Analysis of Factors Influencing Agents’ Perception towards ...
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PUPIL … · 2016-11-13 · TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF...
Transcript of TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PUPIL … · 2016-11-13 · TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF...
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 401 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PUPIL DROP-OUT
IN OYO STATE PRIMARY SCHOOLS
1FADEKEMI FUNKE OMIRIN, 2 BAMGBOSE RUTH YEMISI
Osun State University
NIGERIA
Email: [email protected], 2 [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study examined teachers’ perception of factors influencing pupil drop-out rate in Oyo state
primary schools. The study used the descriptive survey research design of the ex-post facto which
involves the collection of data for analysis from samples considered to be representative of the
entire population. The study population consisted of all primary school teachers in Oyo State, the
sample included five (5) Local Government Areas from which eight (8) schools were selected from
each and ten (10) teachers selected from each school. A questionnaire on factors influencing
pupils’ dropout was used to collect relevant data. Four hundred (400) questionnaires were properly
filled and collected back by the researcher. Three research questions were raised and two
hypotheses were tested using t-test analysis. Level of parents’ education, poverty and family
income can influence pupils’ decision to drop out of school. Factors influencing male pupils’
dropout are different from those influencing female pupils’ dropout. Recommendations were
provided in accordance with the findings of the study.
Keywords: Perception, Drop-Out, Influence
1. Introduction
Education is regarded as a prime mover for the socio-economic development of countries and
accounts for as much as 20% of the annual Gross National Product (GNP) of developing nations
(Alvares, Gillies, & Biadsher, 2003). This is considered so because education has been found to
improve the productive value of human beings (Lazear, 2002). In addition to the productive value,
education promotes harmonious co-existence, population control, healthy living, effective
citizenship, nutritional adequacy and child upbringing (Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1985). It is
generally agreed that education is a fundamental human right and also a catalyst for economic
growth as well as human development. Globally, education has brought about high social rates of
return which was estimated to be 27% for completed primary education and 15-17% for secondary
education (Morara & Chemwei, 2013).
Education is regarded as the richest and highest treasure of man. Man does not live by bread alone.
He wants something more to be called a man- civilization, culture and social norms. Hence,
education is treated as a basic need for human being in this changing world (Jayashire, 2007)
Primary schooling is important for the achievement of national development and access to primary
school has been formally accepted as a basic human right for over half a century (UNICEF, 2009b)
Leaders in the developing countries generally understand the importance of investing in basic
education. They recognize that literacy and numeracy are prerequisites for creating a competitive
workforce and a nation of effective parents and active citizens (UNESCO, 1998). On 30th
September, 1999, and in the beginning of the present political dispensation in Nigeria, President
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 402 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
Olusegun Obasanjo went to Sokoto and launched the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Scheme.
The scheme was intended to provide free, universal and compulsory basic education for every
Nigerian child, within the Nigerian territory, of school going age from the primary to the junior
secondary school levels. (Kpangban, 2009)
The Universal Basic Education (UBE) Scheme has three fundamental concepts. It is free,
universal, and compulsory. Then from the name itself, the UBE programme is basic (Kpangban,
2009).
The compulsory nature of the UBE scheme has the following provisions in the UBE Act (2004):
1. Every parent shall ensure that his/her child or ward attends and completes
a. Primary School education; and
b. Junior Secondary School education;
2. The stakeholders in a local government area shall ensure that every parent or person who has
the care and custody of a child performs the duty imposed on him/her under the Universal
Basic Act (2004);
3. Every parent shall ensure that his/her child receives fulltime education suitable to his/her
age, ability and aptitude by regular attendance at school; and
4. A parent who does not enroll or who withdraws his/her child/ward from school contravenes
section 2 (2) of the UBE Act, and therefore commits an offence and is liable:
a. On first conviction, to be reprimanded;
b. On second conviction, to a fine of N 2,000 or imprisonment for a term of one month or to
both; and
c. On subsequent conviction, to a fine of N5,000 or imprisonment for a term of two months
or both.
According to an official release of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC, n.d), the
UBE programme was introduced by the Federal Government of Nigeria “to remove distortions
and inconsistencies” in basic education delivery and reinforce the implementation of the National
Policy on Education, as well as providing greater access to and ensuring quality of basic education
throughout Nigeria. Thus, in consonance with the National Policy on Education (2004) and the
relevant laws, the UBE programme is aimed at;
1. Ensuring an uninterrupted access to a 9 year formal education by providing free, compulsory
UBE for every child of school going age;
2. Reducing school dropout and improving relevance, quality and efficiency; and
3. Acquisition of literacy, numeracy, life skills and values for life-long education and useful
living.
As much as primary school enrolment has been a success, the concern now is with the internal
efficiency of primary education, that is, the ability to retain pupils until they graduate from primary
school. The problem of dropout is thus disquieting to policy makers since it partly reflects the
inadequacy of a schooling system in terms of either school quality or quantity. Worthy of note is
the fact that school dropouts are usually associated with chronically high unemployment levels,
low earnings, and poor health outcomes and persistent poverty among certain segments of society.
Taken aggregately, these individual-level consequences of primary school dropouts are perilous
to national development by undermining national human capital development efforts (Chugh,
2011)
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 403 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
While school dropout is an enduring issue worldwide, relatively very little global research has
been conducted in this area, whereas the prevalence of dropouts in all school systems is an
important issue. However, it becomes more salient in areas of the world where school completion
is vital for achieving many basic economic, social, and health outcomes. Dropping out of school
is often viewed as a single event in which a student simply stops attending school one day. This is
very rarely the case. Instead, school dropout is often the result of a series of events or processes
that culminate into the final action of the student attending school for the very last time (UNRWA,
2013).
The dropout problem is pervasive in Nigeria’s education system. Many children, who enter school,
are unable to complete primary education and multiple factors are responsible for children
dropping out of school. Risk factors begin to add up even before pupils enroll in school that
includes: poverty, low educational level of parents, the weak family structure, pattern of schooling
of sibling, and lack of pre-school experiences. Family background and domestic problems create
an environment which negatively affects the value of education (Chugh, 2011). Further, students
could drop out as a result of a multitude of school factors such as poor comprehension,
absenteeism, attitude and behavior of the teachers, and failure or repetition in the same grade, etc.
When students experience school failure, they become frustrated with lack of achievement and end
up alienated and experience exclusion leading to eventual dropout. (Chugh, 2011).
2. Research Objectives The general objective of this study is to find out the factors that can influence pupils’ dropout as
perceived by the teachers.The specific objectives will be to;
1. Find out the factor that is highly responsible for pupils’ dropout
2. Find out the gender of pupils’ that dropout most
3. Investigate the factors influencing pupils’ dropout based on gender
3. Statement of the Problem
The role of education in socializing the individual to fit in the society cannot be overemphasized.
This is because education empowers people to improve their well-being and participation in nation
building. With the realization of the benefits of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
many governments globally have made a commitment to expand educational opportunities for
children by 2015.
Given the escalating dropout rate and effects of primary school dropout in undermining human
capital development efforts, there is therefore a dire need to examine the factors influencing pupils’
dropout as perceived by teachers.
4. Literature review
Dropout is an issue in education system that has aroused interest of many professional
academicians and the public in general. A dropout is defined by Ramirez and Carpenter (2008) as
a student who has discontinued school before graduation with no intention of returning. Though
often used in public schools to refer to those students that leave school without the school’s consent
either to another school or to ‘sit’ at home, a number of interpretations to the term have been
conjured.
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 404 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
Loxley in Hussen and Postlewhite (1985), for instance, defines dropouts as “those pupils who leave
school before the final year of the educational cycle in which they are enrolled, which could be
primary, ordinary or advanced level, or even college or university levels”.
In more or less the same way, Chivore (1986) defines dropout as “a pupil who ceases to attend
school either temporarily or permanently, before completing the given educational cycle”.
As can be seen, the definitions given by Loxley and Chivore are more or less the same in so far as
both stress the fact that a pupil leaves school before completing a given educational cycle, for
example, ordinary level or advanced level. What needs to be emphasized in both definitions,
perhaps, is the fact that the pupils do not only leave school before completing a given educational
cycle, but leave without the school’s consent. This latter point is important since it is the consent
element which makes it difficult for schools to account for the dropout or to help the pupil
intending to dropout before he does so. In this light, I shall use the term dropout to refer to a pupil
who leaves school before completing a given educational cycle and without the school’s consent
(Munyaradzi, 2012)
For the purpose of this study, factors that can influence dropout will be categorized into: Household
factors, School factors and Student factors.
4.1 Household factors
Family characteristics and home environment are important because the home is where students
learn and develop educational habits. Family income and the type of family a student has (single
parent or multiple siblings) can affect access to educational opportunities while the values passed
from the parent to the child will shape the students’ views towards education.
4.1.1 Family Income
Research has consistently found that socio-economic status, most commonly measured by parental
education and income is a powerful predictor of school achievement and dropout behavior (Bryk
& Thum, 1989; McNeal, 1999; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Pong & Ju, 2000). High parental
income allows them to provide more resources to support their children’s education, including
access to better quality schools, private tuitions and more support for learning within home. During
the financial crisis, schooling of the children becomes the first casualty in poor households (Chugh,
2011).
4.1.2 Poverty
At the household level the main explanation is commonly the poverty explanation. The common
discourse is that the reason for non-participation is mainly found in the socioeconomic character
of the potential pupil’s household. Hungry children are more likely to drop out of school because
they cannot concentrate or because they have to work instead (Avila & Gasperini 2005).The cost
of school participation includes the direct cost of schooling – such as expenditure on books and
uniforms- as well as opportunity cost (what is Opportunity cost??) of the child’s time. One
common argument is that poor households do not send their children to school because they either
need their labour or that the direct cost of sending them to school is too high (Colclough, 2003,
Arunatilake 2004)). A study in Dhaka concluded that poor families did not send their children to
school because they could not afford the direct costs (Bostad Jensen 2000). Poverty was also
identified by Foster (1997), and Allen (1997), as a factor affecting children in rural schools who
had to walk long distances bare footed and hungry to school, which led to school dropout. The
Global AIDS Alliance (GAA, 2010) argued that children will not attend school if they have to
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 405 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
walk several kilometers to sit in a room without books and staffed by ill-trained teachers. Dropping
out of school is most common among pupils of low social economic background (Psacharopoulos
& Woodhall, 1985). Parents, especially poor parents, continuously withdraw their children from
school when faced with increased demand of household income. Educational expenditure has two
sources namely, public and private. The incurred by the state in providing infrastructural
arrangement for education, like creating facilities in the form of building and maintenance schools,
provision of teachers, payment of teachers, and other planned and unplanned grants are a part of
the public expenditure. Private expenditure on education refers to the expenditure incurred by
parents and households. This is mainly contributed to the payment of fees, private tuition,
stationery uniform, transport etc. A number of studies linkages between poverty and dropping out
from the school (birdsall, 2005; Boyle, 2002; Dachi and garrett, 2003). A few research studies
indicate that the cost of schooling, including fees is one of the main reasons for droping out (Brown
& Park, 2002) Cocough, 2000, Mukudi 2004 (Chugh, 2004).
4.2 Educational Attainment of Parents
Besides household income, the educational attainment of the parents is also expected to influence
the continuation of children in school. Ersado (2005) observes that parental education is the most
consistent determinant of child education. Higher parental education is associated with increased
access to education, higher attendance rates and lower dropout rates (Samarai & Peasgood, 1998;
Ainsworth, 2005; Grant and Hallman 2006). Parents, who have attained a certain educational level,
might want their children to achieve at least the same level (Chugh, 2011)
4.2.1 Student factors
Personal characteristics such as motivation, aspirations, attitudes towards deviance, and aptitude
affect a student’s social development and can determine whether a student will want to stay in
school or dropout (November, 2010)
4.2.2 Academic factors
Academic risk, which refers to student’s school behavior and performance, reflects the actual
manifestation of school-related problems (Caterall 1998). For example, students who eventually
drop out often have a history of absenteeism and grade retention (Lee & Burkam, 1992), academic
trouble (Bryk & Thum, 1989). Leaving school may actually represent some students’ final attempt
to “resolve” such problems (Croninger & Lee, in press; Fine 1986). Even young children may be
at academic risk of eventually dropping out if they manifest such early school behaviors as low
grades, low educational expectations, special education placement, early grade retention, and
discipline problems (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997).
4.2.3 Child Labour
There is a substantial research literature on various aspects of child labour and educational access,
including the relationships between child labour and poverty; the types of work children are
carrying out (paid, household-unpaid, agricultural); household structure, educational access and
work; whether child labour hinders or helps access to schooling; the gendered and locational aspect
of working and access, etc. There are some studies which look specifically at the relationships
between schooling dropout and child labour specifically, and how child labour might contribute to
both the processes of dropping out and in some cases to enabling retention. Differences exist in
terms of whether work is paid or unpaid; income generating in some way; or part of what might
be regarded as household chores or support. It is important to note the difficulties in trying to
pinpoint causal determinants around such complex and household-specific decisions and
attributes, particularly where factors interact with each other. In this case, research indicates
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 406 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
poverty, gender, location, household education levels, household income levels, and season often
interact with child labour to influence a child’s access to education. For example, rural children
are more likely to work than urban or peri-urban children (Hunt, 2008).
In many cases, girls have more duties than boys; yet some studies indicate that in particular
contexts boys from poor urban household have particular pressure on them to work. Children in
rural households are more likely to juggle work with school, whereas in urban households it is
more likely to be either work or school. The most prevalent types of child labour appear to be
domestic and household-related duties for girls and agricultural labour for boys, which are for the
most part unpaid, under-recognised, and take up substantial amounts of time. Labour of this sort
does not necessarily impede educational, with children frequently combining
household/agricultural duties with schooling. Having said this, studies indicate forms of child
labour create pressure on a child’s time. For example, children who combine work with school,
depending on the nature and volume of work, can have erratic school attendance, regular school
absences or increased instances of lateness, all of which are precursors to dropping out of school.
Similarly, agricultural work is often seasonal with clashes with schooling timetables, leading to
seasonal withdrawals from school. While these withdrawals are ‘temporary’, research suggests
they may lead to more permanent withdrawals from school (Hunt, 2008).
4.3 School factors
There exists a correlation between quality and relevance of education and the completion rates.
Reid (1987) says that any meaningful curriculum, irrespective of subject content, has to be a
coherent structure, be relevant, well planned, well taught, and challenging. When it is not, the
results are dissatisfaction, apathy, rejection and in some cases absenteeism. In Kenya, concern
continues to be raised in the failure of the education system to satisfactorily inculcate a modern
scientific culture and to imbue learners with desirable social skills and values.
It is widely acknowledged that infrastructural facilities, school environment and teachers’ attitude
exert powerful influences on student’s interest or disinterest in studies including dropout rates. In
this context, the PROBE team (1999) and Balgopalan and Subramanian (2003) describe
discrimination against socially disadvantaged groups as terrible and exclusionary. They reveal that
children from the upper classes are joining private schools and the poor are basically attending
government schools with some belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe groups and
teachers belong to the so-called upper caste. Consequently, the attitude of the teachers, disinterest
in teaching to these disadvantaged children and poor infrastructural facilities like unavailability of
functional toilets, improper seating arrangements etc. are found to be some of the significant
reasons for pushing out the children from school (Chugh, 2011)
4.4 Gender and student dropout
Gender cuts across a wide range of constraints that lead to drop out. While the emphasis in studies
of gender and access tends to be around the education of girls and enabling the retention of girls
in school, in some contexts it is boys who are more likely to withdraw early (e.g. South Africa,
Jamaica). Often this takes place in communities where initial access is largely equal for both
gender, and the move out of school for boys is often seen as a pull to the labour market (Hunt,
2008).
Colclough (2000) focused on the gendered cultural practices which influence girls’ and boys’
educational chances and experiences. They describe, for example, gendered roles in society which
shape, ‘the balance of incentives for girls and boys to attend school. For example, in some societies
the main leadership roles in public life are taken by men, which could potentially restrict the
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 407 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
aspirations of girls. Marriage of girls happens at a younger age than boys, limiting the likelihood
of continued schooling for girls. While the gendered nature of access is context specific, it often
reflects societal perceptions of gendered roles and the role education can play in affirming this.
Gendered practices at the household level affect the opportunities of girls and boys to access and
complete education. In household decision making processes around educational access, trade-offs
between children are made. Studies indicate the preference many households have for the
education of boys over girls, with girls’ education often deemed less important and drop out
consequently more likely. For example, the gendered division of labour within households often
sees girls taking on household duties and child care duties which take them out of school. The
nature of marriage, where girls move into the husband’s household, thus bringing fewer perceived
benefits to their households, also restricts the perceived need for continued schooling. Perceptions
of the value of girls’ education differed from those of boys’. Boyle (2002) suggest that households
in their study tended to see boys’ education bringing greater future economic rewards, which was
not to be the case with girls (whose futures were expected to be in family care and marriage).
Research studies give examples of gendered household practices and convictions which appear to
influence schooling retention. Colclough (2000) describe how some parents in Ethiopia claimed
that twelve years of schooling would mean their daughters could not perform housework and as a
result may not be able to find husbands. Similarly, in Guinea parents mentioned that primary
schooling was irrelevant to girls’ future roles. Both indicated a lack of motivation towards the
continued schooling of girls. In addition, an ILO/IPEC (2004) study highlights the propensity for
girls to be excluded or withdrawn from school earlier than boys, ‘in the belief that, as a girl, she
does not need to be educated or indeed should not be too educated in case it blights her marriage
potential’. Indeed, educating a girl is often seen as a poor investment because the girl will marry
and leave home, bringing the benefits of education to the husband’s family rather than to her own.
This is not the same for all girls. Glick and Sahn’s (2000) identified a number of factors that appear
to influence the increased retention of girls in the education system. These included: more years
of schooling for both mothers and fathers; household permanent income and expenditure; and an
increase in female siblings aged 13-20 years (however, an increase in the number of children in
the household, under the age of five, had a negative effect on girls’ access and a positive influence
on dropping out). Boys’ educational retention was not affected in the same way.
As recognized in literatures, gender interlocks with other factors which both directly and indirectly
appear to relate to drop out. In most instances if girls get pregnant they drop out of school. Many
schools do not have separate sanitary facilities for girls, which is particularly problematic as girls
get older and start to menstruate. If schools are located too far away and travel deemed a ‘risk’,
girls can be withdrawn. Girls living in rural areas often have less access to schooling than boys in
similar areas, with rural children on the whole having less access than urban children. There is
more pressure for girls to leave as they get older, and thus gendered patterns can be accentuated at
the secondary level (Hunt, 2008).
5. Methodology
The descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The population for the study comprises
all primary school teachers in Oyo state. Simple random sampling technique was used to select
five (5) Local Government Areas from Ibadan/ Ibarapa Education Zone. Purposive sampling was
used to select eight (8) schools from each of the Local Government Areas making a total of forty
(40) schools. Ten (10) teachers were selected from each of the schools. The research instrument
for this study will be Likert-Scale questionnaire tagged Teachers’ Perception of Factors
Influencing Student Dropout (TPFISD). It is a special type of multiple choice questions suitable
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 408 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
for obtaining the respondents evaluation assessment of object. The researcher adopted face and
content validity of research instrument to measure how well the study title, operationalized
terminologies, and the items in the instrument measure what they are designed to measure. The
researcher adopted re-tests method to facilitate reliability of the research instrument. Reliability
coefficient of 0.72 was documented using the test-retest procedure for testing reliability. A pilot
test was carried out on a small group selected outside the actual sample size. Pearson correlation
coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. The researcher employed some
research assistants to administer the instrument. Data collected were analysed using descriptive
and inferential statistics. Research questions were answered using descriptive statistics
(percentage).
Table 1: Summary of Statistics on factor responsible for student drop out
S/N Items on Home Factors Target
Population
Response
received
Agree Disagree %
Agree
Mean
%
1. Home factors are responsible
for the highest number of
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 286 114 71.5
69.9
2. Low level of parents’
education can lead to male
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 301 99 75.2
3. Poverty can lead to male
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 253 147 63.3
4. Low family income can lead
to male pupils’ dropout.
400 400 377 23 94.3
5. Low level of parents’
education can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 242 158 60.5
6. Poverty can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 260 140 65.0
7. Low family income can lead
to female pupils’ dropout.
400 400 239 161 59.8
Items on School Factors
10 School factors are
responsible for the highest
number of pupils’ dropout.
400 400 265 135 66.3
48.1
11 Lack of infrastructural
facilities can lead to male
pupils’ dropout.
400 400 198 202 49.5
12 Teachers’ attitude can lead to
male pupils’ dropout.
400 400 181 219 45.3
13 Distance of the school can
lead to male pupils’ dropout.
400 400 134 266 33.5
14 Lack of infrastructural
facilities can lead to female
pupils’ dropout
400 400 229 171 57.5
15 Teachers’ attitude can lead to
female pupils’ dropout.
400 400 192 208 48.0
16 Distance of the school can
lead to male pupils’ dropout.
400 400 146 254 36.5
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 409 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
6. Findings
Research Question 1: Which of the factors is highly responsible for pupils’ drop out?
Table above shows the view of respondents on the factor that is more responsible for pupils’
dropout in Oyo State. It is shown in the table that the mean % for home factors was 69.9, 48.1 for
school factors and 65.7 for student factors. It can therefore be deduced that home factors are highly
responsible for pupils’ dropout in Oyo State.
Research Question Two: Which gender of pupils drop out most?
Table showing the gender of pupils that dropout most using mean and standard deviation
No Statement SA
F %
A
F %
D
F %
SD
F %
Mean Std.
Dev.
Dec.
1. Most dropouts are male. 69
29.0%
85
46.2%
157
14.3%
89
10.5%
2.37 0.97 Reject
2 Most dropouts are female. 118
27.0%
145
36.3%
45
12.0%
92
24.7%
3.16
0.80 Accept
Table above shows the view of respondents on the gender of pupils that dropout most. A large
majority of the respondents 157 (14.3%) disagreed and 89 (10.5%) strongly disagreed that most
dropouts are male while the 69 (29.0%) and 85 (46.2%) respondents strongly agreed and agreed
respectively to this statement. On the other hand, the same set of respondents are of the view that
most students who dropout from school are female with 118 (27.0%) and 145 (36.3%) strongly
agreed and agreed respectively as well as 45 (12.0%) and 92 (24.7%) disagreed and strongly
disagreed respectively. This, therefore, means that most dropouts are female.
Items on Student Factors
17 Student factors are
responsible for the highest
number of pupils’ dropout
400 400 323 77 80.8
65.7 18 Child labour can lead to male
pupils’ dropout
400 400 266 134 66.5
19 Illness can lead to male
pupils’ dropout
400 400 235 165 58.8
20 Low performance in school
can lead to male pupils’
dropout
400 400 194 206 48.5
21 Child labour can lead to
female pupils’ dropout
400 400 297 103 74.3
22 Illness can lead to female
pupils’ dropout
400 400 255 145 63.7
23 Low performance in school
can lead to female pupils’
dropout
400 400 268 132 67.0
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 410 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
Research Question Three: What are the factors influencing pupils’ drop out based on gender?
Table showing the factors influencing male pupil drop out using mean and standard
deviation
No Statement SA
F %
A
F %
D
F %
SD
F %
Mean Std.
Dev.
Dec.
Home Factors
1 Low level of parents’ education can lead
to male pupils’ dropout.
116
29.0%
185
46.2%
57
14.3%
42
10.5%
3.27 0.97 Accept
2 Poverty can lead to male pupils’ dropout. 108
27.0%
145
36.3%
48
12.0%
99
24.7%
3.36
0.80 Accept
3 Low family income can lead to male
pupils’ dropout.
214
53.5%
163
40.8%
20
5.0%
3
0.7%
3.05 1.13 Accept
School Factors
4 Lack of infrastructural facilities can lead
to male pupils’ dropout.
76
19.0%
122
30.5%
83
20.7%
119
29.8%
2.44 0.94 Reject
5 Teachers’ attitude can lead to male pupils’
dropout.
87
21.8%
94
23.5%
108
27.0%
111
27.7%
2.37 0.83 Reject
6 Distance of school can lead to male
pupils’ dropout.
49
12.3%
85
21.2%
132
33.0%
134
33.5%
2.29 0.99 Reject
Student Factors
7. Child labour can lead to male pupils’
dropout.
141
35.3%
125
31.2%
90
22.5%
44
11.0%
2.87 1.03 Accept
8. Illness can lead to male pupils’ dropout. 126
31.5%
109
27.3%
88
22.0%
77
19.2%
2.74 0.89 Accept
9. Low performance in school can lead to
male pupils’ dropout.
101
25.3%
93
23.2%
99
24.8%
107
26.7%
2.39 0.73 Reject
Table showing the factors influencing female student drop out
No Statement SA
F %
A
F %
D
F %
SD
F %
Mean Std.
Dev.
Dec.
Home Factors
1. Low level of parents’ education can lead
to female pupils’ dropout.
64
16.0%
178
44.5%
93
23.2%
65
16.3%
3.37 0.94 Accept
2. Poverty can lead to female pupils’
dropout.
143
35.7%
117
29.3%
85
21.2%
55
13.8%
3.18 0.83 Accept
3. Low family income can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
178
44.5%
61
15.3%
87
21.7%
74
18.5%
3.43 0.99 Accept
School Factors
4. Lack of infrastructural facilities can lead
to female pupils’ dropout.
104
26.0%
125
31.3%
72
18.0%
99
24.7%
3.24 1.08 Accept
5. Teachers’ attitude can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
95
23.8%
97
24.3%
85
21.2%
123
30.7%
2.39 1.23 Reject
6. Distance of the school can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
57
14.3%
89
22.2%
92
23.0%
162
40.5%
2.23 0.81 Reject
Student Factors
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 411 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
7. Child labour can lead to female pupils’
dropout.
184
46.0%
113
28.3%
65
16.2%
38
9.5%
2.98 0.85 Accept
8. Illness can lead to female pupils’ dropout. 159
39.8%
96
24.0%
87
21.7%
58
14.5%
3.01 1.12 Accept
9. Low performance can lead to female
pupils’ dropout.
113
28.2%
155
38.8%
69
17.3%
63
15.7%
2.99 0.79 Accept
Table above shows the view of respondents on the factors influencing pupils’ dropout based on
gender. A large majority of the respondents 116 (29.0%) strongly agreed and 185 (46.2%) agreed
that low level of parents’ education can lead to male pupils’ dropout while the 57 (14.3%) and 42
(10.5%) respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Researcher
also asked the respondents if poverty can lead to male pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents
108(27.0%) and 145(36.3%) strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 48
(12.0%) and 99(24.7%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items three
on table 5 also elicits response from the respondents on whether low family income can lead to
male pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents 214 (53.5%) and 163(40.8%) strongly agreed
and agreed respectively to this statement while 20(5.0%) and 3(0.7%) disagreed and strongly
disagreed respectively to this statement. Researcher also asked the respondents if lack of
infrastructural facilities can lead to male pupils’ dropout. 76(19.0%) and 122(30.5%) of the
respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 83 (20.7%) and
119(29.8%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items five on table 5
also elicits response from the respondents on whether teachers’ attitude can lead to male pupils’
dropout. 87 (21.8%) and 94(23.5%) of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively to
this statement while 108(27.0%) and 111(27.7%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to
this statement. Items six on table 5 also elicits response from the respondents on whether distance
of school can lead to male pupils’ dropout. 49 (12.3%) and 85(21.2%) of the respondents strongly
agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 132(33.0%) and 134(33.5%) disagreed and
strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items seven on table 5 also elicits response from
the respondents on whether child labour can lead to male pupils’ dropout. Majority of the
respondents 141 (35.3%) and 125(31.2%) strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement
while 90(22.5%) and 44(11.0%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement.
Items eight on table 5 also elicits response from the respondents on whether Illness can lead to
male pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents 126 (31.5%) and 109(27.3%) strongly agreed
and agreed respectively to this statement while 88(22.0%) and 77(19.2%) disagreed and strongly
disagreed respectively to this statement. Items nine on table 5 also elicits response from the
respondents on whether low performance in school can lead to male pupils’ dropout. 101 (25.3%)
and 93(23.2%) of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while
99(24.8%) and 107(26.7%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement.
Table 6 shows the view of respondents on the factors influencing pupils’ drop out based on gender.
A large majority of the respondents 64 (16.0%) strongly agreed and 178 (44.5%) agreed that low
level of parents’ education can lead to female student dropout while the 93 (23.2%) and 65 (16.3%)
respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Researchers also
asked the respondents if poverty can lead to female student dropout. Majority of the respondents
143(35.7%) and 117(29.3%) strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 85
(21.2%) and 55(13.8%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items three
on table 6 also elicits response from the respondents on whether low family income can lead to
female pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents 178 (44.5%) and 61(15.3%) strongly agreed
and agreed respectively to this statement while 87(21.7%) and 74(18.5%) disagreed and strongly
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 412 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
disagreed respectively to this statement. Researcher also asked the respondents if lack of
infrastructural facilities can lead to female pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents
104(26.0%) and 125(31.3%) strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 72
(18.0%) and 99(24.7%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items five
on table 6 also elicits response from the respondents on whether teachers’ attitude can lead to
female pupils’ dropout. 95 (23.8%) and 97(24.3%) of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed
respectively to this statement while 85(21.2%) and 123(30.7%) disagreed and strongly disagreed
respectively to this statement. Items six on table 4 also elicits response from the respondents on
whether distance of school can lead to female pupils’ dropout. 57 (14.3%) and 89 (22.2%) of the
respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 92(23.0%) and
162(40.5%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items seven on table
6 also elicits response from the respondents on whether child labour can lead to female pupils’
dropout. Majority of the respondents 184 (46.0%) and 113(28.3%) strongly agreed and agreed
respectively to this statement while 65(16.2%) and 38(9.5%) disagreed and strongly disagreed
respectively to this statement. Items eight on table 6 also elicits response from the respondents on
whether Illness can lead to female pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents 159 (39.8%) and
96(24.0%) strongly agreed and agreed respectively to this statement while 87(21.7%) and
58(14.5%) disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively to this statement. Items nine on table 6
also elicits response from the respondents on whether low performance in school can lead to female
pupils’ dropout. Majority of the respondents 113 (28.2%) and 155(38.8%) strongly agreed and
agreed respectively to this statement while 69(17.3%) and 63(15.7%) disagreed and strongly
disagreed respectively to this statement.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the findings in this study, the following conclusions were made:
i. Level of parents’ education, poverty and family income can influence pupils’ decision
to drop out of school.
ii. Most dropouts are female.
Consequent upon the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made in order
to reduce the cases of dropout in Oyo State primary school.
The Government should ensure that cost of education is reduced to the barest minimum. Also,
government should encourage parents to send their children to school; parents who refuse to send
their children to school should be punished as it is stated in the UBE Act. Government should also
encourage parents to pursue further education, both formally and informally. Parents should also
take the responsibility of getting their children educated as the most important asset that they can
give their children especially the primary school which is the bedrock of all other levels of
education.
8. References
Boyle, S., Brock, A., Mace, J. & Sibbons, M. (2002). Reaching the poor: The ‘costs’ of sending
children to school. Synthesis Report. London: DFID.
Cardoso & Vernon (2007). Cited in Srivastava, P. (2012). Psychosocial factors of dropout students
in elementary and Middle schools. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Project. SoS in
Psychology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur
Chugh, S. (2011). Dropout in secondary Education: A Study of children living in slums of Delhi.
National University of Educational Planning and Administration. Delhi, India.
Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference 29th-31st August 2016, Accra, Ghana 413 ISBN: 978-9988-2-3994-7
Chugh, S. (2004): Why Children dropout? Case study of a metropolitan slum in Delhi, Book well
Publication, New Delhi.
Colclough, C., Rose, P. and Tembon, M. (2000). Gender Inequalities in Primary Schooling: The
Roles of Poverty and Adverse Cultural Practice. International Journal of Educational
Development, 20, 5-27.
Cocough, C. (2000). Under enrolment and low quality in African Primary Schooling: Towards a
Gender sensitive solution, working paper No. 7 Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Hunt, F. (2008). Dropping Out of schools: A cross country Review of literature, NUPEA May, 7
Jayashree, N. (2007). Education for all. Darya Ganj, New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation
Kpangban, (2009). UBE: Concept, purpose and scope. Oyo State, Nigerian: Gurara Publishing.
Morara A. N, Chemwei, B. (2013). Dropout among pupils in Rural Primary Schools in Kenya: the
case of Nandi North District, Kenya. Journal of Education and practice, 4(19).
Munyaradzi, M. (2012). Causes and Effects of Girl Child dropouts in Zimbabwean Secondary
Schools: A case study of Chadzamira Secondary School, Guly District. International Journal
of Educational Research and Technology, 3 (2).
November, M. R (2010). Assessment of the Neighborhood, Housing family and personal
characteristics that affect whether students drop out of high school. Martin School of Public
Administration, University of Kenlicky.
Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M., (1985). Education for Development: An Analysis of
Investment Choices. Washington D.C.: Oxford University Press.
Rumberger R. N (2001). Why Students Drop out of School and what can be done. “Dropouts in
America: How severe is the Problem? What can we know about Intervention and Prevention?”
Havard University.
Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among
urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39–67.
Todaro, P. M. (1994). Economic development (5th ed.). New York: Longman publishers.
UNESCO (1998). Education for all: Status and trends-wasted opportunities; when schools fail.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)/UNICEF (2005). Children Out of School: Measuring
Exclusion from Primary Education. Montreal: UNESCO UIS.
UNESCO (2006). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong Foundations. Early Childhood
Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
UNICEF (1992b).Children and women in Kenya - A situational analysis. Nairobi: Government of
Kenya &UNICEF Country Office.
Universal Basic Education Commission (n.d) UBE: A Flagship Programme of the federal
Government of Nigeria.
UNRWA (2013). UNRWA. School dropout: an agency wide study.