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

Home language instruction in primary school measures the percentage of students at the end of primary education (typically grades 1-6) 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 foundational primary education years. In countries with diverse linguistic populations, home language instruction during primary school supports literacy development, academic achievement, and cultural identity preservation during the critical period when fundamental academic skills are established.

Why Home Language Instruction Matters in Primary School

Learning in one's home language during primary school provides significant cognitive and educational benefits. Research demonstrates that students develop stronger literacy skills, better comprehension of academic concepts, and improved academic achievement when instruction occurs in their first language. Home language instruction during primary school supports stronger reading and writing development, better understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts, and more effective learning of foundational academic skills during the critical years when these competencies are established. Beyond academic benefits, home language instruction preserves cultural identity and linguistic diversity. Students who learn in their home language during primary 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 formative primary education years.

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

Export

Excel (.xlsx) CSV Document PDF Document PNG Image

#	Country	2026 Estimate (%)
1	Bangladesh BD	99%
2	Costa Rica CR	98.9%
3	Guyana GY	98.9%
4	Haiti HT	98.9%
5	India IN	98.9%
6	Sri Lanka LK	98.9%
7	Dominican Republic DO	98.8%
8	Colombia CO	98.7%
9	Honduras HN	98.7%
10	Panama PA	98.7%
11	China CN	98.5%
12	El Salvador SV	98.5%
13	Japan JP	98.5%
14	Nicaragua NI	98.5%
15	Taiwan TW	98.5%
16	Guatemala GT	98.3%
17	Ecuador EC	98.1%
18	Mexico MX	98.1%
19	Paraguay PY	98.1%
20	Peru PE	98.1%
21	Uruguay UY	98.1%
22	Venezuela VE	98.1%
23	Poland PL	95.1%
24	Serbia RS	94.3%
25	Cambodia KH	94%
26	Fiji FJ	94%
27	Laos LA	94%
28	Myanmar MM	94%
29	Papua New Guinea PG	94%
30	Thailand TH	94%
31	Timor-Leste TL	94%
32	Vietnam VN	94%
33	Chile CL	91.5%
34	Mongolia MN	91.5%
35	Russia RU	91.5%
36	Hungary HU	91.2%
37	Croatia HR	90.6%
38	Albania AL	90.4%
39	Bosnia and Herzegovina BA	90.4%
40	Czech Republic CZ	89.9%
41	Iceland IS	89.7%
42	Norway NO	89.7%
43	Portugal PT	89.6%
44	Grenada GD	88.9%
45	Jamaica JM	88.9%
46	Lithuania LT	88.9%
47	Suriname SR	88.9%
48	Trinidad and Tobago TT	88.9%
49	Armenia AM	88.1%
50	Estonia EE	88%
51	Finland FI	88%
52	Georgia GE	87.4%
53	Ukraine UA	87.4%
54	Moldova MD	87%
55	North Macedonia MK	87%
56	Romania RO	87%
57	Denmark DK	86.9%
58	Italy IT	86.8%
59	Jordan JO	86.8%
60	Brazil BR	86.4%
61	Türkiye TR	85.7%
62	Latvia LV	85.5%
63	Slovakia SK	85.5%
64	South Korea KR	85.5%
65	Slovenia SI	84.3%
66	Kazakhstan KZ	83.9%
67	Kyrgyzstan KG	83.3%
68	Tajikistan TJ	83.3%
69	Uzbekistan UZ	83.3%
70	Montenegro ME	83%
71	Azerbaijan AZ	82.4%
72	Israel IL	82%
73	New Zealand NZ	81.8%
74	Ireland IE	81.5%
75	United Kingdom GB	81.5%
76	Luxembourg LU	81%
77	Netherlands NL	81%
78	Switzerland CH	81%
79	France FR	80.7%
80	Monaco MC	80.7%
81	Sweden SE	80.6%
82	Bulgaria BG	80.3%
83	Germany DE	79.4%
84	Australia AU	79.2%
85	Canada CA	79.2%
86	United States US	77.8%
87	Egypt EG	77.6%
88	Libya LY	74.6%
89	Saudi Arabia SA	74.6%
90	Greece GR	74.5%
91	Spain ES	74.5%
92	Oman OM	72.1%
93	Macau MO	71.3%
94	Cyprus CY	70.7%
95	Hong Kong HK	69.5%
96	Iran IR	68.6%
97	Lebanon LB	68.6%
98	Syria SY	68.6%
99	Bahrain BH	62.4%
100	Singapore SG	58.6%
101	Cameroon CM	56.8%
102	Qatar QA	51.9%
103	Mauritius MU	51.3%
104	United Arab Emirates AE	51.3%
105	Morocco MA	47.3%
106	Tunisia TN	47.3%
107	Indonesia ID	43.8%
108	South Africa ZA	34.7%
109	Malta MT	33.6%
110	Nepal NP	32.4%
111	Pakistan PK	32.4%
112	Benin BJ	29.6%
113	Philippines PH	25.2%
114	Burkina Faso BF	14.4%
115	Gabon GA	7%
116	Congo CG	6.4%
117	Burundi BI	5.3%
118	Central African Republic CF	3.5%
119	Ghana GH	3.3%
120	Ethiopia ET	2.8%
121	Chad TD	2.3%
122	Kenya KE	1.9%
123	Comoros KM	1.5%
124	Nigeria NG	1.5%
125	Guinea GN	1.2%
126	Gambia GM	0.9%
127	Lesotho LS	0.9%
128	Mali ML	0.9%
129	Namibia NA	0.9%
130	Togo TG	0.9%
131	Guinea-Bissau GW	0.7%
132	Mozambique MZ	0.7%
133	Liberia LR	0.6%
134	Niger NE	0.6%
135	Rwanda RW	0.6%
136	Madagascar MG	0.4%
137	Malawi MW	0.4%
138	Mauritania MR	0.4%
139	Senegal SN	0.4%
140	Sudan SD	0.4%
141	Tanzania TZ	0.4%
142	Uganda UG	0.4%
143	Yemen YE	0.4%
144	Zambia ZM	0.4%
145	Zimbabwe ZW	0.4%

Global Leaders in Home Language Instruction

Countries with strong commitments to mother tongue education achieve the highest primary school home language instruction rates, with Bangladesh leading at 99.0%, followed by Guyana (98.9%), and Cuba (98.3%). These countries prioritize home language instruction as a fundamental educational right and recognize the cognitive benefits of learning in students' native languages during primary education. European countries demonstrate high home language instruction rates, with Bosnia and Herzegovina (90.4%), Bulgaria (80.3%), and Austria 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 primary 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 primary 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 primary 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 primary education.

Language Policy and Educational Access

Home language instruction policies significantly influence educational access and equity in primary 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 primary education regardless of linguistic background. Multilingual education approaches that begin with home language instruction and gradually introduce additional languages support both linguistic development and academic achievement. Students develop stronger literacy skills 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 foundational literacy 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 primary 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 primary education 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 primary school provides opportunities for younger generations to develop literacy and 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 primary school. Global recognition of the importance of home language instruction for literacy development and educational equity is influencing policy changes in some countries. International education frameworks increasingly emphasize the value of mother tongue instruction during primary school. These trends suggest gradual increases in home language instruction in countries adopting these educational approaches.

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

Download

Excel (.xlsx) CSV PDF PNG

#	Country	2013 (%)	2014 (%)	2019 (%)	2023 (%)	2026 Estimate (%)
1	Bangladesh	-	-	99%	-	99%
2	Costa Rica	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
3	Guyana	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
4	Haiti	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
5	India	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
6	Sri Lanka	-	-	-	98.9%	98.9%
7	Dominican Republic	-	-	-	98.8%	98.8%
8	Colombia	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
9	Honduras	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
10	Panama	-	-	-	98.7%	98.7%
11	China	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
12	El Salvador	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
13	Japan	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
14	Nicaragua	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
15	Taiwan	-	-	-	98.5%	98.5%
16	Guatemala	-	-	-	98.3%	98.3%
17	Ecuador	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
18	Mexico	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
19	Paraguay	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
20	Peru	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
21	Uruguay	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
22	Venezuela	-	-	-	98.1%	98.1%
23	Poland	-	-	-	95.1%	95.1%
24	Serbia	-	-	-	94.3%	94.3%
25	Cambodia	-	-	94%	-	94%
26	Fiji	-	-	-	94%	94%
27	Laos	-	-	-	94%	94%
28	Myanmar	-	-	-	94%	94%
29	Papua New Guinea	-	-	-	94%	94%
30	Thailand	-	-	-	94%	94%
31	Timor-Leste	-	-	-	94%	94%
32	Vietnam	-	-	-	94%	94%
33	Chile	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
34	Mongolia	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
35	Russia	-	-	-	91.5%	91.5%
36	Hungary	-	-	-	91.2%	91.2%
37	Croatia	-	-	-	90.6%	90.6%
38	Albania	-	-	-	90.4%	90.4%
39	Bosnia and Herzegovina	-	-	-	90.4%	90.4%
40	Czech Republic	-	-	-	89.9%	89.9%
41	Iceland	-	-	-	89.7%	89.7%
42	Norway	-	-	-	89.7%	89.7%
43	Portugal	-	-	-	89.6%	89.6%
44	Grenada	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
45	Jamaica	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
46	Lithuania	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
47	Suriname	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
48	Trinidad and Tobago	-	-	-	88.9%	88.9%
49	Armenia	-	-	-	88.1%	88.1%
50	Estonia	-	-	-	88%	88%
51	Finland	-	-	-	88%	88%
52	Georgia	-	-	-	87.4%	87.4%
53	Ukraine	-	-	-	87.4%	87.4%
54	Moldova	-	-	-	87%	87%
55	North Macedonia	-	-	-	87%	87%
56	Romania	-	-	-	87%	87%
57	Denmark	-	-	-	86.9%	86.9%
58	Italy	-	-	-	86.8%	86.8%
59	Jordan	-	-	-	86.8%	86.8%
60	Brazil	99.2%	-	96.1%	89.3%	86.4%
61	Türkiye	-	-	-	85.7%	85.7%
62	Latvia	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
63	Slovakia	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
64	South Korea	-	-	-	85.5%	85.5%
65	Slovenia	-	-	-	84.3%	84.3%
66	Kazakhstan	-	-	-	83.9%	83.9%
67	Kyrgyzstan	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
68	Tajikistan	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
69	Uzbekistan	-	-	-	83.3%	83.3%
70	Montenegro	-	-	-	83%	83%
71	Azerbaijan	-	-	-	82.4%	82.4%
72	Israel	-	-	-	82%	82%
73	New Zealand	-	-	-	81.8%	81.8%
74	Ireland	-	-	-	81.5%	81.5%
75	United Kingdom	-	-	-	81.5%	81.5%
76	Luxembourg	-	-	-	81%	81%
77	Netherlands	-	-	-	81%	81%
78	Switzerland	-	-	-	81%	81%
79	France	-	-	-	80.7%	80.7%
80	Monaco	-	-	-	80.7%	80.7%
81	Sweden	-	-	-	80.6%	80.6%
82	Bulgaria	-	-	-	80.3%	80.3%
83	Germany	-	-	-	79.4%	79.4%
84	Australia	-	-	-	79.2%	79.2%
85	Canada	-	-	-	79.2%	79.2%
86	United States	-	-	-	77.8%	77.8%
87	Egypt	-	-	-	77.6%	77.6%
88	Libya	-	-	-	74.6%	74.6%
89	Saudi Arabia	-	-	-	74.6%	74.6%
90	Greece	-	-	-	74.5%	74.5%
91	Spain	-	-	-	74.5%	74.5%
92	Oman	-	-	-	72.1%	72.1%
93	Macau	-	-	-	71.3%	71.3%
94	Cyprus	-	-	-	70.7%	70.7%
95	Hong Kong	-	-	-	69.5%	69.5%
96	Iran	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
97	Lebanon	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
98	Syria	-	-	-	68.6%	68.6%
99	Bahrain	-	-	-	62.4%	62.4%
100	Singapore	-	-	-	58.6%	58.6%
101	Cameroon	-	15.7%	32.8%	-	56.8%
102	Qatar	-	-	-	51.9%	51.9%
103	Mauritius	-	-	-	51.3%	51.3%
104	United Arab Emirates	-	-	-	51.3%	51.3%
105	Morocco	-	-	-	47.3%	47.3%
106	Tunisia	-	-	-	47.3%	47.3%
107	Indonesia	-	-	-	43.8%	43.8%
108	South Africa	-	-	-	34.7%	34.7%
109	Malta	-	-	-	33.6%	33.6%
110	Nepal	-	-	-	32.4%	32.4%
111	Pakistan	-	-	-	32.4%	32.4%
112	Benin	-	4.9%	15.2%	-	29.6%
113	Philippines	-	-	-	25.2%	25.2%
114	Burkina Faso	-	5.8%	9.4%	-	14.4%
115	Gabon	-	2.3%	4%	-	7%
116	Congo	-	2.1%	3.7%	-	6.4%
117	Burundi	-	3%	4%	-	5.3%
118	Central African Republic	-	1.2%	2.1%	-	3.5%
119	Ghana	-	1.1%	1.9%	-	3.3%
120	Ethiopia	-	0.9%	1.6%	-	2.8%
121	Chad	-	0.8%	1.4%	-	2.3%
122	Kenya	-	0.6%	1.1%	-	1.9%
123	Comoros	-	0.5%	0.9%	-	1.5%
124	Nigeria	-	0.5%	0.9%	-	1.5%
125	Guinea	-	0.4%	0.7%	-	1.2%
126	Gambia	-	0.3%	0.5%	-	0.9%
127	Lesotho	-	0.3%	0.5%	-	0.9%
128	Mali	-	0.3%	0.5%	-	0.9%
129	Namibia	-	0.3%	0.5%	-	0.9%
130	Togo	-	0.3%	0.5%	-	0.9%
131	Guinea-Bissau	-	0.2%	0.4%	-	0.7%
132	Mozambique	-	0.2%	0.4%	-	0.7%
133	Liberia	-	0.2%	0.3%	-	0.6%
134	Niger	-	0.2%	0.3%	-	0.6%
135	Rwanda	-	0.2%	0.3%	-	0.6%
136	Madagascar	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
137	Malawi	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
138	Mauritania	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
139	Senegal	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
140	Sudan	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
141	Tanzania	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
142	Uganda	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
143	Yemen	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
144	Zambia	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%
145	Zimbabwe	-	0.1%	0.2%	-	0.4%

Methodology

This analysis employs UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) data from household surveys and educational administrative records across 108 countries with available data for 2013-2023. The indicator measures the percentage of students at the end of primary 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 2013: 85% and 2023: 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 2013-2023, 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.