Factors Contributing to Adolescent Boys’ Dropout Behaviours in Upper Primary School in Wau Municipality ()
1. Introduction and Context of the Study
1.1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study, research limitations, and definition of key terms used in the study.
1.2. Background to the Study
This Research Project is a study on the high prevalence of adolescent boys’ dropout behaviour in Upper Primary School in Wau Town, Western Bahr El Ghazal State, South Sudan. According to the South Sudan General Education Act 2012, South Sudan General Education is Compulsory. Every parent or guardian of a learner shall ensure that his/her child is enrolled and attends schools when he/she attains the age of 5 or 6 years. The primary Education consists of eight (8) years of span period and is sub-divided into Lower Primary from grade 1 to grade 4 and Upper Primary from grade 5 to grade 8.
This study attempts to assess the educational status of adolescent boys and establish the reasons for dropout from the upper primary school so that effective strategies can be developed for improving the situation. According to Fernández-Suárez et al. (2016), school dropout is defined as leaving education without obtaining a minimal credential, most often a higher secondary education diploma. Literature has suggested that school dropout might be explained by multiple causes at different levels such as individual, family, school, and neighbourhood (Fernández-Suárez et al., 2016).
According to Jersild (1997), adolescence is a span of fears during which boys and girls move from childhood to adulthood mentally, emotionally, socially and physically. The term “Adolescence” comes from the Latin word “adolescere” which means “to grow” or “to grow to maturity”. Maturing involves not only physical but also mental growth. It is a period, which fills the gap between childhood and adulthood. Generally, this period is termed as “youth”.
Maithly and Saxena (2008), defined Adolescence as a period of acquiring new capacities. It is not only a time of opportunity but also of vulnerability to risky behaviour, which can have life-long consequences, especially on education, career, and health. Teachers play an important role in providing information and advice to the adolescents. Spectrum of information can range from routine education to career guidance and health advice. Often, teachers play a role of counsellor also for the students. Currently, proper system of professional counselling is lacking in South Sudan Society in general and wherever they do exist, they are few and beyond the approach of the common person.
School is the place where adolescents get opportunity to share many personal issues with their peers”. This study also attempts to investigate how the peer group influence adolescent boys’ negatively either in school setting or outside (Maithly & Saxena, 2008).
The State of Adolescents and Youth Report produced by Girls Education South Sudan Program 2019 indicated that, the largest group of out-of-school children in South Sudan are girls, with 3 out of 10 girls are already mothers in South Sudan. The report launched in May 2020, showed that four out of ten girls are already married off before the age of 18. That means the number keeps on increasing annually.
Although girl-child has the highest number in general as out of school children due to early pregnancy and forced marriage but it is assumed that boys indirectly are affected as a result of being young fathers (Longfield, 2015). Therefore, the researcher assumed that, the prevalence of the high rate of pregnancy among girl-child is not just caused by early marriage but can also be attributed to the teenagers’ sexual relationship which put adolescent boys at risks of school dropout. A high percentage of school adolescents’ boys in Wau Town have fallen into criminal activities, sale of water using donkey carts, motor cycle transport (Boda Boda) and casual laborers as a source of livelihood due to family responsibilities.
Amongst many challenges that education is facing is a dropout behaviour which is a major focus of the study. The researcher is committed to find out the factors that lead to adolescent boy dropout behaviour in upper primary schools around Wau Town, despite the good number of publics, private primary and secondary schools that exist in Wau Town. In the recent years even before Covid-19 pandemic the rate of Adolescent boys’ school dropout has grown at a faster rate in Wau Town. The Wau crises which had displaced more than 111,400 people from their homes and settled in Protection of Civilian (POC)/UNMISS camp and Catholic Churches compounds, are assumed to be another contributing factor for adolescent boys’ school dropout behaviour.
The researcher asserted that, education is regarded as one of the keys to success and development of individuals as well as nations. This implies that children need to be educated for them to live a better life in future. However, there are many current existing problems experienced in the world of education apart from family and peer group influences on school dropout; for example, lack of education necessities mainly in developing countries such as South Sudan, lack of infrastructures like school blocks, lack of teaching and learning materials, lack of motivation to teachers, lack of parental involvement in the education of their children and many more.
More than 2.8 million children, or over 70 per cent, are out of school in South Sudan, putting at risk their futures and the future of the country. Some of the out-of-school children are living in pastoral communities, moving with their cattle and are not able to attend regular classes (Mayai, 2022).
Locke (2005) argued that; “God had made it the business of parents to care for the off-spring of their children. God had placed in parents suitable Inclinations of Tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it as his Wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should need to be under it. Disruptive behaviour at school can influences parents’ involvement and guidance, as well as teachers’ relationships with students, thus exacerbating its effects on school performance (Fernández-Suárez et al., 2016).
1.3. Statement of the Problem
In the recent years, the Country has seen a significant increase in the number of dropout school children, from 2.2 million in 2018 to 2.8 million in 2020. This does not include the 2 million children out of school due to Covid-19 closures in 2020. The return of refugees from neighbouring countries adds to this demand. Meanwhile, children not at school face increased risk of violence and sexual abuse and the closure of schools risks the non-return of an already limited supply of qualified teachers. Additionally, on-going conflict which has damaged or destroyed one third of all schools, floods and general insecurity have further affected accessibility to education, the provision of educational supplies, and the ability of staff to teach.
1.4. Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are divided into two, general and specific objectives. The general objective is to examine the factors influencing adolescent boy school drop-out behaviour in upper primary schools in Wau Town. On the other hand, the researcher formulated the specific objectives of his study in relation to the general objective as follow:
1) To establish the influence of the peer group sexual relationship among adolescent boy’s school drop-out behaviour.
2) To determine the influence of family economic status on adolescent boy’s school dropout behaviour.
3) To ensure lack of parental involvement in their children education influence the adolescent boy school dropout.
4) To establish how civil strife influenced adolescent boy school drop-outs behaviour.
5) To examine how lack quality teaching and learning materials influenced adolescent boy school dropout behaviour in upper primary school.
1.5. Research Questions
1) How does peer-group sexual relationship influence adolescent boy school drop-out behaviour in upper primary schools?
2) To what extent, does the family economic status influence adolescent boys’ school dropout?
3) How does lack of parental involvement in their adolescent boy’s education contributes to school drop-out behaviour?
4) How does civil strife contribute to adolescent boy school drop-out behaviour?
5) How does lack of quality teaching and learning materials influence adolescent boy school dropout behaviour?
1.6. Significance of the Study
The findings of this research will give a platform for relevant stakeholders in the education sector to address an inclusive gender issues and concerns in education. The study will also be a useful resource to other researchers who may want to undertake similar studies in this area. The study also is focusing on adolescent boy’s school drop-out behaviour in upper primary will no doubt, highlight their experiences and provide information for direct formulation of responsive policies geared towards meeting their educational needs. Lastly, the findings of this study will go a long way in laying the foundation for further research replications, advocates for change in service delivery systems, effectively assist adolescent boy in Republic of South Sudan to achieve and to access education and to participate fully in all the spheres of life.
1.7. Scope and Limitations of the Study
The study will focus on the factors influencing adolescent boy’s drop-out behaviour in upper primary schools in Wau Town. It looked at issues of peer group sexual relationship, family economic status and the role of parents in their children education and notwithstanding the infrastructure and resource requirements, for provision of quality education. It is envisioned that this research will be carried out among the diverse community of Wau Town who are from different ethnic groups as well as South Sudan at large after replication of various studies. Target schools included both public and private, mixed and boys’ day schools only.
In terms of limitations, the study faced challenges in accessing data on student dropout rate at both ministry and schools’ levels as many administrators did not regularly update their records while others were reluctant to release records due to confidentiality issues. The fact that the study was performed in mixed boys and girls, and boys only public and private primary schools in Wau Municipality means that the results may not be used to generalize all primary schools in Western Bah El Ghazal and indeed the entire South Sudan. However, it recommends similar comparable research covering adolescent girls and in the other locations in the region in order to establish comprehensive findings for comparisons and more generalized conclusions.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
This section highlights the writing of the past studies identified by the researcher’s range of study. The review is done using the following subheadings, challenges facing Education in South Sudan, the adolescent period, school dropout, factors that contributing to school dropout, and the impact of teaching and learning resource on school dropout. It also provides a summary of the literature showing the gaps identified during the review.
2.2. Challenges Facing Education in South Sudan
Education is highly prized throughout Africa. However, due to multiple factors including poverty and conflict, educational structures in many countries face significant challenges. This is no less the case in South Sudan, where the education system faces high demand but suffers from low investment and low capacity. State and peace-building initiatives that followed independence in 2011 led to high demand for the education system to expand rapidly and to reduce inequity. Yet, public expenditure on education is one of the lowest in the world. Administration and Management structures are rudimentary and have been further weakened by conflict.
Decades of years of civil war have devastated South Sudan’s infrastructure and social services systems and displaced many people, resulting in generations of boys, girls and youth who never had opportunity to attend school. This has contributed to countless numbers of school dropouts in the country. In addition, armed conflict and the risk of brutality remains a wellspring of instability for many of South Sudan’s people. Many factors are involved, including injustice, long-standing hostilities, and attitudes that see recourse to violence as legitimate (Brown & Watkins, 2012).
The Covid-19 pandemic which led to the closure of schools in South Sudan in March 2020 has growing evidence of the negative impact, that closed classrooms have had on children, such as an increase in abuse, exploitation and teenage relationship which results into early pregnancies. There is overwhelming evidence of the negative impact on children’s physical, mental health and learning. When they are out of school for extended periods of time, their exposure to physical, emotional and sexual violence increases. Their mental health deteriorates and they are more vulnerable to child labour and less likely to break out of the cycle of poverty.
UNICEF (2021) report stated that, before the pandemic, 2.8 million children were out of school due to poverty, inequalities, cultural beliefs and nomadic lifestyles. With the COVID-19 closure, an additional two million children were sent home. From the previous experiences the longer children stay out of school, the harder it is to get them back. With one of the highest out-of-school ratios in the world, South Sudan cannot afford to have more children missing out on education and no effort should be spared to ensure students return to finish their education.
Ensuring children are going back to school has important benefits beyond academic learning. Schools are safe places for children where they are protected from exploitation, abuse and from harmful cultural practices such as child marriage and early pregnancies. Friendship and a sense of community at school are essential for the wellbeing of the most vulnerable children who can also access psychosocial support from teachers and peers. Schools allow children to access basic services including clean water, health and in many cases also food (UNICEF, 2021).
Despite this, the Government of South Sudan have been making a concerted effort to catch up by rapidly increasing student enrolment. There is a growing demand for secondary and higher education and a recognition that standards need to improve. In addition to this, South Sudan has implemented an Alternative Education System (AES), which is currently offering accelerated learning programs to more than 200,000 youth and adults and holds significant promise. Such measures are essential if South Sudan is to build a solid state and society.
2.3. Adolescent Period
Adolescence is one of the periods when both the immediate and long-term effects on attitudes and behaviour are important. Adolescence has both physical and psychological effects accompanied by rapid mental developments. These give rise to the need for mental adjustments and necessity for establishing new attitudes, values and interests (Kundu & Tutoo, 1998). Adolescent’s life is full of hopes. The Adolescent is eager to interact with new experiences, to find new relationships to examine inner strengths and explore the strengths of inner ability. Adolescents try to have freedom to think and set their own goals and discover means to achieve them (Kundu & Tutoo, 1998). Adolescents want to have more freedom to enjoy. Although they are not fully mature to shoulder the responsibilities of life, they enjoy life in youthful dreams. Love and power become a strong motivating force in life.
An Adolescent life in a lush season and it falls between the springtime and the summer of life. Adolescence is a time when boys and girls feel the joy and pride of growing up. However, there are many restraints that keep them under control. These controls come from home and society and impose them to behave in a right manner by establishing themselves and obey the rules at home and outside. No matter how much help Adolescents are given, they still are dependent on others. The Adolescent’s task is not simply one of interacting with the external environment or with other individuals but one of developing their own potentialities.
Adolescents try to explore their role in the world in which they live (Kundu & Tutoo, 1998). Personality Development gets stronger at this period and continues to be in the same for a long time. A proper shaping of the personality during adolescence can prepare a valuable human resource for our nation. Hence the life script of adolescence continues through out for a long time. Also, as in India the adolescence period is spent in High School or Secondary School for the school going adolescents, a right career choice or a future plan can help them settle well in their future. Hence this period is very important to plan their future. We find many of the youngsters regretting that if they were made aware of the consequences of neglection to life; a wrong career choice; lack of proper planning etc., many research studies on unemployment have proved that wrong career/course choice as one of the causes for unemployment. The happy moments one goes through during adolescence makes them recall their good or happy memories of adolescence period in their old age and the bitterness one has gone through makes them painful even while they recollect those moments (Kundu & Tutoo, 1998).
According to the researcher of this study adolescent boys who drop-out of school face uncertain future and contribute to high illiteracy rates. The situation for adolescent boys is more desperate. South Sudan has the most astounding illiteracy on the planet, 92% for females and, 80% for males. In 2012 only 48% of children aged 6 - 13 of primary school, enrolment age, were in school (Longfield, 2015). Poverty, lack of access and involvement in herding and agricultural activities accounts for a large number of out of school children (Longfield, 2015).
2.4. School Dropout
Dropouts refer to pupils who have withdrawn for any reason from the school system without completing a given grade in a given school year (Longfield, 2015). The distinction between dropouts and repeaters: repeaters, though not promoted to the next grade level in the following year, do remain in the school system. While School dropout has been defined as leaving education without obtaining a minimal credential, most often a higher secondary education diploma. Estimates of dropout rates seem to be higher in South and West Asia (43%) and sub-Saharan Africa (36%), while other geopolitical areas such as East Asia, and Europe show similar lower dropout rates (between 4 and 12%). In Spain, dropout rates are estimated as high as 22% (Andrei et al., 2011) with a greater incidence among males (26.6%). Although there is great diversity of standards by which school dropout and completion are measured across various studies these figures illustrate the relevance of school dropout worldwide and ask for a close study of its causes and consequences (Fernández-Suárez et al., 2016).
As a result of substantial rates of drop out and non-completion of primary school many children are leaving schooling without acquiring the most basic skills. Their brief schooling experience consists frequently of limited learning opportunities in overcrowded classrooms with insufficient learning materials and under-qualified teachers (Alexander, 2008). Children of different ages and abilities are mixed together in single classrooms without proper adaptation of teaching methods to improve learning and to induce school engagement (Little, 2008). Such schooling circumstances, together with personal and family level factors such as ill-health, malnutrition and poverty, jeopardize meaningful access to education for many children. As a result, many children are registered in schools but fail to attend, participate but fail to learn, are enrolled for several years but fail to progress and drop out from school.
Although it is often difficult to differentiate causes from consequences, youth who drop out from school are at increased risk for displaying socioemotional problems and engaging in delinquent and criminal behaviour (Prevatt & Kelly, 2003). Literature has also suggested that school dropout might be regarded as the last stage of a dynamic, cumulative and multidimensional process of school disengagement (Andrei et al., 2011) in which multiple causes at different levels (individual, family, school, and neighbourhood) might be explaining this phenomenon (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Among the individual risk factors, both internalizing and externalizing disorders have been claimed to have an influence on school dropout. Among the externalizing disorders, disruptive behaviour seems to be the most impeding for educational attainment (Esch et al., 2014) whereas depression and anxiety are among the most studied internalizing problems (Tramontina et al., 2001). Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey (1989) suggested that children with early behavioural problems are at risk for developing academic problems and experiencing rejection from their prosocial peers, probably leading to connections with deviant peers and in turn engage in other maladjusted acts such as truancy, substance use, or possibly violent behaviour. Alternatively, students who conform to school rules tend to perform better in the classroom setting and are less likely to leave school early. Moreover, disruptive behaviour at school also influences parents’ involvement and guidance as well as teachers’ relationships with students thus exacerbating its effects on school performance (Tramontina et al., 2001).
Special interest among the individual risk factors is substance abuse. The relationship between substance abuse and school dropout is among the most studied in official records (Esch et al., 2014), suggesting that students who are involved in drug or alcohol abuse are more likely to drop out from school. For instance, Esch et al. (2014) found that students who continued their academic career had lower risk of becoming current drinkers than their peers who had dropped out from school. Likewise, those adolescents who began to use cannabis before the age of 16 were up to five times more likely to drop out of secondary school than their peers who did not consume any drugs. However, possible mechanisms linking substance use with school dropout are unclear, ranging from cognitive and neurobiological deficits to learning difficulties and low academic performance (Park & Kim, 2016).
Lloyd, Mensch, & Clark (2000) few studies of school quality have examined those aspects of schooling that are most conducive to encouraging initial enrolment and retention. They have focused instead on those aspects of schooling more directly associated with the development of cognitive competencies. This is surprising given the importance accorded to the topic of years of schooling attained in the development and population literatures. For example, the completion of primary school has been associated not only with large economic returns but also with many social returns, including, in the case of women, lower fertility, lower infant and child mortality, better child health and education, reductions in gender inequality within the family, and later ages of marriage.
It would appear that in an early phase of a country’s economic and educational development, school effectiveness is likely to depend more heavily on those factors that encourage attendance and retention than on those factors more directly linked to the development of cognitive competencies. This is because children would not have sufficient exposure to schooling to achieve even the minimal cognitive goals set out in most national education plans for basic schooling without initial enrolment and steady attendance at a basic level. At later phases of educational development, when almost all children complete basic schooling, factors enhancing standardized test scores per grade attended become central elements of school effectiveness. Thus, in developing countries where enrolment is not yet universal or where repetition rates and dropout rates are substantial during the primary years, an approach to measuring school quality that is limited to factors affecting the test scores of students who remain in school will be missing an important part of the story (Summers, 1994).
Longfield (2015) postulated that while enrolment is high in lower primary grades the numbers of boys and girls completing primary education are much lower at 14%. Poor quality teaching, lack of facilities and overcrowding contribute to dropout as do poverty and other economic factors. The situation for adolescent boys is becoming even more severe. The challenges to rebuild a quality formal education system capable of re-enrolling all school age children and youth to fight against illiteracy is huge. The vast diverse geographical context of South Sudan brings unique and cultural differences, livelihoods and learning needs that have to be taken into consideration (Longfield, 2015). Educational inequalities in South Sudan can be credited to various components. The absence of assets and framework, alongside a poor and generally uneducated populace, makes, setting up a viable education framework testing.
2.5. Factors That Contribute to School Dropout
It is clear that the number of children enrolled in school has increased over time. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children who start primary school are not completing this cycle. There are many factors associated with drop out, some of which belong to the individual, such as poor health or malnutrition and motivation. Others emerge from children’s household situations such as child labour and poverty. School level factors also play a role in increasing pressures to drop out such as teacher’s absenteeism, school location and poor-quality educational provision. The system of educational provision at the community level generates conditions that can ultimately impact on the likelihood of children to drop out from school. Therefore, both demand and supply driven factors, are embedded in cultural and contextual realities, which make each circumstance different. Nevertheless, it is possible to make general points about the causes of drop out.
2.5.1. Sexual Relationship Behaviour
Sexual behaviour can be used interchangeably with sexual activities or sexual practice. Sexual behaviour may also include conduct and activities which are intended to arouse the interest of another, such as method used to display behaviour that will attract the partner such as foreplay (Chigbu et al., 2021). From the forgoing, sexual behaviour in the context of this study is all sexual act displayed by in-school adolescents for sexual gratification.
Peer pressure are factors that may exert far reaching influence on human behaviour. The co-mingling and intermingling of these factors at one time or another have attracted the interest of scholars and researchers across the board, with intent of ascertaining the extent to which they affect behavioural outcome (Chigbu et al., 2021).
However sexual behaviour practiced by in-school adolescents is a norm contrary to school ethics and values. Sexual behaviour simply means the way and manner individual react or conduct themselves towards everything that has to do with sexual intercourse (Nwagba & Ubachukwn, 2001). The outcome of sexual behaviours may make adolescents particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and high-risk behaviour. Often the outcome of this behaviour can have adverse consequences such as early pregnancies (for the female), school dropout (for both boys and girls) and sexually transmitted infections.
2.5.2. Peer Influence and School Dropout
Peer influence among secondary students, which is a kind of a social pressure on them to adopt a type of behaviour, dress, or attitude in order to be accepted as part of a group, affects them either positively or negatively. Castillo et al. (2010) suggested that there are students who influence others positively as they display discipline and become role models for others to emulate or negatively as they portray social problems like immoral behaviour because at this level, the youths seek to establish their independence from their parents due to new life styles, growth of unruly character epitomized by drug addiction, alcoholism, wild cat, strikes in schools and carefree sex behaviours.
Peer pressure which can bring about dropping out of school is one of the most serious important issues being emphasized by the developing governments of the world (UNICEF, 2002). However, certain factors encroach in and impede the educational progress of young people in the society. Such factors include, early marriages, pre-marital sex leading to pregnancy, socio-cultural factors, and geographical factors among others. A research carried out by Drewry (2007) to examine the extent to which peer pressure influence school dropout in USA revealed dropouts reported significantly higher rates of cigarette, marijuana and other illicit drug usage than student who graduated from high school. Ombuya, Yambo, and Omolo (2012) emphasized that implicit in this difference, may include the socio-economic factors like continued poverty, inadequate housing, peer influence, lack of parental guidance as well as being underserved within other services.
2.5.3. Family Background
The family is the most influential agent among different social factors that significantly influence the growth and development of any child. The family is a powerful socialization agent and research has confirmed that the quality of attachment and bonding processes between parents and infant is very important. The family environment, economic status, socio-educational status of parents influences different milestone of child development. Both statistical and empirical research suggest that children from better households are more likely to remain in school, whilst those who are poorer are more likely never to have attended, or to drop out once they have enrolled (Hunt, 2008).
Family background and domestic problems create an environment which negatively affect the value for education. When literacy level is very low, there is a tendency of vicious circle of illiteracy. An uneducated parent tends to have a family which is uneducated that leads to intergenerational illiteracy. Educational status of parents is very crucial factor that affects child schooling and successful completion (Rapafadzo et al., 2017). Those parents who are educated enough or having awareness regarding the importance and needs of education is more successful in making environment for getting quality education to their children.
The type of family structure that a person lives in does affect the likelihood of that person’s chances of dropping out of school. Family structure including two parents, single-parent and also stepparent families (Pong et al., 2003). Single parent family can be further broken down into female-headed household family as well as male headed household. Divorce separation and death of spouse are variables that define change in family structure from two-parent family to single-parent family or stepparent family. Virtually all previous studies have concluded that children from single-parent family or female headed household are more likely to drop-out of school than are children who resides in two parents’ family’s children who living with stepparent are also likely to drop out of school than children in a two-parent family (Pong et al., 2003).
The separation of parent’s marriage is a chance in family structure that is a detrimental to a child and can increase the child’s chance of dropping out of school (Pong et al., 2003). As a result of separation of parent’s marriage, the income of the child’s parents’ changes. This changes income greatly affect the child. When a couple divorces, income of both parents once again become speared and this will in turn affect the child due to the loss of a parent income (Pong et al., 2003) single mothers headed family generally suffer economically because generally, women do not earn as much as men (Pong et al., 2003). Women have been portrayed as more nurturing and motherly. They usually do not earn as much as the money as their male companion because they are busy taking care of children as well as the household.
A child’s relationship with the parent can affect their chances of dropping out of school. Factors that are associated with child’s relationship that negatively affect chances of educational attainment are physical absence of adult in the house hold due to divorce, the limited amount for time parent and children spend together due to rise in two-earned families, and the corresponding parental attention to children’s activity such as monitoring school performance or instituting education values (Rapafadzo et al., 2017).
2.5.4. Family Socioeconomic Status
Among the family factors, socioeconomic status, family structure, and the importance of parents place on academic success have been related to school dropout. From a family socialization theoretical point of view, school performance and home environment are closely related. For instance, stressful events such as parental divorce or family conflict might influence how a student behaves in and outside the classroom (Bradshaw et al., 2008). Beyond the existence of stressful events, family structure may also influence school dropout (De Witte et al., 2013).
The empirical evidence show how children from single parent households are more likely to dropout from school and there is literature suggesting that family structure might influence socialization process (i.e., lack of rules) which in turn exacerbate its influence on school dropout (Bridgeland et al., 2006). As Bridgeland et al. (2006) found, 38% of school dropouts believed that they did not have enough rules, making too easy to skip class or engage in activities outside of school. This lack of rules seemed to relate both to lack of order and discipline at school as to substance use and juvenile antisocial behaviour. In this regard, Park and Kim (2016) found that living with parents has a protective effect against substance use, while low parental education level was associated with substance use, thus emphasizing the importance of family parental monitoring to reduce also the likelihood of substance use. Likewise, Guillén et al. (2015), in a sample of 1023 young students, found that parental monitoring would be able to strengthen resistance to peer pressure and therefore it can be expected to reduce alcohol consumption.
The special interest for the current study is the fact that the literature has empirically linked school dropout and involvement with the justice system (De Witte et al., 2013). In this sense, literature has suggested that the reasons behind dropout are key to understand further engagement to delinquency: those who leave education early for personal reasons are probably more prone to display offending behaviour than those leaving for economic reasons. The literature has traditionally analysed dropout and delinquency in adult samples, mostly penitentiary samples, where crime has been studied as a result of school dropout and other school factors, such as school belonging, learning-disabilities, attitudes toward school and scholastic experiences, school expulsion or school mobility. For instance, Diana (2008) found that 41% of inmates in state and federal prisons in the United States had less than a high school education, indicating that inmates who were dropouts were more likely to have served a prior sentence in prison and were more likely to have been sentenced when they were young. Similarly, Herrero et al. (2016), in a sample of 110 imprisoned males in Spain, found that most of them (60%) did not have secondary studies. Likewise, Einat and Einat (2015), in a sample of 89 adult inmates in Israel, found that those who dropped out of school early began their criminal activity at an earlier stage, suggesting that completing high school reduces the probability of incarceration (Lochner & Moretti, 2004).
On the other hand, poverty and lack of government funds greatly limits the extent to which education can be improved. According to the World Bank more than half of the South Sudanese people live below the poverty line. The higher the poverty level in a household, the higher the likelihood that children will not go to school due to the high cost of school fees, uniform, exercise books and other learning materials.
2.5.5. Parental Involvement in Children Education
According to Bulqia (2016) people acknowledged by children for the very first time since they were born are their parents. This also means children will get their first education directly from their parents. Thus, parents will be very influential in children’s education. Their involvement on children’s education will decide what the children will be in the future. Parental involvement was defined as “parental participation in the educational processes and experiences of their children” (Jeynes, 2011). Bulqia (2016) the definition represented by Jeynes here focuses on educational experiences of students which might cover how parents approach the students when learning at home, how they control their children at school, or decide a good school to go (Bulqia, 2016). The students’ experiences explained by Jeynes here is still general as children develop with different intelligence. It might be more distinct if the definition could be elaborated whether it is intellectual experiences or emotional experiences.
Parental involvement is necessary in children’s educational development since children’s time mostly spent at home. The development of children will be affected by how their parents treat and educate them. Even though there will be much more challenges of low educational parents to educate their children, there is always a silver lining (Bulqia, 2016). Many cases of poor family background yet could still contribute to their children’s education since they realize that it is very crucial to have a good education. A good education can be achieved if parents also involve.
According to Bulqia (2016) there is a strong relationship between parental involvement and children’s academic performance. Research by McNeal Jr (2014) proved that parental involvement could raise the educational expectation, reduce truancy and absenteeism, and improve achievement of the children (Bulqia, 2016). Educational expectation means here students have ambitions to pursue their education until finish high school and even enrol at a university. Monitoring has a stronger influence on student behaviour and significantly reduces absenteeism and truancy and increases homework hours (McNeal Jr, 2014). Parents who always talk to their children about their school life and help them to study, inspire children to care about school activities and possibly have higher achievement. However, McNeal’s research does not clearly touch the effect of parental involvement to children who are raised by parents with low educational achievement. Thus, it is important to know based on empirical research the effect of parental involvement to the family with low level of education (Bulqia, 2016).
In backward areas where many parents come from low educational background, the efforts to involve them are much bigger. Parents who are hoped to educate their children could not fulfil the responsibility better due to the socio-economic disadvantages. How the parents could teach their children if they themselves need to be educated. Even though not all parents in underdeveloped regencies have low quality education, the factors should be raised to synthesize appropriate solutions (Bulqia, 2016). Thus, promoting effective parental involvement to prevent dropout of primary school-aged children need to involve others stakeholders such as school teachers, educational experts and practitioners, society, interest community and government. In short, we should think of what can be done to involve parents especially those who are from low educational background or have socio-economic and cultural background in children’s education and the challenge that might arise (Bulqia, 2016).
2.5.6. Civil Strife
Around the world, attacks on children continue unabated, as warring parties flout one of the most basic rules of war: the protection of children. The researcher views that the protracted nature of conflicts in South Sudan today is affecting the futures of entire generations of children, families are internally displaced from their original homes. This study envisioned that without access to education, a generation of children living in conflict will grow up without the skills they need to contribute to their countries and economies, exacerbating the already desperate situation for thousands of children who are on the street of Wau due to other factors such as poverty and economic hardship in the Country.
A child’s right to education cannot be safeguarded in conflict without education itself being protection. Education can be a life-saving. Out of school children are easy targets of abuse, exploitation and recruitment by armed forces and groups. School should provide a safe space where children can be protected from threats and crises. It is also a critical step to breaking the cycle of crises and reduce the likelihood of future conflicts (Malone, 2015).
William (2020) Education, in whatever form, is an essential power engine that plays a dynamic role in the development of people, societies, and the world at large. Education becomes an inevitable topic in discussions about development because it is an instrument, a prerequisite and an outcome of the development (or transformation) process in any given community. Accordingly, any neglect of education could result in socio-economic and political stagnation. According to William (2020), there is no country in the world, with a poorly developed education system that has managed to develop politically, socially and economically”. It is this decisive position of education that has been drawing the attention of people, governments, international and local organizations in developed and developing countries concerning education issues and problems.
William (2020) schoolchildren that lived in Resistencia Nacional Mozambicana (RENAMO) captivity for long periods were greatly affected psychologically. This is because children stayed among insensitive soldiers and under brutal circumstances, which exposed them to merciless killings of innocent people. Furthermore, civil wars generate depression, phobia and tension, which contribute to students’ and teachers’ ineffectiveness and inefficiency. As a result, it becomes an uphill task to get girls and boys, psychologically and physically abused by civil wars, back into classrooms, since their minds and their bodies need rehabilitation (Stromberg, 1997). He concluded that refugees who returned to Rwanda were still stricken physically and psychologically.
2.6. The Effect of Teaching and Learning Resource on School Dropout
Owoko (2010), stated that the term resources refer not only to teaching methods and materials but also the time available for instruction, the knowledge and skills of teachers acquired through training and experience.
Adequacy of TLR refers to satisfactory or acceptable quality and quantities of material resources, physical facilities and human resources.
Adequacy of TLR determines an educational system’s efficiency (Owoko, 2010). For effective teaching and learning, textbook and resource materials are basic tools, their absence or inadequacy makes teachers handle subjects in an abstract manner, portraying it a dry and non-exciting. It is also important to have appropriate personnel plan for adequate instructional materials and physical facilities to support educational effort. Therefore, Scarcity of textbooks, libraries and physical facilities according to Coombs (1970), will constraint educational system from responding more fully to new demands. In order to raise the quality of education, its efficiency and productivity, better learning materials (TLM), physical facilities and human resources are needed.
2.7. Conceptual Framework
This study is underpinned by Epstein’s (1987) school-family-community partnerships model that focuses on stakeholder relationships, which is dominated by internal and external overlapping spheres of influence with either negative or positive implications on learner experiences and performance (Epstein, 1987). The study explores the family economic status, parental involvements and quality education and their impact on the school dropout among adolescent boys. Children do better when parents are involved in their academic lives. Parental involvement has a big influence on the academic performance of learners.
According to Epstein (1987) since parents know their children’s educational aspirations and how to drive them to success, schools can decide to make choices that are either positive or negative to school functioning, by either drawing them together or not. Learners are instrumental in sustaining relationships between schools and parents, in terms of maintaining communication by way of delivering summons, reports and memo. This involvement does not focus on learners academic but also on learner’s proper behaviour at homes (Epstein, 1987). As such, schools have to carter for both their learners and their parents by involving them in school activities (Epstein, 1987) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Epstein model (Kimu, 2012).
2.8. Relevance of the Model
This model is relevant to be replicated and use for this study because communication between parents and children determines the progress of children education as well as the cooperation and communication between parents and teachers to assist children development at school could prevent children dropout. According to Epstein (1987), the way school care about children is reflected in the way schools care about children’s family. If educators view children simply as students, they are likely to see the family as separate from school. That is, the family is expected to do its job and leave the education of children to the schools. If educators view students as children, they are likely to see both family and community as partners with the school education and development. Partners recognize their shared interest in and responsibilities for children and they work together to create better program and opportunities for students.
3. Study Methodology
3.1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on research methodology followed in carrying out this study. It includes research design, location of the study, target population, sampling techniques and sample size, research instruments, pilot study for instruments, data collection procedure, data analysis, logistical and ethical considerations.
According to Kothari (2004) research methodology is a way of systematically solving scientific problems. It may be understood as a science of studying how research is done scientifically. In it we study the various steps that are generally adopted by a researcher in studying his problem alongside the logic behind them. Research methodology is not only about research method is also about the logic behind the method which is being used in the context of the study and explain why the method has been chosen. There are different types of research methods, quantitative, qualitative, analytical research, and many others.
3.2. Research Locations and Target Populations
The research location is Wau Municipality, situated north-western South Sudan. It lies on the Western and Eastern Banks of the Jur River (a tributary of Al-Ghazal River), about 650 kilometres Northwest of Juba. The Republic of South Sudan is, located in North-eastern Africa. Its rich biodiversity includes lush savannahs, swamplands, and rainforests that are home to many species of wildlife. Prior to 2011, South Sudan was part of Sudan. Now it is bounded on the North by Sudan; on the East by Ethiopia; on the South by Kenya, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo; and on the West by the Central African Republic.
South Sudan has a land size of 644,329 square kilometres and is authoritatively separated into ten states and 79 Counties. In January 2016, the number of inhabitants in South Sudan was assessed to be 12,620,097. The capital of Western Bahr El Ghazal State, Wau is divided into 5 administrative Blocks (A-E) making the Municipality. It is the second largest city in the country with an estimated population of 151,320 people in the 2008 Census. There are 102 primary schools with a total number of 27,336 boys registered for the 2022 academic year within the municipality. The study targeted Wau since the Municipality has more established schools making it difficult to get comprehensive data than in neighbouring schools.
Data was collected primarily from adolescent boy’s primary school dropouts, although additional information was collected from their parents/guardians. Demographic data for all participating boys (i.e., those who dropped out) and their parents/guardians was collected as the first step in the data collection process. Participant school records were reviewed to obtain their names, age, schooling activities, location of residence (plus marital status, household leadership, economic activities, income sources, etc. for parents and guardians). These data were entered into Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS) for analysis.
3.3. Research Design and Variables
Research design alludes to the way a study is arranged and led, that is the methodology and procedures utilized to answer the exploration issue or question (McMillan & Schumacher, 1984). An examination configuration involves subjects who take an interest in the study, the systems and methodologies for gathering information from the subject, and the procedures for arranging information.
This study is descriptive utilizing a quantitative data collection and analysis approach. The data was collected using questionnaires (using android data capture method to administer and collect primary data). The electronic approach allowed data to be collected at low cost and relatively low response burden on the part of the participants. This was important for two reasons. First, the relatively high mobility of the dropout population is a big constraint, especially when trying to contact dropout boys who left schools months or years back. Second, because the potential adolescent boys had decided to drop out from schools, they were unlikely to feel an allegiance questions about schooling and may be more likely to refuse to respond.
The independent variables of this study focused on environmental, home and school-based factors. Environmental factors included insecurity, disasters like flooding, diseases outbreaks and pandemics, etc. The home-based factors were measured in terms of distance between home and school, early marriages, household income level, peer pressure, lack of parental encouragement at home, family size and education level of parents. The school-based variables were measured based on availability of schools and support infrastructure, among others. The emphasis on the dropout of boys was the dependent variable on the other hand. The study variables were scored to generate frequencies, desegregating the participant boys into residential blocks, urban or peri urban, and parents’ socioeconomic and demographic variables.
3.4. Sampling Design
The study employed a mix of (participant based), multistage clustered, Population Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling design, with snowballing and accidental/convenience selection of primary respondent. The 2022 Wau Municipality Education Department List of Schools and the corresponding enrolment catchment areas were used as the sampling frame for the randomized selection of schools (clusters) across all municipality administrative blocks. Within each administrative block (A-E) sampling was further stratified into rural/urban levels.
Conducting Individual Interviews
Study pilot/pretesting and tools’ reliability and validity
The study undertook random sampling in two schools in Wau Municipality, where through snowballing and accidental sampling, a few dropout boys were sampled for piloting. The criteria for selection of piloting schools were based on their locality in the municipality and similarity in profiles to those actually sampled for actual final study.
The correlation of the pilot survey variable is high, the average variable (0.793) is highly significant. The reliability of the instrument applied to pilot survey is valid and reliable as can be seen from the analysis.
Actual data collection
In each selected household, interviews were conducted, first with a parent or guardian of a dropout adolescent boy (preferably the head of household), and second, with a dropout adolescent boy aged 10 - 17 years. Interviews were conducted using KoBo collect (https://opendatakit.org), a free open-source mobile data collection tool installed on mobile devices.
A list of 102 enumeration areas (EAs) corresponding to the study target schools was obtained from Wau Municipality education department. Google maps for the selected EAs (schools) was generated and used to plan and manage the fieldwork, (e.g., locate schools, plan the best route of fieldwork, and identify starting points for data collection).
3.5. Research Tools and Instruments
3.5.1. Primary Data Sources and Tools
The study adopted standardized questionnaire with close ended questions as the primary instrument of data to be collected. The questionnaires were administered to the dropouts and their parents/guardians. Observation guides were also used in assessing social economic profiles like housing of affected boys as well as to observe for instance, the physical infrastructure in the targeted schools.
3.5.2. Secondary Data Sources and Tools
The secondary data sources included materials collected through library research as well as written materials including books, journal, papers and articles. More relevant materials were consulted to backup information from other sources where necessary during the study including materials from local archives of the State ministry of general education and instructions.
3.6. Statistical Analysis
Data collected from the research was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS) (2020-IBM SPSS Statistics V22.0). Frequencies and percentages through descriptive analysis, Pearson’s correlation tests and multivariate/multidimensional analyses using key demographic variables as independent variables and identified research factors scores as outcome variables were conducted to identify the relationship between factors associated with school dropout among adolescent boys. Factors were selected with a backward stepwise method. At less than 0.05 P-value, statistical significance value was set in all tests.
4. Analysis of Findings
4.1. Introduction
The review, interpretation, and presentation of the results of this study is done in this chapter. The goal of this study was to study the factors contributing to school dropout among adolescent boys in Wau Municipality. The interpretation of the findings was based on the research objectives below which aimed to:
1) Establish the influence of peer group sexual relationships in adolescent boy’s school drop-out behaviours in Wau Town.
2) Determine the influence of family economic status on adolescent boy’s school dropout behaviours.
3) Find out how lack of parental involvement in their children’s education influences the adolescent boy school dropout.
4) Establish how civil strife influenced adolescent boy school drop-outs behaviours.
5) Examine how lack quality teaching and learning materials influenced adolescent boy school dropout behaviours in upper primary school.
Results have been summarized in form of frequency tables, graphs and narratives.
4.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Population
4.2.1. Demographic Profiles
The study completed interviews from 407 parents/guardians from 4 administrative blocks of Wau County (A: 112 (27.5%), B: 151 (37.1%), C: 102 (25.1%) and D: 42 (10.3%) during the field data collection (Table 1 below). Out of 407 surveys completed, 83.8% were males and 16.2% were females. The average size of the dropped out adolescent households surveyed was 8.2 persons and ranging from 2 to 22 persons. Across Wau Municipality, majority of parent’s/guardian’s respondents, about two thirds (64.9%), were aged between 36 and 45 years (median age). Two in ten (23.1%) were aged between 46 and 60 years; close to another one in ten (9.8%) were between 18 and 35 years, while only 2% were over 60 years of age. Generally, male parents/guardians were marginally younger, with four in ten (41.3%) between 18 - 35 years and 82.2% being below 45 years. Older parents/guardians were resident in Block B and among FHHs (29% and 24% older than 45 years respectively).
Table 1. Household demographic indicators (n = 407).
Vare |
Categories# |
Frequency (f) |
Overall (n = 348) |
Parent respondent
gender (%) |
Male |
341 |
83.8% |
Female |
66 |
16.2% |
Gender of HH head (%) |
Male headed (MHHs) |
354 |
87% |
Female headed (FHHs) |
53 |
13% |
Household size (#.) |
Mean, SD |
407 |
8.2, 3 |
Parents/guardians age
(%) in years |
36 - 45 years |
264 |
64.9% |
46 - 60 years |
94 |
23.1% |
18 - 35 years |
40 |
9.8% |
>60 years |
9 |
2.2% |
Parent/guardians marital status (%) |
Married |
339 |
83.3% |
Single |
29 |
7.1% |
Separated |
22 |
5.4% |
Widow(er) |
16 |
3.9% |
Divorced |
1 |
0.3% |
Residency Block |
B |
151 |
37.1% |
A |
112 |
27.5% |
C |
102 |
25.1% |
D |
42 |
10.3% |
Location |
Urban |
407 |
100% |
Majority, about eight in ten (83.3%) of dropout boys’ parents/guardians were married; one in ten (7.1%) were single while 5.4% and 3.9% were separated and widowed respectively. Divorced parents/guardians were insignificant (0.3%). Generally, the proportion of widowed, single, separated and divorced dropout boys’ parents/guardians was moderate (20.2%, especially in Block A (26%) and among FHHs (42.7%) as compared to Block A (21.4%) and Block A (9.3%) and among MHHs (11.5%).
4.2.2. Economic Activities of the Study Population
Table 2 shows the diversity of household income sources across the sampled dropout boys’ households. Based on the analysis, salaried work such as teaching was the main source of cash income, with every four in ten (35.4%) household reliant on. Sale of natural resources (e.g., firewood, 14.0%), casual labour (13.8%), skilled labour (12.3%), petty trade (11.6%) and sale of other crop harvests like vegetables (10.3%) also provided supplementary income to households. Minimal reliance on other transient income streams including sale of staple cereal crops harvest e.g., sorghum (5.7%), sale of livestock or livestock products e.g., milk (4.2%), sale of food aid e.g., cooking oil or dura (2.5%) was observed. A few households depended on sale of fish (0.5%), remittances (0.3%) and other negatives souring like begging (0.3%) for income across the surveyed administrative blocks in the study county.
Table 2. Household income sources (n = 407).
Income source categories |
Frequency (n) |
Overall (%) |
Salaried work e.g., teaching |
144 |
35.4% |
Sale of natural resources (e.g., firewood) |
57 |
14.0% |
Casual labour e.g., boda-boda |
56 |
13.8% |
Skilled labour e.g., masonry |
50 |
12.3% |
Petty trading/small business |
47 |
116% |
Sale of other crop harvest e.g., vegetables |
42 |
10.3% |
Others |
25 |
6.1% |
Sale of staple cereal crops harvest e.g., sorghum |
23 |
5.7% |
Sale of livestock or livestock products e.g., milk |
17 |
4.2% |
Sale of food aid e.g., cooking oilor dura |
10 |
2.5% |
Sale of fish |
2 |
0.5% |
Begging |
1 |
0.3% |
Remittance |
1 |
0.3% |
4.2.3. Adolescent Boys’ Age, Dropout Classes, Dropout School Types and Locations
Table 3. Boys age, dropout class, dropout school type and location (n = 407).
Variables |
Categories |
Frequency (f) |
% findings |
Boys age (years) |
15 - 17 years |
218 |
53.6% |
12 - 14 years |
140 |
34.4% |
>17 years |
34 |
8.3% |
9 - 11 years |
15 |
3.7% |
Dropout class (%) |
Upper Primary |
398 |
97.8% |
Lower Primary |
9 |
2.7% |
Type of school dropout (%) |
Private primary (mixed school) |
255 |
62.7% |
Public primary (mixed school) |
152 |
37.3% |
School location in County (%) |
Within Wau town |
400 |
98.3% |
Outside Wau town |
7 |
1.7% |
Analyses of adolescent boys’ age, dropout classes, dropout school types and locations are shown in Table 3. The study findings show overall, that most, about one half (53.6%) of adolescent boys dropping out of schools were between 15 and 17 years of age. Another 3 in ten (34.4%) adolescent boys were aged anywhere from 12 to 14 years, while only one in ten (8.3%) of the dropouts were over 17 years. Very few, that is 3.7% were 9 to 11-year-olds. Regarding, dropout classes, majority of adolescent boys, about nine in ten (97.8%) dropped out from upper primary classes, with only 2.7% coming from lower primary classes. Similarly, in terms of school typologies, most adolescent school dropouts, about six in ten (62.7%) were from mixed private primary schools, with another four in ten (37.3%) from mixed public primary schools. The affected schools were mainly from Wau town (98.3%) with only 1.7% of adolescent boys’ dropouts coming from outside Wau town.
4.3. Factors Contributing to School Dropout Among Adolescent Boys
In parts 4.3.2 to 4.3.3 and in analysis below, study findings on the various factors that are responsible for, or contribute to adolescent boys’ dropout from schools across Wau County of South Sudan are presented. The factors are generally grouped in three categories: Home based social factors, Environmental related social factors and School based and other factors
4.3.1. Home Based Social Factors
From the study findings (see Appendix 2), the most striking home-based social factor contributing to school dropout among adolescent boys was lack of school fees and related items such as uniforms, books etc., cited by eight in ten (81.6%) of parents/guardians. About one in ten (9.6%) of parents and guardians cited lack of food at home/hunger, while a few mentioned early relationships/marriages (7.6%) and shortage of family labour (4.2%). Family separation and parental divorces (2.2%), family feuds or fights/ disagreement (2.2%), distant schools (1.2%) and nomadic types of lifestyles (1%) were among the other home-based social factors mentioned by parents and guardians.
Home-based social school dropout factors multivariate/multidimensional analyses:
1) Residential blocks
From findings (Appendix 2), comparatively, lack of fees and school items as a factor in school dropout was significantly higher among adolescent boys in Blocks C (92.1%) and A (91.1%) as compared to Block C (88.2%) and least in Block D (75.3%). Conversely, about one in four (24.6%) of boys’ school dropouts in Block A was related to food insecurity, more than twice in Block B and eight times those in Blocks D. However, food insecurity related school dropout in adolescent boys was insignificant in Block C.
Data indicate that early relationships and marriages as a factor school dropout among adolescent boys was only reported in Block C (28.4%) and Block A (2%), with the prevalence about fourteen times higher in the former than the latter block. However, dropouts associated with early relationships and marriages was insignificant in Blocks B and D (0.0%), with no school dropout likely due to early relationships and marriages.
Analysis also indicate that school dropout relayed to shortages of family labour was more common among boys in Blocks C (14.7%) and B (2.3%), but insignificant in Blocks D and A (0%). Similarly, comparatively, parents separation/divorce was factor of school dropout among adolescent boys only in Blocks C (6.9%) and slightly in Block A (1.9%). However, adolescent boys in Blocks B and D did not drop out or likely to drop out of school because of parents’ separations or divorces.
Relatively, only adolescent boys in Block B and C dropped out of school due to family fights/disagreement, as compared to those in Blocks A and D (insignificant). Long distance as a factor of school dropout was only reported in Blocks A (3.8%) and C (1%), but insignificant in Blocks B and D (0%). Adolescent boys in Blocks A and B (each 2%) were more affected by nomadism as a dropout factor than in Blocks C and D (0%).
2) Parent/guardian age
Based on results (Appendix 2), the influence of lack of school fess and related school items on adolescent boys’ school dropout was highest (97.9% and 85.6%) among the oldest (aged over 60 years) and youngest (from 18 to 35 years) parents as compared to those aged 46 to 60 years and least among parents aged 36 to 45 years. On the other hand, food insecurity/hunger related school dropout was higher among parents 36 to 45 years (29.5%) and 46 to 60 years (8.9%) but insignificant among parents 18 to 35 years and over 60-year-olds.
Data show that early relationships/marriages influence on school dropout was highest among boys whose parents were 36 and 45 years (21.6%) and 18 to 35 years, as compared to parents aged 45 to 60 years (2%), but insignificant in parents over 60 years (0%). School dropout related to shortages of family labour was however more likely among parents 36 to 45 years (8.9%) and 18 to 35 years (4.9%) and lowest (3%) in boy’s parents 45 to 60 years but insignificant (0%) in parents older than 60 years). Parents separation/divorces influence on school dropout was only in boys with parents aged 18 to 35 years (3.9%), 36 to 45 years (2.9%) and 46 to 60 years (2%), but insignificant in parents over 60 years.
Indicatively, family disagreements related school dropout was marginally higher among adolescent boys with parents 18 to 35 years (3.9%), followed by those with parents aged 36 to 45 years (2.9%) and lower (2%) in parents 45 to 60 years. Family disagreements influence on dropout was however insignificantly in boys with parents over 60 years.
Adolescent boys with parents 36 and 45 years old recorded higher (3.8%) school dropouts associated with long distances to schools as compared to those with parents 46 and 60 years. School dropout related to long distances to schools were however insignificant among boys with parents aged 18 to 35 years over 60 years. Nomadism related school dropouts was highest among boys with parents 36 to 45 years (3%) and 45 to 60 years (1%). Parents 18 and 35 and over 60 years recorded insignificant nomadism related school dropout.
3) Parent/guardian marital status
Findings (Appendix 2) indicate the influence of lack of school fees/school items to school dropout was highest among boys with separated parents, at nearly nine in ten (91.4%) dropout prevalence, as compared to boys from single (90.3%), married (87.9%) and widowed (81.1%) parents. The influence was lowest (80%) in adolescent boys from divorced parents.
Data show that food insecurity’s associated school dropout was significantly higher among boys with married parents (38.2%), as compared to those with widowed (6.1%) and separated (3.7%) parents. However, food insecurity influence on school dropout was insignificant (0%) among boys with single and separated parents.
Based on findings, early relationships associated school dropout was highest among married parents (33.1%), as compared to widowed (2.4%), single and separated (1.2%), but insignificant (0%) among boys with divorced parents. Further, dropouts related to shortages of family labour was higher among adolescent boys with married parents (18.5%) but significantly lower in boys with single and widowed parents (1.2%) and insignificant in those with separated and divorced (0%) parents.
The study also showed that family fights/disagreements associated school dropout among adolescent boys was relatively higher among those with married (8.6%), as compared to those with single (2.4%) parents, but insignificant in those with widowed, separated and divorced parents (0%). Similarly, long distance as a contributor to school dropout among adolescent boys was only reported among boys with married parents (6%) and insignificant mong boys with single, widowed, separated and divorced parents (each 0%) hand, food insecurity and hunger contribution to adolescent boys’ dropout was more.
In generally, nomadism related school dropouts among adolescent boys was highest among boys with married (3.8%) and separated (1.3%) parents, and insignificant among boys whose parents were either singles, widowed or divorced (each 0%).
4) Household (HH) sizes
Analysis of results (Appendix 2) show that lack of fees/school items as a factor of school dropout was higher and common in adolescent boys in larger HHs (88.3%) as compared to smaller HHs (78.1%). Smaller HHs reported or likely to report higher (10.2%) school dropouts associated with food insecurity among adolescent boys as compared to larger families (8%). Early relationships associated school dropouts was however not significantly different across HH sizes, with dropout prevalence of 7.3% reported in both large and smaller HHs.
Bases on data, school dropout influenced by shortages of family labour was higher among adolescent boys in smaller HH (3.6%) as compared to those in larger HHs (2.2%). Similarly, parents separation/divorce influence on school dropout was higher (4.4%) among adolescent boys with smaller HHs, as compared to those in larger HHs (0.5%). Further, family fights/disagreements associated school dropout boys was marginally higher among boys from smaller HHs (2.2%) as compared to those in larger HHs (1.5%). However, larger HHs (2.2%) recorded higher school dropouts related to long distances to schools than in boys from smaller HHs (0.7%), as was nomadism influenced school dropouts, which was also higher among boys with larger HHs (2.2%), but insignificant among adolescent boys in smaller HHs (0%).
5) Gender of household head
Generally, school dropout due to lack of school fees/school items was higher among adolescent boys from FHHs (92.6%) than in MHHs (70.6%). However, food insecurity associated school dropouts was also reportedly higher among boys from MHHs (13.3%) than FHHs (5.9%). Similarly, early relationship linked school dropout was higher among adolescent boys from MHHs (13.2%) than FHHs (2%).
The influence of shortage of family labour on school dropout was five times higher among adolescent boys from MHHs (6.9%) than FHHs (1.5%). Similarly, adolescent boys from MHHs recorded or likely to record twice as high parental separations/divorce influenced school dropout (2.9%) as compared to those from FHHs (1.5%). Similarly, family fights/disagreements influenced school dropouts was eight times higher among adolescent boys from MHHs (3.9%) than FHHs (0.5%), as was comparatively, distance influenced school dropout among adolescent boys, which was only reported among MHHs (2.4%) but insignificant among adolescent boys from FHHs (0%). However, there was insignificant variances in nomadism related school dropouts among boys from both MHHs and FHHs.
6) Adolescent boys’ age
Comparatively (Appendix 2), school dropouts related to lack of school fees/school items was highest among boys aged 9 to 11 years (87.8%), followed by those over 17 years (82.5%) and 12 to 14 years (81.8%) and least in those 15 to 17 years (74.3%). Food insecurity related school dropout was six to seven times higher in adolescent boys 12 to 17 years (18.7%) and 15 to 17 years (14.8%) as compared to boys 9 to 11 years (2.9%) and over 17 years (2%).
Data indicated that early relationships influenced school dropout was significantly higher, about twenty-eight times higher among adolescent boys 15 to17 years (28.4%) and much lower among boys 12 to 14 years and over 17 years (1%) but insignificant in boys 11 years and below (0%). School dropout related to shortages of family labour was six to seven times as high among adolescent boys 15 to 17 years (13.8%) as compared to 12- to 14-year-olds (2%) and over 17 years olds (1%), but insignificant among adolescents’ boys 9 to 11 years (0%).
Parents separation/divorces influenced school dropout was only among adolescent boys aged 12 to 14 years (4.9%) and 15 to 17 years (3.9%) and insignificant among boys 9 to 11 years and over 17 years (0%). Family fights/disagreements associated school dropout among adolescent boys was significantly higher, about three to five folds as high among boys aged 15 to 17 years as compared to boys 12 to 14 years (2%) and over 17 years olds (1%), but insignificant among the youngest adolescent boys (0%).
Analysis also showed adolescent boys aged 15 to 17 years had a three times higher school dropout related to distant schools as compared to boys 7 to 9 years (1%). School dropout related to distant schools was however insignificant among boys 12 to 14 years and over 17 years. Nomadism influenced school dropouts was twice as high among boys 12 to 14 years and 15 to 17 years (both 2%). However, younger boys aged 9 to 11 years and those older than 17 years had insignificant nomadism influenced school dropouts.
7) Dropout classes
From Appendix 2, the influence of lack of school fees/related items on school dropout was higher among adolescent boys in lower primary (84.4%) as compared to upper primary (78.8%). Analysis also shows only boys in upper primary classes (19.2%) reported or likely to report higher school dropouts (10.2%) associated with food insecurity/hunger as compared to those in lower primary (8%). However, school dropouts due to early relationships was only observed among adolescent boys in upper, and not lower primary classes (0%). Similarly, school dropout related to shortages of family labour and parental separations/divorces were also higher, about 8 and 4 times higher among adolescent boys in upper primary classes (8.4% and 4.4% respectively) but insignificant among in lower primary classes (both 0%).
Family disagreements, distant schools and nomadism associated school dropouts were 4, 2 and 2 times higher among adolescent boys in upper primary (4.4%, 2.4% and 2% respectively) but insignificant in lower primary classes (0%).
8) Drop-out school types
From analysis in Appendix 2, comparatively, the influence of lack of school fees/related items on school dropout was relatively higher adolescent among boys in public mixed schools (87.5%) as compared to those in private mixed (80.8%) and public boys only schools (76.5%). However, food insecurity/hunger related school dropout was higher among adolescent boys in private mixed (13.3%) as compared to those in public mixed primary schools (8.9%), but lowest among adolescent boys in public-boys-only schools (6.7%).
Data also show early relationships related school dropout was near equal but marginally higher among adolescent boys in public mixed (11.8%) than in private mixed primary schools (11%). However, the influence of early relationships on school dropout was insignificant among boys in public boys only schools (0%). School dropout related to shortages of family labour was however twice as high among adolescent boys in private mixed primary schools (8.2%) as compared to public mixed primary schools (4.4%) but insignificant among in public boys only primary schools (0%).
Analysis indicate parental separation/divorce as a significant adolescent boys’ school dropout factor in private mixed (5.9%) as compared to public mixed primary schools (0.7%), but is insignificant in public boys only primary schools. Family fights/disagreements related school dropouts was higher among boys in private mixed primary schools (3.7%) and public mixed primary schools (2.2%), but almost insignificant in public boys only primary schools (0.7%).
Long distance as a contributor to school dropout among adolescent boys was reportedly higher among boys in private mixed primary schools (2.9%) and much lower among those in primary mixed primary schools (0.7%), but insignificant among those in public boys only primary schools (0%). Nomadism related school dropouts among adolescent boys was however higher among boys in public mixed primary (2.3%) and private mixed schools (0.8%) and insignificant among boys schooling in public boys only primary schools (0%).
9) Parental support
In Appendix 2, generally, the influence of lack of school fees/related items on school dropout was highest among adolescent boys who received no (86.9%) or partial (83.2%) parental educational support, with adolescent boys who received full (74.8%) parental educational support recording the lowest prevalence of lack of school fees related school dropouts. Food insecurity linked school dropout was also four and ten times higher among adolescent boys who received partial parental educational support (21.4%), as compared to those who received no (5.2%) or full (2.2%) parental education support.
It was also observed that early relationships/marriages associated school dropout was one and half and twice as high among adolescent boys who received partial (10.3%) as compared to those who received no (7.4%) parental education support. School dropout related to shortages of family labour was also three and two times higher among adolescent boys who received partial (6%) and full (4.4%) parental education support as compared to those adolescent boys who received no (2.2%) parental education support.
Analysis also indicated that parents separation/divorce influence on school dropout was highest, twice and one and half times as high among adolescent boys who received partial (2.9%) and full (2.2%) parental education support compared to those who received no (1.5%) parental support. Family fights/disagreements associated school dropouts was higher among adolescent boys with full (3.7%) and partial (2.2%) parental education support but insignificant in those boys with no (0.7%) parental support.
Indicatively, long distance influence on school dropout was three times higher among adolescent boys with partial (2.2%) parental educational support as compared to those with full and no support (0%) from parents. Similarly, nomadism related school dropout was highest among adolescent boys with partial (3%) parental support but insignificant (0%) among boys with full and no support from parents.
10) Parental constraints
Generally, in Appendix 2, school dropout associated with lack of school fees/related items was higher among adolescent boys whose parents faced much (87%) and some difficulties (81.5%) as compared to those whose parents faced no difficulties (76.3%). Food insecurity/hunger associated school dropouts was also higher among adolescent boys whose parents faced some difficulties (16.3%) and much difficulties (12.5%) than those whose parents faced no (0.7%) difficulties, as was early relationships influenced school dropout, which was higher and comparably similar among adolescent boys whose parents faced some (11.8%) and much difficulties (10.3%), than those whose parents faced no difficulties (0.7%).
From results, school dropout related to shortages of family labour was higher among adolescent boys whose parents faced some (6.7%) and much difficulties (5.2%) than those whose parents faced no difficulties (0.7%). Also, adolescent boys whose parents faced some difficulties had twice as high school dropout due to parents’ separations/divorces (2.9%) as compared to those whose parents faced much difficulties (2.2%). However, there was insignificant school dropouts among adolescent boys whose separated/divorced parents faced no difficulties (0%).
Generally, family differences influenced school dropouts was higher and similar (2.9%) among adolescent boys whose parents faced difficulties as compared to those whose parents faced no difficulties (0.7%). Similarly, distance related school dropout was twice as high in adolescent boys whose parents faced some difficulties (2.2%) as compared to those whose parents faced much difficulties (1.4%). However, there was insignificant dropouts in adolescent boys whose parents faced no constraints (0%) due to distant schools. School dropout related to nomadism was three times higher among adolescent boys whose parents faced some difficulties (2.3%) than those whose parents faced much difficulties (0.8%), but was insignificant in adolescent boys whose parents faced no difficulties (0%).
4.3.2. Environment Related Social Factors
The study assessed environment related social factors that affect or contribute to school dropout among adolescent boys. Based on findings (Appendix 3), across Wau Municipality, generally, adolescence peer pressure (8.1%) was the main environmental social contributor to school dropout among adolescent boys. Drug abuse (2.5%) and family displacement by insecurity/conflict (2.5%) were other factors for school dropout, while a few dropouts were associated with sickness and or disability affecting adolescent boys (1.7%) and demand for child labour in towns (1.2%). Family displacement by other hazards e.g., floods (0.5%) were minimal contributors to school dropout.
Environment-based social school dropout factors multivariate/multidimensional analyses by:
1) Residential blocks
In Appendix 3, data show that, comparatively, peer pressure related school dropout was significantly higher among adolescent boys resident in Blocks B (18.7%) and A (10.8%) as compared to those in Block C (2.9%) but insignificant in those resident in Block D (0%). In contrast, about one in ten (9%) of adolescent boys’ school dropouts in Block B were associated with insecurity, nine times that in Block A. Insecurity was however an insignificant factor in school dropout among adolescent boys in Blocks C and D.
Drug abuse and sickness/disability influenced school dropout among adolescent boys was only reported in Block C (10% and 6.8% respectively). However, demand for child labour influenced school dropout was one and half higher in Block A (2.9%) as compared to Block C (1.9%) but insignificant in Blocks B and D (0%). School dropout relating to shocks/disasters was generally low, and only in Blocks A and B.
2) Parent age
Analysis show that peer pressure influence on school dropout was three times higher among adolescent boys with parents 36 to 45 years (23.6%) as compared to those with parents 46 to 60 years and least those with parents older than 60 years (1%). Peer pressure influence on adolescent boys’ dropout was however insignificant in boys with parents 18 to 35 years (0%). The influence of insecurity on school dropout was highest in adolescent boys with parents 36 and 45 years (5%) and 46 to 60 years (4%), as compared to those with parents over 60 years (1%) and insignificant in much younger parents 18 to 35 years (0%). Further, data indicate that drug abuse associated school dropout was four times higher among adolescent boys with parents 36 to 45 years (8%) as compared to those with parents 18 to 35 years (2%), but insignificant (0%) in adolescents’ boys with parents over 45 years.
Sickness/disability influenced school dropout was two and half times higher among adolescent boys with parents 36 to 45 years (4.9%) as compared to those with parents 18 to 35 years (1.9%), but insignificant among boys with parents over 45 years. Demand for child labour associated school dropout was marginally higher and similar among adolescent boys whose parents were 36 to 45 years (1.9%) and 46 to 60 years (1.9%), followed by those with parents 18 to 35 years (1%) and insignificant in adolescent boys with parents over 60 years. Adolescent boys with parents 36 and 45 years and 46 to 60 years had marginally higher (1%) school dropouts due to shocks/disasters. However, shocks/disasters influenced school dropout was however insignificant in boys with parents aged 18 to 35 years and over 60 years.
3) Parent/guardian marital Status
From analysis (Appendix 3), comparatively, the influence of peer pressure on school dropout was highest among adolescent boys with married parents (28.3%). Marginally fewer single (6.1%), separated (3.7%) and widowed (2.4%) parents cited peer pressure as an influence on boys’ school dropouts. However, influence of peer pressure on school dropout was insignificant in adolescent boys with divorced parents (0%). Further, insecurity related school dropout was three times higher among boys with married parents (7.5%), as compared to those with single or separated (both 2.5%) parents. However, the influence of insecurity on school dropout was insignificant (0%) in adolescent boys with widowed and divorced parents.
Results show that drug abuse influence on school dropout was nine times higher among adolescent boys with married parents (11.3%), as compared to single (1.2%) parented adolescent boys, but insignificant in boys with widowed, separated and divorced parents. School dropout associated with sickness/disability and shocks/disaster were only reported in adolescent boys with married parents (8.5% and 2.5%), and insignificant among boys with single, widowed, separated and divorced parents (0%).
4) Household sizes
From Appendix 3, generally, peer pressure influence on school dropout was about three times higher among adolescent boys in larger HHs (11.7%) as compared to those from smaller HHs (4.4%). Analysis also indicated that five times more adolescent boys from larger HHs dropped or likely to drop out of school due to insecurity (5.1%) as compared to those from smaller HHs (0%). Further, drug abuse associated school dropout was twice as high among larger HHs (3.5%) as compared to smaller HHs (1.5%).
Sickness/disability related school was three times higher among adolescent boys from larger HHs (2.2%) as compared to those from smaller HH (0.8%), while demand for child labour influenced school dropout was ten times higher among adolescent boys from larger HHs (2.2%) as compared to those from smaller HHs (0.2%). Similarly, shocks/disasters associated school dropout was about twice as high among adolescent boys from larger HHs (0.7%) as compared to those from smaller HHs (0.4%).
5) Gender of household head
Generally, from results in Appendix 3, school dropout associated with peer pressure was four times higher among adolescent boys from MHHs (13.3%) as compared to those from FHHs (2.9%). However, insecurity associated school dropouts was five times higher among adolescent boys from FHHs (5%) as compared to those from MHHs (0%). Conversely, drug abuse related school dropout was five times higher in adolescent boys from MHHs (5%), but insignificant in those from FHHs (0%).
Analysis also showed that sickness/disability associated school dropout in adolescent boys was higher among MHHs (3.4%), but insignificant among boys from FHHs (0%). However, school dropout related to demand for child labour was one and half times higher in boys from FHHs (1.4%) as compared to those from FHHs (1%). Shocks/disasters as contributor to school dropouts was twice as higher in adolescent boys from FHHs (1%) than MHHs (0%).
6) Adolescent boy’s age
It was observed that peer pressure influenced school dropout was highest among adolescent boys 15 to 17 years (15.7%), followed by boys 12 to 14 years (8.9%) and least among youngest (9 to 11 years) and oldest (over 17 years) (both 3.9%) adolescent boys. In addition, insecurity associated school dropout was highest, four times higher among adolescent boys 12 to 14 and 15 to 17 years (both 4%) as compared to adolescent boys 9 to 11 and over 17 years (both 1%). However, drug abuse linked school dropout was significantly higher, about nine times higher among adolescent boys 15 to17 years (9%) compared to boys 12 to 14 years (1%), but insignificant in much younger (9 to 11 years) and older (over 17 years) adolescent boys (0%).
Comparatively further, school dropout relating to sickness/disability was nine times higher among adolescent boys aged 15 to 17 years (9%) than among 12- to 14-year-olds (1%), but insignificant among adolescents’ boys 9 to 11 and over 17 years (0%). Influence of demand for child labour on school dropout was one and half times higher among adolescent boys 15 to 17 years (2.9%) as compared to those 12 to 14 years (1.9%) and insignificant among boys 9 to 11 years and over 17 years (both 0%). Shocks/disasters associated school dropout was marginally higher, about twice as high among adolescent boys 9 to 11 years and 15 to 17 years, but insignificant among adolescent boys 12 to 14 years and over 17 years (0%).
7) Dropout classes
Relatively, peer pressure linked school dropout was significantly higher and only observed among adolescent boys in upper primary classes (16.2%) and insignificant among those boys in lower primary classes (0%). Insecurity influenced school dropouts was only observed among adolescent boys in upper (5%) and not lower primary (0%). Similarly, drug abuse related school dropout was only observed among adolescent boys in upper primary (5%), but insignificant among boys in lower primary classes (0%). Sickness/disability, demand for child labour and shocks/disasters associated school dropouts among adolescent boys were only observed in upper primary classes (3.4%, 2.4% and 1%) and not lower primary classes (all 0%).
8) School type
Comparatively, peer pressure influenced school dropout was significantly higher among adolescent boys in private mixed (19.1%) as compared to public mixed (5.2%) primary schools, but insignificant in public boys only schools (0%). Similarly, insecurity linked school dropout was only observed in adolescent boys in private mixed schools (7.5%) but was insignificant in public mixed and boys only schools (0%).
Drug abuse related school dropout was higher and similar in adolescent boys in public and private mixed primary schools (3.8%) but insignificant in public boys only primary schools (0%). School dropout related to sickness was higher and similar across boys in public and private mixed schools (2.2%), but insignificant in public boys only schools (0.7%). Similarly, demand for child labour linked school dropout was twice as high among adolescent boys in private mixed (2.2%) as compared to public mixed primary schools (1.4%), but insignificant in public boys only primary schools (0%). Shocks influence on school dropouts was highest in adolescent boys in private mixed primary schools (1.5%) but insignificant in public mixed and public boys only primary schools (0%).
9) Parental support
Analysis observes that contribution of peer pressure to school dropout was significantly highest, about three times as high among boys with partial (18.4%) as compared to those with no (5.2%) parental educational support, and lowest in adolescent boys with full (0.7%) parental educational support. Insecurity linked school dropout was highest among boys with partial parental educational support (4.5%), as compared to those with no (3%) support, but insignificant among those with full (0%) parental support.
From analysis, drug abuse associated school dropout was higher, about twice as high among adolescent boys with partial and no (3%) parental support, as compared to those with full (1.5%) support. School dropout due to sickness/disability was only observed among adolescent boys with full (5.1%) parental support, but insignificant among those adolescent boys with partial and no (0%) parental support.
Further, influence of demand for child labour on school dropout was highest, twice as high among adolescent boys with partial (2.2%) parental support, as compared to those with no (1.4%) parental support, but insignificant among those with full (0%) support. Shock associated school dropout was only observed in adolescent boys with partial (0.8%) parental support but insignificant in those boys with full and no (0%) support.
10) Parental constraints
From analysis, generally, school dropout associated with peer pressure was highest among adolescent boys whose parents faced much (87%) constraints, as compared to those whose parents faced some difficulties (9.6%), but much lower among those whose parents faced no difficulties (0.7%). Insecurity related school dropouts was higher and similar among adolescent boys whose parents faced some and much difficulties (both 3.8%), but insignificant among those whose parents faced no (0) difficulties.
Data indicate that drug abuse related school dropout was twice as high among adolescent boys whose parents faced much difficulties (4.5%) as compared to those whose parents faced some difficulties (2.3%) but lower among those whose parents had no difficulties (0.8%). Influence of sickness on school dropout was much higher among adolescent boys whose parents faced some difficulties (4.4%) as compared to those whose parents faced much difficulties (0.7%), but insignificant among those whose parents faced no difficulties (0%).
Demand for child labour related school dropouts was higher among adolescent boys whose parents had much difficulties (2.2%) than those with some and no difficulties (0.7%). Shocks and disasters related school dropout was higher and similar among adolescent boys whose parents had much and some difficulties (0.8%), but insignificant in among adolescent boys whose parents had no difficulties (0%).
4.3.3. School-based and other factors
Appendix 4 illustrates findings on analysis of school based and other factors that contribute to school dropouts among adolescent boys in Wau Municipality. From the results, shortages of classrooms (2.7%) and shortages of teachers (2.2%) and other factors (4.9%) including cultural stereotypes and community disregard for education, lack of role models, etc, were the main school-based contributors to adolescent boys’ dropout from school.
School-based and other dropout factors multivariate/multidimensional analyses by:
1) Residential blocks
Comparatively, the influence of other factors e.g., cultural stereotypes and community disregard for education, lack of role models, expulsion on school dropout was higher in Block A (2.2%) as compared to Blocks C (0.9%) and B (0.4%0 and lowest among adolescent boys in Block D (0.2%). About three times higher (1.5%) school dropouts in Block B than in Block C (0.4%) was associated with classroom shortage, more than seven times that in Block A (0.2%), but insignificant in Blocks D (0%). Influence of teacher shortage on school dropout was higher among adolescent boy in Blocks C (0.9%) and B (0.5%), much lower in block A (0.2%) and insignificant in Block D (0%).
2) Parent/guardian age
Other factors influence on school dropout was significantly higher among adolescent boys with parents 36 to 45 years (15.7%), followed by those whose parents 46 to 60 years (2.9%) and least among those whose parents 18 to 35 years (1%), but insignificant among those with parents over 60 years. Shortage of classes related school dropout was higher and similar in adolescent boys whose parents 36 to 45 years and 46 to 60 years (both 4.9%) and lower (1%) among those with parents 18 to 35 years, but insignificant among those with parents over 60 years (0%).
3) Parent/guardian marital status
From analysis, the influence of other factors on school dropout was significantly higher among boys with married parents/guardians (20.8%), and marginally lower in adolescent boys with single (2.4%) and widowed (1.2%) parents, but insignificant among adolescent boys with divorced/separated parents. However, shortage of classrooms’ influence on school dropout was significantly higher in boys from married parents (11.1%), as compared to those with single parents (2.4%) and insignificant in those with separated/divorced parents (0%). Teacher shortages related school dropout was highest among adolescent boys with married parents (8.6%), as compared to those with separated/divorced parents (1.2%), but insignificant among adolescent boys with single parents (0%).
4) Household sizes
Data indicate that other factors influence on school dropout was three times higher among adolescent boys from larger HHs (7.3%) than smaller HHs (2.9%). Shortage of classrooms related dropout was however five times higher in adolescent boys from smaller HHs (3.6%) than larger HHs (0.7%). Teacher shortages linked school dropout among adolescent boys was similar across different HH sizes.
5) Parents/guardian Gender
From analysis, school dropout related to other factors was significantly higher, about twenty times higher among adolescent boys from MHHs (9.3%) as compared to FHHs (0.5%). Shortage of classrooms related school dropouts was only observed in boys from MHHs (5.4%) and insignificant in boys from FHHs (0%). Similarly, teachers’ shortages linked school dropout was only observed in adolescent boys from MHHs (4.4%) but insignificant in FHHs.
6) Adolescent boys’ age
From analysis, influence of other factors on school dropouts was significantly higher among boys 15 to 17 years (16.7%), followed by those aged 12 to 14 years (2.9%), but insignificant among boys 9 to 11 years and over 17 years (0%). Shortage of classrooms related school dropout was significantly higher in adolescent boys 12 to14 years (6.9%), followed by those aged 15 to 17 years (2.9%) and much lower among those over 17 years (1%), but insignificant among those much younger aged 11 years and below (0%). School dropout relating to teacher shortages was three times as high among adolescent boys 15 to 17 years (5.9%) than among 12- to 14-year-olds (2%) and over 17 years olds (1%), and insignificant among those aged 9 to 11 years (0%).
7) Dropout classes
From results, influence of other factors on school dropout was only observed among adolescent boys in upper primary (9.8%) and not in lower primary classes (0%). Also, only upper primary classes (5.4%) recorded school dropouts related to shortage of classrooms. School dropouts due to teacher shortages was also only observed in upper primary (4.4%) and not lower primary (0%).
8) Drop-out school types
Analysis show, comparatively, other factors associated school dropout was relatively higher among boys in private mixed (8.8%) than in public mixed (5.2%) and public boys only schools (0.7%). Shortage of classes related school dropout was higher among adolescent boys in private mixed (6.6%) as compared to public mixed primary schools (1.5%), but insignificant in public boys only schools (0%). Teacher shortages associated school dropout was higher among boys in public mixed (5.1%), as compared to private mixed primary schools (1.5%), but insignificant in public boys only primary schools (0%).
9) Parental support
The study showed that the influence of other factors on school dropout higher among boys with partial (8.8%) and full (5.2%) parental support, than those with no (0.7%) support. Shortage of classrooms linked school dropout was higher among boys with partial (4.4%) and no (3.7%) parental support. However, boys with full (0%) parental support had insignificant other factors related school dropouts. Teacher shortage related school dropout was twice as high in adolescent boys with partial (3.7%) parental support, as compared to those with full or no (1.5%) support.
10) Parental constraints
School dropout due to other factors was two to three times higher among adolescent boys whose parents had some difficulties (5.1%) than those whose parents had much difficulties (1.5%). Boys whose parents had no difficulties however had insignificant other factors related school dropouts. Shortage of classrooms associated school dropouts was higher in adolescent boys whose parents had some (4.4%) and much difficulties (3.7%) than those whose parents had no (0%) difficulties. Teacher shortages related school dropout was three times higher among adolescent boys whose parents had some difficulties (5.1%) as compared to those whose parents had much difficulties (1.5%), but insignificant in boys whose parents had no difficulties (0%).
4.3.4. Pearson Correlations Analyses
A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relations between different school dropout variables and could predict likelihood of dropout. The SPSS was used to determine the significance rating of each set of variables. The first part of the analysis involved the calculation of Pearson correlations to check for relationships between school dropout and study factors scores. The second part involved determining which other select demographic (i.e., residency blocks, parent’s gender, parents age, parent’s marital status, HH size, gender of HH head, boys age, class drop-out level, and school location) and social (i.e., family displacement by other hazards e.g., floods, war, nomadism, shortage of family labour, drug abuse, family differences, demand for child labour, sickness/disability, and distance to schools) variables predict dropout.
4.3.5. Correlation Tests between Research Variables and School Drop-out Behaviors
The results for the correlation analyses between Specific Research Variables and school drop-out behaviours are shown in Figure 2 below. From the findings, overall, even though significant positive correlations were observed, the relationships between the variables were only highly correlated for family economic status and lack of parental involvement and school dropouts and moderately correlated for peer group sexual relationship. civil strife and lack of quality teaching and learning materials and school dropouts.
1) Peer group sexual relationship and school dropout
Pearson’s correlation test was conducted to identify the relationship between peer group sexual relationship and school drop-out behaviours among adolescent boys. At statistical significance of 0.77 p-value, the calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.41 indicated a moderately associated positive relationship between peer group sexual relationship and school drop-out.
2) Family economic status on adolescent boy’s school dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) between family economic status on school dropout was 0.62, indicating a strongly associated relationship between family economic status on adolescent boy’s school dropout.
3) Lack of parental involvement and school dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) between lack of parental involvement and school dropout was 0.75, indicating a strongly associated relationship between lack of parental involvement in their children’s education influences the adolescent boy school dropout.
4) Civil strife and school drop-out
Calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) between lack of civil strife and school dropout was 0.31, indicating a moderately associated relationship between civil strife and school dropout.
5) Lack of quality teaching and learning materials and school dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) between lack of quality teaching and learning materials influenced adolescent boy school dropout was 0.42, indicating a moderately associated relationship between lack of quality teaching and learning materials and school drop-out.
Figure 2. Pearson correlation with school dropout study factors (Correlation significant at 0.77 (2 tailed).
4.4. Correlation Tests between Demographic Variables and School Dropouts
Analysis for correlation tests between demographic variables and school dropout are shown in Figure 3 below. From the analysis, whereas some small positive correlations found in some variables such as parent’s age, HH size and boys age, for other demographic variables such residential block, parents’ gender and marital status, gender of HH head, dropout class and school’s locations, the relationships with school dropouts were not significantly correlated.
Figure 3. Correlation Results-Demographic variables & school dropout (Correlation significant at 0.05 (2-tailed).
4.4.1. Residential Blocks and School Drop-Out
Calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.01, indicating no significant relationship between residential block and school drop-out.
4.4.2. Parents’ Gender and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.02, indicating no significant association between gender of parent and adolescent boy’s school dropout.
4.4.3. Parents Age and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.0733, indicating a lowly associated positive correlation between parents age and adolescent boy school dropout.
4.4.4. Parents’ Marital Status and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.02, indicating not significant relationship between parents’ marital status and school drop-out.
4.4.5. Household Size and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.15, indicating a lowly positive relationship between household size and school drop-out.
4.4.6. Gender of HH Head and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.00, indicating no significant relationship between gender of HH head and school drop-out.
4.4.7. Adolescent Boy’s Age Size and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.01, indicating a lowly positive relationship between adolescent boys age and school drop-out.
4.4.8. Dropout Class and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.10, indicating no significant relationship between dropout class level and school drop-out.
4.4.9. School Location and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.0090, indicating no significant relationship between school location and school drop-out.
4.4.10. Correlation Tests between Other Socioenvironmental Factors and School Dropouts
Data from correlation tests between other social-environment variables and school drop-out behaviours are shown in Figure 4 below. Based on the results, except for drug abuse, family differences, parents’ separation/divorce and sickness/disability, which yielded small positive but not very significant correlations with school dropouts, variables such as household displacement by hazards, nomadism, household labour shortages and child labour demand were found to be not significantly correlated with school dropouts.
Figure 4. Pearson correlation results—social-environment variables and school drop-out.
4.5. Household Displacement and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.00, indicating no significant relationship between household displacements and school drop-out.
4.5.1. Nomadism and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.00, indicating no significant relationship between nomadism and school drop-out.
4.5.2. Household Labour Shortage and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.01, indicating no significant relationship between nomadism HH labour shortage and school drop-out.
4.5.3. Drug Abuse and School Drop-Out
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.11, indicating a lowly positive relationship between drug abuse and school drop-out.
4.5.4. Family Differences and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.01, indicating a lowly positive relationship between family differences and school dropout.
4.5.5. Parents’ Separation/Divorce and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.01, indicating a lowly positive relationship between parents’ separation/divorce and school drop-out.
4.5.6. Demand for Child Labour and School Drop-Out
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was −0.11, indicating no significant relationship between demand for child labour and school drop-out.
4.5.7. Sickness/Disability and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.21, indicating a lowly positive relationship between sickness/disability and school drop-out.
4.5.8. Long Distance and School Dropout
The calculated Correlation Coefficient (r) was 0.20, indicating a lowly positive relationship between long distance to school and school drop-out.
4.5.9. Benefits of Education According to Boys Understanding
In Table 4 below, household perceptions about the benefits of education, particularly for adolescent bots was assessed. Across the county, about nine in ten (89.2%) households observed that getting a job was the biggest benefit of education. Another four in ten (37.8%) noted education can help one start own business while three in ten identified higher incomes as another benefit of education.
Table 4. School based and other factors.
Benefits |
Frequency (f) |
% |
Helps one get a job |
364 |
89.2% |
Help one start own business |
154 |
37.8% |
Help one get higher income |
110 |
27.0% |
Helps improve one’s/family/community health |
29 |
7.1% |
Can help one travel more |
27 |
6.6% |
Improves relations with other people |
27 |
6.6% |
Others (specify) |
19 |
4.7% |
Reduces communal conflicts/violence |
16 |
3.9% |
A few respondents also noted the education also provided other integrated benefits, including helping improve one’s/family/community health (7.1%), helping one travel more (6.6%), improving personal relations with other people (6.6%) and others (4.7%).
4.6. Challenges and Experiences That Hinder Adolescent Boys’ Access to School
Study respondents were asked about the experiences and issues, including challenges that hinder adolescent boys’ access to schools. Based on the findings (Table 5 below), distance to schools, identified by eight in ten (86%) of households was the main challenges identified. Others included: old parents to support at home (26.8%), lack food at home (22.4%), displacement by insecurity (21.9%), early marriages and relationships (21.9%), use of drugs/alcohol (18.9%), working for money (17.0%), lack of support by parents (12.5%) and orphaning and lack of parents for support (12.5%).
Table 5. Challenges and experiences that hinder adolescent boys’ access to school.
Challenges /Experiences |
Frequency (f) |
% |
Some lack school fees & other items like uniforms |
350 |
86% |
Some have old parents to support at home |
109 |
26.8% |
Some lack food at home |
91 |
22.4% |
Some are displaced by insecurity |
89 |
21.9% |
Some marry early |
89 |
21.9% |
Some use drugs |
77 |
18.9% |
Some want to work to make money |
69 |
17.0% |
Some are not supported by their parents |
51 |
12.5% |
Some are orphans & have no parents to support them |
51 |
12.5% |
Some live far from school |
31 |
7.6% |
Some get sick or are disabled |
30 |
7.4% |
Some are displaced by floods |
29 |
7.1% |
Some lack classrooms in school |
21 |
5.2% |
Others (specify) ……………. |
11 |
2.7% |
4.6.1. Effects of 2016 Displacement on Adolescent Boys
The study also assessed the effects of the 2016 conflict displacements adolescent boys in general, whose results are summarized in Table 6 below. Based on the findings, the major effect of the 2016 displacement was dropping out of schools, cited by about eight in ten (83.3%) households across the study location. The other effects mentioned included loss of economic support/livelihoods (27.5%), lack of teachers in schools to teach (25.8%), homeless due to destruction of homes (23.3%), loss of lives through killings (20.9%), migrations for job seeking in towns (18.4%) and physical and mentally instability (13.8%).
Table 6. Effects of 2016 displacement on adolescent boys.
Effects |
Frequency (f) |
% |
Some dropped out of schools |
339 |
83.3% |
Some were separated from families |
130 |
31.9% |
Some experienced disease outbreaks in IDPs camps |
124 |
30.5% |
Some had economic support destroyed due to
destruction of livelihoods |
112 |
27.5% |
Some lacked teachers in schools to teach them |
105 |
25.8% |
Some became homeless due to destruction of their homes |
95 |
23.3% |
Some were killed |
85 |
20.9% |
Some went seeking jobs in towns to earn income for families displaced |
75 |
18.4% |
Some became physical & mentally unstable |
56 |
13.8% |
Some were forced into drugs/substance abuse to cope with emotional trauma |
41 |
10.1% |
Some experienced violence during displacement |
22 |
5.4% |
Some lacked access to sanitation & safe drinking water |
13 |
3.2% |
Some lacked playing fields & other safe areas for
physical activities |
13 |
3.2% |
Others (specify) ……………. |
10 |
2.5% |
Some households, though not many, mentioned experiencing violence during displacement (5.4%), lacking access to sanitation and safe drinking water (3.2%), lacking playing fields and other safe areas for physical activities (3.2%) and others (2.5%).
4.6.2. Suggestions Regarding Adolescent Boy Dropout in the Community
Respondents were also asked about their suggestions regarding assisting adolescent boy who drop out of school in their community. As shown in Table 7 below, the most suggested support areas were: tracing and readmitting the adolescent boys back to school (77.6%), providing free education and other school items e.g., uniforms to adolescent boys (44.7%), supplying food to schools (31.9%), enhancing security in Wau County (22.4%) and enhancing campaigns against early marriages (20.2%).
Table 7. Suggestions regarding adolescent boy dropout in the community.
Suggestions |
Frequency (f) |
% |
Trace & readmit the adolescent boys back to school |
316 |
77.6% |
Provide free education & other school items e.g., uniforms to adolescent boys |
182 |
44.7% |
Supply food to schools |
130 |
31.9% |
Enhance security in Wau County |
91 |
22.4% |
Enhance campaigns against early marriages |
82 |
20.2% |
Combat drug abuse among adolescent boys |
35 |
8.6% |
Sensitise parents in matters education through campaigns |
34 |
8.4% |
Provide boarding schools for vulnerable & nomadic
adolescent boys |
31 |
7.6% |
Encourage rehabilitation of adolescent boys’ drug users |
30 |
7.4% |
Build more schools (or classrooms in exiting schools) |
19 |
4.7% |
Others (specify) ……………. |
19 |
4.7% |
Households also suggested combating drug abuse among adolescent boys (8.6%), sensitizing parents on matters education through campaigns (8.4%), providing boarding schools for vulnerable and nomadic adolescent boys (7.6%), rehabilitation of adolescent boys’ drug users (7.4%), building more schools or classrooms in exiting schools (4.7%) among others (4.7%) (Table 8).
Table 8. Strategies to reduce/address adolescent boys’ school dropout.
Suggested strategies |
Frequency (f) |
% |
Provide scholarships & fees to bright adolescent boys |
306 |
75.2% |
Provide school feeding programs |
256 |
62.9% |
Work with actors to provide school items e.g., books |
109 |
26.8% |
Start/support campaigns against drug abuse among
adolescent boys |
99 |
24.3% |
Start/support campaigns against early marriages |
85 |
20.9% |
Construct more classrooms to reduce congestion/dropouts |
84 |
20.6% |
Provide boarding facilities to vulnerable & nomadic
adolescent boys |
68 |
16.7% |
Start/support campaigns to trace & readmit school
drop-outs |
43 |
10.6% |
Start/support rehabilitation of adolescent boy drug users |
36 |
8.9% |
Involve parents more in adolescent boys’ school activities |
29 |
7.1% |
Train teachers in drugs/substance abuse counselling |
21 |
5.2% |
Provide more teachers to schools |
14 |
3.4% |
Start/support campaigns to address health/disability
issues in adolescent boys |
13 |
3.2% |
Train teachers in management of adolescence peer
pressure/bullying |
10 |
2.5% |
Start/support campaigns against family GBVs |
8 |
2.0% |
Start/support campaigns against child labour |
6 |
1.5% |
Build more schools to improve access for adolescent boys |
6 |
1.5% |
Others (specify) ……………. |
6 |
1.5% |
A combination of other strategies was suggested including starting/supporting rehabilitation of adolescent boy drug users (8.9%), involving parents and guardians more in adolescent boys’ school activities (7.1%), training teachers in drugs/substance abuse counselling (5.2%), providing more teachers to schools (3.4%) and starting/supporting campaigns to address health/disability issues among adolescent boys (3.2%).
A few households suggested training teachers in management of adolescence peer pressure/bullying (2.5%), starting/supporting campaigns against family GBVs (2.0%), starting/supporting campaigns against child labour (1.5%), building more schools to improve access for adolescent boys (1.5%) and others areas including campaigns against violence/insecurity (1.5%).
5. Discussions, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the findings and conclusions arising from this study. The summary provides a rundown of the factors that influence adolescent boys’ decisions to drop out of school.
5.1.1. Discussions
This section summarized the study based on its five specific objectives set out in Section 2 of the report. The discussions are sequenced in parts 5.1.1 to 5.1.6 below.
5.1.2. Influence of Peer Group Sexual Relationship on Adolescent Boy’s School Dropout
Peer group sexual and early relationship was highly rated as contributor to school dropout among adolescent boys, ranking third among the homebased social factors. Based on analysis, the influence of peer group sexual relationship on adolescent boy’s school drop-out, was higher among the following cohorts and locations: In residential Blocks C; among adolescent boys 15 to17 years, in upper primary, public mixed schools and whose parents were married, aged 36 to 45 years, provided partial education support and faced much difficulties supporting their boy’s education. The influence of peer group sexual and early relationship on school dropout among adolescent boys was lowest, with minimal contribution to dropout in residential Blocks B and D; among much younger adolescent boys in public primary schools, who received full parental education support and with older, divorced parents who faced no difficulties supporting them.
The study further affirmed the contribution of adolescent peer pressure to dropout, ranked first among the socio-environmental dropout factors. The influence of peer pressure as single factor of school dropout among adolescent boys was highest, with highest contribution to dropout among the following groups: In Block B; among boys aged 15 to 17 years; in upper primary, private mixed schools, and whose parents faced much difficulties supporting them in school; among married, middle aged parents, with larger, male headed HHs and who faced much difficulties supporting their son’s education. The influence of adolescence peer pressure was lowest, with least contribution to school dropout among the following groups and locations: In Block D; among youngest and widowed parents; in smaller and among FHHs; among the youngest and oldest adolescent boys; in lower primary classes, public boys only schools and among boys with full parental educational support but who faced no difficulties supporting son’s education.
According to Chigbu et al. (2021) the outcome of sexual behaviours may make adolescents particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and high-risk behaviour which further stated that often the outcome of this behaviour can have adverse consequences such as early pregnancies (for the female), school dropout (for both boys and girls) and sexually transmitted infections.
According to my observation, peer pressure and sexual behaviour are the major causes of adolescent boys’ dropout in Wau Municipality which consequently leads to early pregnancy for girls and child labour for boys who drops and resort in doing casual work as a bread winner for the young and unplanned family.
5.1.3. Influence of Family Economic Status on Adolescent Boy’s School Dropout
Family economic status association with school dropout was also observed, rated second ranking contributor in homebased factors. Highest influence and contribution of family economic status to school dropout was in Block A; in adolescent boys aged 12 to 17 years; from smaller HHs, in upper primary, private mixed schools; with partial parental educational support, and whose parents were aged 36 to 45 years and faced some and much difficulties supporting them in school.
The association and contribution of family economic status to school dropout was lowest, with least contribution to dropout among the following cohorts: in Block C; among older adolescent boys, with single or separated parents/guardians, from larger, MHH families, in lower primary, public-boys-only schools, and whose parents were youngest and oldest, faced no difficulties and who received no parental education support.
This study is guided by Epstein (1987) conceptual framework, school-family-community partnerships model that focuses on stakeholder relationships. Parents in disadvantaged communities thinly participate in learner education based on their level of education, lack of empowerment, lack of vision, poverty and employment dynamics, familial structures, teacher attitude and exclusion. This study confirmed that, family economic status is one of the main drivers that influence and contribute to adolescent boys’ school dropout behaviour.
One of the literatures of this study: Hunt (2008) has highlighted the influence of family socio-economic status and socio-education status of parents on the different millstone of child development. And it has asserted that both statistical and empirical research suggest that children from better households are more likely to remain in school, whilst those who are poorer are more likely never to have attended, or to drop out once they have enrolled.
5.1.4. Influence of Lack of Parental Involvement on Adolescent Boy School Dropout
Based on study findings, parental involvement or lack of parental participation effect, on school dropout was observed, cited among the non-social dropout factors in Wau Municipality. The highest influence and contribution of non-parental involvement on adolescent boys’ school dropout was in Block A; among adolescent boys aged 15 to 17 years, in upper primary, private mixed schools; with married parents aged 36 to 45 years; from larger, male headed HHs; whose parents faced some difficulties supporting them and received partial parental educational support.
The impact of parental involvement on adolescent boys’ school dropout was high, with minimal contribution of dropouts in Block D; among the youngest and oldest boys; from smaller FHH, in lower, public primary boys’ schools only; who received no parental educational support and whose parents were older, divorced and faced no difficulties supporting the boy’s education.
According to Epstein (1987) parental involvement is affected either positively or negatively by parental background which includes; their education, occupation, socio-economic and parental aspirations. Parents are the first educators of the child and children do better when parents are involved in their academic lives. Parental involvement has a big influence on the academic performance of the learner. This involvement does not only focus on the learner academic but also on the learner behaviours at home and schools. Learner’s safety and social life, parent and school relations, parent-child communication and even financial support shape children’s invitingness such as school related outcomes and self-concept.
According to Bulqia (2016) parents’ involvement on children’s education will decide what the children will be in the future. Parental involvement was defined as “parental participation in the educational processes and experiences of their children”.
5.1.5. Influence of Civil Strife on Adolescent Boy School Drop-Outs Behaviours
The association of insecurity and conflict with adolescent boy school drop-outs behaviours affirmed, identified as the second contributor among socio-environmental factors. The influence of conflicts/civil strife was highest, with most contribution to school dropout in the following: In Block B; among adolescent boys aged 12 to 17 years, from larger FHHs, in upper primary, private mixed schools; who received partial parental educational support; whose parents were aged 36 and 45 years and married and faced much difficulties supporting the boys’ education.
The impact of civil strife was lowest, with minimal contribution of dropouts among in Blocks C and D; among oldest boys, from smaller MHHs, in lower primary, public boys’ schools, whose parents were much younger, widowed or divorced and provide full parental education support to their sons, with no difficulties.
According to UNICEF (2021) a child’s right to education cannot be safeguarded in conflict without education itself being protected. Education can be a life-saving. Out of school children are easy targets of abuse, exploitation and recruitment by armed forces and groups.
In my view without access to education, a generation of children living in conflict will grow up without the skills they need to contribute to their countries and economies, exacerbating the already desperate situation for thousands of children who are on the street of Wau due to other factors such as poverty and economic hardship in the Country.
5.1.6. Influence of Quality Teaching and Learning Materials on Adolescent Boy School Dropout Behaviours
The study has shown that lack of teaching and learning resources is one of the school-based factors contributing to school dropout among adolescent boys in Wau Municipality. Truly so, lack of school fees and related items like uniforms, plus shortages of classrooms or teachers, were particularly cited. The influence of quality of teaching and learning materials was highest and contributed higher to school dropouts in the following cohorts: Residential Blocks C and A; among adolescent boys aged 9 to 11 years, from larger FHHS; in lower primary, public mixed schools who received no parental educational support and whose parents were younger and older, separated, faced much difficulties supporting them in school.
The influence of quality of teaching and learning materials was lowest and contributed least dropouts in the following locations and groups: Residential Blocks C and D; among adolescent boys 15 to 17 years, from smaller larger MHHs, in upper primary, public boys only schools and who received full parental educational support, and whose parents were 36 to 45 years old, divorced and faced no difficulties supporting their son’s education.
According to Clarke et al. (2007), adequacy of instructional materials such as textbooks which is the main instruction material is the most cost-effective input affecting student performance. In this context adequate supply is usually assumed to be a minimum of one textbook per three students, and at primary level enough reading books so that every child has the opportunity to read at least one new book every week
5.1.7. Correlation Multivariate/Multidimensional Analysis Results
Overall, even though significant positive correlations were observed, the relationships between the variables were only highly correlated for family economic status, for peer group sexual relationship and lack of parental involvement and school dropouts and moderately correlated. civil strife and lack of quality teaching and learning materials and school dropouts.
On correlation between demographic variables and school drop-out behaviours, some small positive correlations found in some variables such as parent’s age, HH size and boys age, for other demographic variables such residential block, parents’ gender and marital status, gender of HH head, dropout class and school’s locations, the relationships with school dropouts were not significantly correlated at the P-value 0.05.
On correlation tests between other social-environment factors and school dropout behaviours, except for drug abuse, family differences, parent’s separation/divorce and sickness/disability, which yielded small positive but not very significant correlations with school dropouts, factors like family displacements by hazards, nomadism, household labour shortages and child labour demand were found not to be significantly correlated with school dropout.
The findings indicate that some demographic factors (parent age, HH size and boys age) and socio-environmental factors (drug abuse, family difference) have no much impact on adolescent boys’ dropout behaviour. This might be due to early marriages that caused young parent and family separation/difference as a consequence of unplanned marriages. To neutralize the impact of these variable, there is need to enhance guidance and counselling in schools to address challenges facing the male and female learners like relationships, peer influence, drugs and substance abuse.
5.1.8. Limitation
The major challenges faced by the study was accessing data on students‟ dropout rate at both ministry and schools’ levels due to two main reasons; first many administrators do not update their records regularly, secondly some administrators are reluctant to release records due to confidentiality issues. The fact that the study was performed in mixed boys and girls, and boys only public and private primary schools in Wau Municipality means that the results may not be used to generalize all primary schools in Western Bah El Ghazal and indeed the entire South Sudan.
5.2. Conclusion
The study established that peer group sexual relationship, family economic status, parental involvement, civil strife quality teaching and learning materials influence adolescent boy school dropout behaviours in Wau Municipality. Based on findings, several other factors and tendencies affecting school dropout among adolescent boys were also identified. However, no explanation for the findings emerged in the study:
First, data show that the influence of peer group sexual relationship on school dropout vary or likely to vary by residential areas, adolescent boys age, level of class in primary school, type of school, whether public, private, mixed or boys only schools; parent marital status, and age, as well as level of parental support to their sons in education. Given thus, adolescent in residential Block C and aged 15 to 17 years, are in upper primary classes in public mixed schools and whose parents are married and aged 36 to 45 years and provide partial education support and face much difficulties supporting their education are more likely to drop out of school, due to peer group sexual relationship influences.
Second, the influence of family economic status on adolescent boy’s school dropout depends on adolescent boy’s residency block, aged, family size, level of class in school, type of school whether public, private, mixed or boys only; level of parental educational support, parents age, and level of difficulties supporting their sons. Generally, thus; those adolescent boys in Block A, who are aged 12 to 17 years, from smaller families and are in upper primary classes in private mixed schools, who receive partial parental educational support, and whose parents are 36 to 45 years and face difficulties supporting them in school are more likely to dropout from school due to family economic status influences.
Third, the influence of parental involvement on adolescent boy school dropout is variable, depending on residential adolescent boy’s residency, age, level of class in school, school type, parent’s marital status and age, family size, gender of HH head, level of parental support and difficulties supporting them. Thus, those adolescent boys residing in Block A, who are aged 15 to 17 years and from larger MHHs, are in upper primary classes in private mixed schools and whose parents are married and aged 36 to 45 years and face some difficulties supporting them are more likely to experience school dropout due to influence of parental involvement, or lack of support.
Fourth, the influence of civil strife on adolescent boy school drop-outs is dependent on residential blocks, adolescent boys aged, size of families, gender of head of household, level of class in school, school type, parents age, level of parental educational support and difficulties faced supporting their boys’ education. Given thus, adolescent boys residents of Block B and aged 12 to 17 years, from larger FHHs, who are in upper classes in private mixed schools; who receive partial parental educational support and whose parents are married and aged 36 to 45 years and face much difficulties supporting the boys’ education are more likely to drop out of school due to civil strife.
Fifth, the influence of quality teaching and learning materials on adolescent boy school dropout behaviours vary or likely to vary based on residential blocks, adolescent boys aged, family size, level of class in school, gender of household head, parents age and marital status, school type, level of parental educational support and difficulties supporting their boys in school. Therefore, the adolescent boys who were most likely to dropout from school due to the influence of quality teaching and learning materials are from residential Blocks C and A and aged 9 to 11 years, from larger FHHS, are in lower primary in public mixed schools and receive no parental educational support. Their parents are also younger or older, separated, and face much difficulties supporting them in school.
This study confirms that factors for adolescent boys’ dropout from school are complex and interrelated phenomenon. Caution needs to be taken when designing programs to track and readmit adolescent boys’ dropouts. Each case is likely to be unique and the reasons given for dropouts may be specific to the nature and uniqueness of a household. Further, the reasons given by parents and boys for dropout may be masked, due to personal issues, by an attempt to place the burden of their leaving on external factors beyond their control.
In conclusion, various correlation analyses were estimated across various dimensions. The results showed high significance of family economic status and lack of parental involvement on influencing school adolescent boys’ dropout and moderate significance of peer group sexual relationship, civil strife and lack of quality teaching and learning materials on influencing school dropouts.
5.3. Recommendations
Based on the findings, the study recommends the following:
1) Similar comparable research to be conducted: A quantitative study should be conducted in other States in South Sudan to explore the dissimilar reason behind the observed correlations to establish comprehensive findings for comparisons and more generalized conclusions.
2) Dropout risk management: Schools should be capacitated to develop systems that help identify adolescent boys at risk of dropout. Such boys may be coming from low-income families, single parents, orphans, have disciplinary issues including drug abuse, or poor socio-emotional background. Dropout prevention programs should also be developed. This should address peer pressure, provide comprehensive sex education, and improve access to education support services including scholarships, item needs and vocational centres.
3) Introduce trace and readmit programs: The ministry of education should introduce trace and readmit programs. This can be done in collaboration with other education stakeholders and NGOs including UNICEF. Such programs should focus on creating supportive and structured environments for boys learning. The adolescent boys who drop out of school should be closely monitored by the school administration to ensure they are re-admitted back to school.
4) Subsidies and socioeconomic support: Subsidized primary education is not enough. School levies such as fees and the cost of uniform still remains a burden to poor parents. Adolescent boys from poor households should be offered total free primary education to reduce dropout and increase access and retention in schools. The government should particularly take off the total burden of school fees from parents in public schools, so that students do not drop out of school due to lack of school fees. Poverty alleviation measures should be supported to enable families get higher income so as to maintain their children in school. The government should introduce sustainable school feeding programmes and ensure that it is maintained throughout the term so that students do not drop out due to their inconvenience.
5) Education benefits sensitization: There is need to sensitize parents on their role in educating their children and on the rights of children to alleviate the problem of dropping out due to the apathy of the parents towards the children’s education. They should also be sensitized on the need to actively participate in educating their children about their sexuality in order to curb early adolescent relationships/marriage.
6) Guidance and Counselling: There is need to enhance guidance and counselling in schools so as to address the challenges facing the male and female students like relationships, peer influence, drugs and substance abuse. This will enhance retention of the male students. The learners should be sensitized on the effects of drugs abuse on their studies. There is also need to train teachers in drugs/substance abuse counselling
7) Parental responsibility: Parents and community should be sensitized on the importance of education. They should be enlightened on the importance of giving proper parental guidance to children and to be more involved in the education of their adolescent boys. They also need to offer full support to their students and to work hand in hand with teachers to curb issues of absenteeism and enable adolescent boys’ complete school.
8) Affirmative action: To address income inequalities among school going families, special assistance scheme and affirmative policies should be considered for vulnerable boys such as those from marginalized homes, those with special needs, orphaned and disables.
9) Cultural sensitization and gender role shifts: Schools should work with local administration on campaigns against and prevent early marriages. Those who go against this should be prosecuted. To create more time for the boys while at home for their studies, the parents need to be sensitized on the importance of proper monitoring of the adolescent children and assign them fewer domestic tasks. Education stakeholders should enhance, strengthen and enforce parental laws to ensure children do not fall victim to family instability.
10) Enforce labour laws: Education stakeholders should conduct sensitization campaigns against child labour and ensure labour and employment policies are adhered to. Child labour should be discouraged and those involved should be prosecuted.
11) School supplies: Governments should provide adequate teaching and learning resources and other school supplies including teachers according to student needs. Trained and qualified teachers especially during developmental stage of adolescence should be recruited.
12) Boarding schools: Communities can support education by constructing boarding schools for boys to reduce school dropouts. This will go a long way in reducing the long distance the children travel for them to reach school.
13) Rehabilitation programs: There is need to initiate a rehabilitation program for adolescent boys affected by drug abuse and licking them to readmission programs. Starting/supporting campaigns to address health/disability issues among adolescent boys should be supported.
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been complete without patient guidance of supervisor, Assoc Prof. Dr. Uget Apayo Uguak. His comments, suggestions and encouragement made the study what it is. He has demonstrated endless faith in my ability. I say thank you for the constant and thorough guidance.
I cannot forget my Dean College of Education Prof. Dr. Musa for persuading me to do my Master, my colleagues at the college of Education University of Bahr el Ghazal for their encouragement and moral support accorded to me during this study. Sincerely without them, writing this project report would have been impossible. I am equally grateful to College of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research for allowing me to carry out this research.
Lastly but not least, it goes to my beloved family for their patience and encouragement throughout the duration of my study. Their moral support and encouragements have made this study what it is today. I say thank you very much for your support.
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AES |
Alternative Education System |
Covid 19 |
Corona Virus |
DFID |
Department for International Development |
DFID |
United Kingdom’s Department for International Development |
EAs |
Enumeration Areas |
EMIS |
Education Monitoring Information System |
FGD |
Focus Group Discussion |
FHHs |
Female Headed Households |
GESS |
Girls Education South Sudan |
HHs |
Households |
KII |
Key Informant Interview |
MHHs |
Male Headed Households |
NGO |
Non-Governmental Organizations |
POC |
Protection of Civilians |
PPS |
Population Proportionate to Size |
RENAMO |
Resistencia Nacional Mozambicana |
SMoGEI |
State Ministry of General Education & Instructions |
TLM |
Teaching and Leering Materials |
TLR |
Teaching and Learning Resources |
UNFPA |
United Nations Population Fund |
UNICEF |
United Nation International Children Education Fund |
UNIMISS |
United Nations Mission in South Sudan |
USA |
United States of America |
WASCE |
West Africa school Certificate of Education |
WBGS |
Western Bahr El Ghazal State |
WMED |
Wau Municipality Education Department |
Definitions of Terms
Adolescent: Is the period that fills the gap between the childhood and adulthood or manhood. Generally, this period is termed as “Youth”.
Behaviour: An organism’s activities in response to external or internal stimuli, including objectively observable activities, introspectively observable activities, and nonconscious processes.
Drop-out: Refer to pupils who have withdrawn (for any reason) from the school system without completing a given grade in a given school year.
Upper primary: From primary five (5) to primary eight (8).
Appendices
Appendix 1. Study Tools
Boys Questionnaire
Introduction and consent
Dear Student, my name is …………… I am carrying out a study to determine the factors contributing to adolescent boys’ dropout behaviours in Upper Primary School in Wau Municipality. You have been selected randomly among the community members who are beneficiaries of primary schools within the Wau Municipality to provide status on the school dropout as well as the factors that contribute to the same. The interview will take about 30 minutes. If you agree to participate in this study, you a free to also stop at any time during the interview. Your responses will be completely confidential; we will not share information that identifies you with anyone.
Are you willing to participate in the survey? (COMPULSORY)
Is consent given? 1 = Yes; 2 = No If no end the survey: (Compulsory) Date: …….
Take GPS Codes (stand somewhere that you can see sky in order to generate strong signal)
SECTION 1, IDENTIFICATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The following questions to be asked in EVERY household with adolescent boy who drop-out of school.
1) Location (Tick appropriately, Compulsory)
2) Block:
1 = A
2 = B
3 = C
4 = D
5 = E
SECTION 2, PARENTS AND GUARDIANS SECTION
The following questions must be asked to parents and guardians whose adolescent boys who drop-out of school. Ask the parents and guardians to call adolescent boy so that you can continue with him with the questions in section 2.
3) Parents/Guardian Name? ………………………………….
4) Parents/Guardian gender?
5) Parents/guardian age?
1 = 18- 35 years
2 = 36 - 45 years
3 = 46 -60 years
4 = > 60 years
6) Parents/guardian marital status?
1 = Married
2 = Single
3 = widow(er)
4 = Separated
5 = Divorced
7) How many people live in the family in total? ………………………………
8) Is the head of the Household male or female?
1 = Male
2 = Female
3 = Child
9) What are your family sources of income?
0 = None (If none, collapse other options)
1 = Sale of staple cereal crops/products
2 = Sale of other crops/crop products
3 = Sale of livestock/livestock products
4 = Sale of fish
5 = Sale of natural resources (firewood)
6 = Sale of food aid
7 = Skilled labour e.g. masonry
8 = Casual labour-Non-agricultural
9 = Casual labour-Agricultural
10 = Salaried work
11 = Petty trading/small business
12 = Remittance
13 = Begging
14 = Cash transfer (e.g., NGOs, WFP)
15 = Others (Specify)
10) What are the reasons that made your son drop out from school?
1 = We lacked money for fees and other school items like uniforms
2 = We lacked food to eat at home so he had to drop out from school?
3 = There were shortage of classrooms in school
4 = We did not have enough family labour so he had to drop out from school to assist
5 = There were not enough teachers in school
6 = We were displaced by insecurity
7 = We were displaced by other hazards affecting like floods
8 = We moved homes as nomadic lifestyles
10 = Adolescence related Peer pressure including bullying
11 = Son dropped out from school due to taking drugs
12 = We had family feuds like quarrelling so he had to drop out from school
11 = We separated/divorced so he had to drop out from school
13 = The Demand for child labour in towns
14 = He was sick so he had to drop out from school
15 = He is disabled and had to drop out from school
16 = The school is far away so he had to drop out from school
17 = The boy gut married so he had to drop out from school
18 = Others (specify) ……………………
SECTION 3, ADOLESCENT BOYS WHO DROP-OUTSECTION
The following questions must be asked to a boy in the household, who dropped out of school.
11) Boys Name: ………………………………
12) Boys age (years)
1 = 9- 11 years
2 = 12- 14 years
3 = 15-17 years
4 = >17 years
13) Which class did you dropout from?
1 = lower primary
2 = Upper primary
14) What type of schools did you dropout from?
1 = Private primary school (boys only school)
2 = Public primary school (boys only school)
3 = Private primary (mixed school)
4 = Public Primary (mixed school)
15) Where is/was the school located within Wau Municipality?
16) What were the reasons that made you to dropout from school?
1 = We lacked food at home
2 = I lacked school fees and other school items like uniforms
3 = We lacked classrooms at school
4 = I had pressure for family labour at home
5 = We lacked teachers in school
6 = Our family was displaced due to insecurity
7 = Our family was displaced due to natural hazards affecting their attendance like floods
8 = We moved home to another areas i.e. nomadic lifestyle
9 = I was expelled by school administrators
10 = I was bulled while in school
11 = I was started taking drugs and other substances that made me dropout
12 = I had family feuds and fights i.e. GBV that made me dropout
12 = My parents separated/divorced
13 = I went to work in towns i.e. demand for child labour
14 = I was sick and it had to dropout
17 = I am disabled and that made me dropout
15 = There was disease outbreaks in our area that made me dropout e.g. Covid 19
16 = The school is very far i.e. long distance
17 = I got into a relationship and married
18 = Others (specify) …………….
17) Did your parent support your education?
1 = Yes fully supported me
2 = Yes partly supported me
3 = No, did not support me at all
18) What are the benefits of education according to your understanding?
1 = One can get job
2 = One can start own business
3 = One can travel more
4 = One can get more income
5 = It improves our retains with neighbours
6 = Others (specify) …………….
19) What challenges & experiences do you think hinder adolescent boys from accessing school?
1 = Some lack of food at home
2 = Some lack of fees and other school items like uniforms
3 = Some lack classrooms in school
4 = Some have old parents to support at home
5 = Some are displaced by insecurity
6 = Some are displaced by floods
7 = Some live far from school
8 = Some marry early
9 = Some use drugs
10 = Some have no parents
11 = Some want to work to make money
12 = Some get sick us are disabled
13 = schools are far away
14 = Some are not supported by their parents
15 = Others (specify) …………….
20) Do your parents have any constraints or difficulties in supporting your studies?
1 = Yes so much difficulties
2 = Yes some difficulties
3 = Not difficulties at all
21) What are the effects of 2016 displacement on adolescent boys according to you?
1 = Some dropped out from school
2 = Some lacked teachers in school
3 = Some experienced disease outbreaks in displacements camps
4 = Some were separated from families
5 = Some went seeking jobs in towns to earn income for families displaced
6 = Some had economic support destroyed due to destruction of livelihoods
7 = Some became homeless due to destruction of their homes
8 = Some became physical and mentally unstable
9 = Some experienced violence during the displacement
10 = Some lacked access to sanitation and safe drinking water
11 = Some lacked playing fields and other safe areas for physical activities
12 = Some were frced into drugs and substance abuse to cue with emotional trauma
13 = Others (specify) …………….
23) What suggestions can you make regarding adolescent boy dropout in community?
1 = Government should trace and readmit them back in school
2 = Government should apply food for Education to reduce adolescent boy dropouts
3 = Government should provide free Education and other school items like uniforms
4 = Government should construct more classrooms to reduce dropouts
5 = Government should enhance the security in Wau County
6 = Government should combat drug and substance abuse among adolescent boys
7 = Government should provide boarding schools for nomadic adolescent boy dropouts
8 = Government should encourage rehabilitation of adolescent boys affected by drug + substance users
9 = Parents should be sensitised in matters education through campaigns
10 = Government should build more schools to improve access
11 = Enhancing campaigns against early relationships and marriages
12 = Others (specify) …………….
24) What strategies do you think the Ministry of Education to take to reduce + address adolescent boys’ school dropout?
1 = Provision of school feeding programs to enhance school attendance and reduce dropouts
2 = Provision of scholarships to bright adolescent boys without fees to reduce dropout
3 = Work with education actors to support with school items like books
4 = Support construction of more classrooms to reduce congestion and dropouts
5 = Work with relevant actors to provide adequate security in Wau County
6 = Work with relevant actors in school campaigns against drug abuse among adolescent boys
7 = Provide boarding facilities to vulnerable and nomadic adolescent boys
8 = Work with relevant actors to rehabilitate adolescent boy drug and substance users
9 = Involve parents more in adolescent boys’ school activities
10 = Building more schools to improve access
11 = Work with relevant actors n campaigns against early marriages
12 = Provide more teachers to schools
13 = Train teachers in management of adolescence related peer pressure
14 = Train teachers in drugs and substance abuse counselling
15 = Work with relevant actors in addressing family related GBVs
16 = Work with relevant actors to address rising child labour
17 = Work with relevant actors to address health and disabilities affecting adolescent boys
18 = Work with relevant actors to trace and readmit adolescent boys’ school dropout
19 = Others (specify) ……………. END
We have now come to the end of the survey. Do you have any questions you would like to ask me? Thank you for taking part in the survey, we appreciate the time you have given us.
Appendix 2. Home Based Social Factors Contributing to School Dropout
Table A1. Home based social factors.
Demography variables |
|
Lack of fees, books, |
Lack of
food |
Early
relationship/ marriage |
Family
labour
shortage |
Parents
separation/ divorce |
Family fight/
disagreement |
Distance |
Nomadism |
Block |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) A |
91.1% |
24.6% |
2.0% |
0.0% |
1.9% |
0.0% |
3.8% |
2.0% |
3) B |
88.2% |
10.8% |
0.0% |
2.3% |
0.0% |
1.3% |
0.0% |
2.0% |
4) C |
92.1% |
0.0% |
28.4% |
14.7% |
6.9% |
7.2% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
5) D |
75.3% |
2.9% |
0. 0% |
0. 0% |
0.0% |
0. 0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian
age |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) 18 - 35 yrs. |
85.6% |
0.0% |
6.9% |
4.9% |
3.9% |
3.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) 36 - 45 yrs. |
80.4% |
29.5% |
21.6% |
8.9% |
2.9% |
2.9% |
3.8% |
3.0% |
4) 46 - 60 yrs. |
82.6% |
8.9% |
2.0% |
3.0% |
2.0% |
2.0% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
5) >60 yrs. |
97.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian marital
status |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Married |
87.9% |
38.2% |
33.1% |
18.5% |
6.1% |
8.6% |
6.0% |
3.8% |
3) Single |
90.3% |
0.0% |
1.2% |
1.2% |
1.2% |
2.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
4) Widow(er) |
81.1% |
6.1% |
2.4% |
1.2% |
1.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
5) Separated |
91.4% |
3.7% |
1.2% |
0.0% |
2.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.3% |
6) Divorced |
80.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
HH Size |
1) Average (8) |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Upper Tercile (12) |
88.3% |
8.0% |
7.3% |
2.2% |
0.5% |
1.5% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
3) Lower Tercile (6.5) |
78.1% |
10.2% |
7.3% |
3.6% |
4.4% |
2.2% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian
gender |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Male |
70.6% |
13.3% |
13.2% |
6.9% |
2.9% |
3.9% |
2.4% |
1.0% |
3) Female |
92.6% |
5.9% |
2.0% |
1.5% |
1.5% |
0.5% |
0.0% |
1.0% |
Boys age (years) |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) 9 - 11 yrs. |
87.8% |
2.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
3) 12 - 14 yrs. |
81.8% |
18.7% |
1.0% |
2.0% |
4.9% |
2.0% |
0.0% |
2.0% |
4) 15 - 17 yrs. |
74.3% |
14.8% |
28.4% |
13.8% |
3.9% |
5.9% |
3.8% |
2.0% |
5) >17 yrs. |
82.5% |
2.0% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Drop-out class |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Lower Primary |
84.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Upper Primary |
78.8% |
19.2% |
15.2% |
8.4% |
4.4% |
4.4% |
2.4% |
2.0% |
Drop-out school type |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Public primary (boys only) |
76.5% |
6.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Private primary (mixed) |
80.8% |
13.3% |
11.0% |
8.2% |
5.9% |
3.7% |
2.9% |
0.8% |
4) Public primary (mixed) |
87.5% |
8.9% |
11.8% |
4.4% |
0.7% |
2.2% |
0.7% |
2.3% |
Parent’s
support |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Full support |
83.2% |
2.2% |
5.2% |
4.4% |
2.2% |
3.7% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
3) Part support |
74.8% |
21.4% |
10.3% |
6.0% |
2.9% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
3.0% |
4) No support |
86.9% |
5.2% |
7.4% |
2.2% |
1.5% |
0.7% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
Parents
constraints
to support studies |
1) Overall |
81.6% |
9.6% |
7.6% |
4.2% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.2% |
1.0% |
2) Much difficulties |
87.0% |
12.5% |
10.3% |
5.2% |
2.2% |
2.9% |
1.4% |
0.8% |
3) Some difficulties |
76.3% |
16.3% |
11.8% |
6.7% |
4.4% |
2.9% |
2.2% |
2.3% |
4) No difficulties |
81.5% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Appendix 3. Environment Related Social Factors Contributing to School Dropout
Table A2. Environment related social factors.
Demographic variables |
Sub analysis |
Environment related social factors (Independent/outcome study variables |
Peer
pressure |
Insecurity |
Drug
abuse |
Sickness or disability |
Demand for child labour |
Shocks/
disasters |
Block |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) A |
10.8% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
2.9% |
1.0% |
3) B |
18.7% |
9.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.0% |
4) C |
2.9% |
0.0% |
10.0% |
6.8% |
1.9% |
0.0% |
5) D |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0%. |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian age |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) 18 - 35 yrs. |
0.0% |
0.0% |
2.0% |
1.9% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
3) 36 - 45 yrs. |
23.6% |
5.0% |
8.0% |
4.9% |
1.9% |
1.0% |
4) 46 - 60 yrs. |
7.9% |
4.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.9% |
1.0% |
5) >60 yrs. |
1.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian
marital status |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Married |
28.3% |
7.5% |
11.3% |
8.5% |
3.6% |
2.5% |
3) Single |
6.1% |
2.5% |
1.2% |
0.0% |
1.2% |
0.0% |
4) Widow(er) |
2.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.2% |
0.0% |
5) Separated |
3.7% |
2.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
6) Divorced |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Household
Size |
1) Average (8 HH) |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Upper Tercile (12 HH) |
4.4% |
0.0% |
1.5% |
0.8% |
0.2% |
0.4% |
3) Lower Tercile (6.5 HH) |
11.7% |
5.1% |
3.5% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
0.7% |
Gender of
HH head |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Male |
13.3% |
5.0% |
5.0% |
3.4% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
3) Female |
2.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.4% |
0.0% |
Boys age
(years) |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) 9 - 11 yrs. |
3.9% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.0% |
3) 12 - 14 yrs. |
8.9% |
4.0% |
1.0% |
1.9% |
1.9% |
0.0% |
4) 15 - 17 yrs. |
15.7% |
4.0% |
9.0% |
4.9% |
2.9% |
1.0% |
5) >17 yrs. |
3.9% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Drop-out
class |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Lower Primary |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Upper Primary |
16.2% |
5.0% |
5.0% |
3.4% |
2.4% |
1.0% |
Drop-out
school type |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Public primary (boys only) |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Private primary (mixed) |
19.1% |
7.5% |
3.8% |
2.2% |
2.2% |
1.5% |
4) Public primary (mixed) |
5.2% |
0.0% |
3.8% |
2.2% |
1.4% |
0.0% |
Parent’s
support |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) Full support |
0.7% |
0.0% |
1.5% |
5.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Part support |
18.4% |
4.5% |
3.0% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
0.8% |
4) No support |
5.2% |
3.0% |
3.0% |
0.0% |
1.4% |
0.8% |
Parents
constraints or difficulties to support studies |
1) Overall |
8.1% |
2.5% |
2.5% |
1.7% |
1.2% |
0.5% |
2) So much difficulties |
14.0% |
3.8% |
4.5% |
0.7% |
2.2% |
0.8% |
3) Some difficulties |
9.6% |
3.8 |
2.3% |
4.4% |
0.7% |
0.8% |
4) No difficulties |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.8% |
0.0% |
0.7% |
0.0% |
Appendix 4. School Based and Other Dropout Factors Multivariate Analyses
Table A3. School based and other factors.
Demographic
Variables |
|
School based and other factors /Independent research (Outcome) Variables |
Others e.g.,
expulsion |
School classrooms
shortages |
Shortage of school
teachers |
Block |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) A |
2.2% |
0.2% |
0.2% |
3) B |
0.4% |
1.5% |
0.5% |
4) C |
0.9% |
0.4% |
0.9% |
5) D |
0.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/
guardian age |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) 18 - 35 yrs. |
1.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
3) 36 - 45 yrs. |
15.7% |
4.9% |
6.9% |
4) 46 - 60 yrs. |
2.9% |
4.9% |
1.9% |
5) >60 yrs. |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Parents/guardian
marital status |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Married |
20.8% |
11.1% |
8.6% |
3) Single |
2.4% |
2.4% |
0.0% |
4) Widow(er) |
1.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
5) Separated |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.2% |
6) Divorced |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.2% |
Household Size |
1) Average (8 HH) |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Upper Tercile (12 HH) |
7.3% |
0.7% |
2.2% |
3) Lower Tercile (6.5 HH) |
2.9% |
3.6% |
2.2% |
Parents/guardian
gender/Gender of
HH head |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Male |
9.3% |
5.4% |
4.4% |
3) Female |
0.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
Boys age (years) |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) 9 - 11 yrs. |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) 12 - 14 yrs. |
2.9% |
6.9% |
2.0% |
4) 15 - 17 yrs. |
16.7% |
2.9% |
5.9% |
5) >17 yrs. |
0.0% |
1.0% |
1.0% |
Drop-out class |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Lower Primary |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Upper Primary |
9.8% |
5.4% |
4.4% |
Drop-out school
type |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Public primary (boys only) |
0.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
3) Private primary (mixed) |
8.8% |
6.6% |
1.5% |
4) Public primary (mixed) |
5.2% |
1.5% |
5.1% |
Parent’s support |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) Full support |
5.2% |
0.0% |
1.5% |
3) Part support |
8.8% |
4.4% |
3.7% |
4) No support |
0.7% |
3.7% |
1.5% |
Parents constraints
or difficulties to
support studies |
1) Overall |
4.9% |
2.7% |
2.2% |
2) So much difficulties |
3.7% |
3.7% |
1.5% |
3) Some difficulties |
8.1% |
4.4% |
5.1% |
4) No difficulties |
2.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |