5%	81.5%
79	Luxembourg	-	-	-	-	81%	81%
80	Netherlands	-	-	-	-	81%	81%
81	Switzerland	-	-	-	-	81%	81%
82	France	-	-	-	-	80.7%	80.7%
83	Monaco	-	-	-	-	80.7%	80.7%
84	Sweden	-	-	-	-	80.6%	80.6%
85	Belgium	78.4%	83.4%	82.5%	-	79.9%	80.5%
86	Austria	88.6%	81.2%	79.5%	-	75.1%	80%
87	Germany	-	-	-	-	79.4%	79.4%
88	Canada	-	-	-	-	79.2%	79.2%
89	United States	-	-	-	-	77.8%	77.8%
90	Egypt	-	-	-	-	77.6%	77.6%
91	Bahrain	-	74.1%	-	74.3%	-	76.4%
92	Libya	-	-	-	-	74.6%	74.6%
93	Saudi Arabia	-	-	-	-	74.6%	74.6%
94	Greece	-	-	-	-	74.5%	74.5%
95	Spain	-	-	-	-	74.5%	74.5%
96	Oman	-	-	-	-	72.1%	72.1%
97	Macau	-	-	-	-	71.3%	71.3%
98	Cyprus	-	-	-	-	70.7%	70.7%
99	Hong Kong	-	-	-	-	69.5%	69.5%
100	Iran	-	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
101	Lebanon	-	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
102	Syria	-	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
103	United Arab Emirates	66.5%	63.6%	58.7%	59.5%	42.9%	58.7%
104	Singapore	-	-	-	-	58.6%	58.6%
105	Cameroon	-	-	-	-	-	56.8%
106	Qatar	-	-	-	-	51.9%	51.9%
107	Mauritius	-	-	-	-	51.3%	51.3%
108	Morocco	-	-	-	-	47.3%	47.3%
109	Tunisia	-	-	-	-	47.3%	47.3%
110	Indonesia	-	-	-	-	43.8%	43.8%
111	South Africa	-	-	-	-	34.7%	34.7%
112	Malta	-	-	-	-	33.6%	33.6%
113	Nepal	-	-	-	-	32.4%	32.4%
114	Pakistan	-	-	-	-	32.4%	32.4%
115	Philippines	-	-	-	-	25.2%	25.2%
116	Brunei	-	-	-	-	-	16.7%
117	Botswana	-	12.6%	-	-	-	12.6%
118	Gabon	-	-	-	-	-	7%
119	Congo	-	-	-	-	-	6.4%
120	Burundi	-	-	-	-	-	5.3%
121	Central African Republic	-	-	-	-	-	3.5%
122	Ghana	-	-	-	-	-	3.3%
123	Ethiopia	-	-	-	-	-	2.8%
124	Chad	-	-	-	-	-	2.3%
125	Kenya	-	-	-	-	-	1.9%
126	Comoros	-	-	-	-	-	1.5%
127	Nigeria	-	-	-	-	-	1.5%
128	Guinea	-	-	-	-	-	1.2%
129	Gambia	-	-	-	-	-	0.9%
130	Lesotho	-	-	-	-	-	0.9%
131	Mali	-	-	-	-	-	0.9%
132	Namibia	-	-	-	-	-	0.9%
133	Togo	-	-	-	-	-	0.9%
134	Guinea-Bissau	-	-	-	-	-	0.7%
135	Mozambique	-	-	-	-	-	0.7%
136	Liberia	-	-	-	-	-	0.6%
137	Niger	-	-	-	-	-	0.6%
138	Rwanda	-	-	-	-	-	0.6%
139	Burkina Faso	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
140	Madagascar	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
141	Malawi	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
142	Mauritania	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
143	Senegal	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
144	Sudan	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
145	Tanzania	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
146	Uganda	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
147	Yemen	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
148	Zambia	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%
149	Zimbabwe	-	-	-	-	-	0.4%

Methodology

This analysis employs UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) data from household surveys and educational administrative records across 96 countries with available data for 2012-2022. The indicator measures the percentage of students in lower secondary education who have their first or home language as the language of instruction, based on school administrative data and educational surveys.

The 2026 estimates represent scenario-informed comparative assessments, not authoritative predictions or exact forecasts. They indicate probable direction and relative magnitude based on individual country evaluation incorporating language policy and educational system factors. For each country, we conducted contextual assessment examining historical instruction patterns (calculating annual change rates where multiple data points exist), language policy development, educational system priorities, and data reliability considerations. Countries with clear trends and recent data use observed patterns as foundation, while those with limited or older data are assessed using regional benchmarks and comparable country analysis within consistent analytical constraints applied across all countries. All projections account for the gradual nature of policy changes in language of instruction (realistic annual change 0.5-2.0 percentage points) and educational system constraints. Values are rounded to reflect inherent uncertainty in forward-looking estimates.

Our analytical process: (1) Examine historical instruction patterns from available data points (e.g., if 2012: 85% and 2022: 90%, annual rate = +0.5%/year), (2) Evaluate sustainability given language policy and educational priorities, (3) Analyze education-specific developments relevant to home language instruction (language policy reforms and implementation, educational curriculum changes, teacher training in multilingual education, community language support programs, minority language recognition policies, indigenous language preservation initiatives, government investment in multilingual education, demographic changes in student populations), (4) Compare with regional context and comparable countries to validate reasonableness, (5) Adjust for baseline value and policy constraints (higher baselines = slower change due to saturation effects), (6) Consider data recency and language policy developments during data gaps.

Most countries have data from 2012-2022, representing current instruction patterns. For countries with older data, we assessed language policy-specific developments during the data gap: language policy reforms and implementation changes, educational curriculum modifications, teacher training programs in multilingual education, community language support initiatives, minority language recognition policies, indigenous language preservation programs, government investment in multilingual education, demographic changes in student populations. In countries with established home language instruction policies, completion rates reflect mature systems with limited change potential due to policy stability. These contextual factors are used qualitatively to inform direction and magnitude, not as precise quantitative inputs. Countries with evolving language policies show larger projected changes reflecting policy reforms. Countries with stable language policies show minimal change due to policy consistency. Countries with limited home language instruction show modest improvements constrained by language policy priorities and educational system resources.