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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


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)


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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



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


(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.


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.

teachers’ perception of factors influencing pupil … · 2016-11-13 · teachers’ perception of...

Documents