Policy Brief No.

4
2010
Why is the dropout problem
important?
Dropout is a problem for many
reasons. From the efficiency
perspective, dropout is a concern in at
least two dimensions. One, at the
areate economy level wherein
education is !nown to be an important
determinant of economic rowth and
premature dropout means loss of
potential productivity. "nd two, within
the education sector, dropout raises the
cost of achievin a tareted proportion
of the population havin some level of
schoolin #$anushe!, %avy, and $itomi
200&'. (he other area where dropout is
a problem)and perhaps the more
important one)is from the e*uity
perspective. Dropouts may appear
small in number but they are
preponderant
A glimpse at the
school dropout
problem
Dropouts may appear small in number but they are preponderant
amon the poor which thereupon turns the wheels of
interenerational transmission of poverty aainst them..."t the
personal level, droppin out of school will mean consinin one
to a future of low+income tra,ectory. -iven a choice, one will
obviously not opt for this.
amon the poor which thereupon turns
the wheels of interenerational trans+
mission of poverty aainst them.
"t the personal level, droppin out of
school will mean consinin one to a
future of low+income tra,ectory. -iven
a choice, one will obviously not opt for
this. $owever, we see a considerable
number of school+aed children who
./, respectively'. 0y income roups,
as e1pected, a lare proportion of
those not attendin school are from
the poorest *uintile. "mon the
bottom 20 percent income roups,
school nonat+ tendance rate is 2.
percent at the elementary school and
23 percent at the secondary level while
amon the top 20 percent income
roups, school nonattendance at the
elementary level
reason declines rapidly from the
elementary school+aed children #2./'
to the secondary school+aed children
#1&/'. (he ne1t most popular reasons
)which is not surprisin)are eco+
nomic in nature, i.e., hih costs and
loo!in for wor! or doin housewor!.
0ut what is seeminly surprisin is that
these reasons are popular even at the
are not in school and most probably,
it
is only 4 percent and at the secondary
is not of their own choice.
What do we !now about
the dropout
1
problem?
5sin data from the 6ational 7tatistics
Office8s #67O' "nnual 9overty :ndica+
tors 7urvey #"9:7' of 2004, the
school+ aed children &;11 years old
#elemen+ tary' not attendin school is
about & percent of the cohort of 12.&
million children. For children aed 12;
1. years old #secondary', 11 percent of
the cohort of <.= million children are
not attendin school #(able 1'. (here is
some disparity by se1 which is more
pronounced amon those aed 12;1.
years old #1./ for boys vs. 3/ for
irls' compared with those in the
elementary school ae roup #</ vs.
level, ,ust . percent.
Why are school+aed children
not in school?
(he "9:7 is one of the few nationally
representative surveys that as! for
reasons for not bein in school for the
school+aed population of &;24 years
old. (he e1plicitly mentioned reasons
for droppin out of school reveal
interestin pieces of information. (able
2 provides the distribution of the
e1plicitly mentioned reasons for
droppin out of school for elementary
and secondary school+aed children.
(he most popular reason, particularly
at the elementary level, is lac! of
personal interest. :t is important to
note that the proportion citin this
particular
1
(o avoid possible confusion, it is useful to
reconi>e that there is a difference between the
dropout rate as officially defined and the
indicator used in this 0rief. Official dropout rate
is defined as the ratio of pupils who failed to
finish the school year as well as those who
finished the school year but did not enrol in the
succeedin year to students enrolled in the
previous year #Dep?d website'. Data available,
however, usin this definition will not allow
relatin dropout to individual and household
characteristics. 7ince this 0rief is tryin to
e1plain the reasons for dropout, we are thus
definin dropout as pertainin to those who are
not attendin school accordin to a nationally
representative data set, particularly the "nnual
9overty :ndicators 7urvey #"9:7' bein
reularly conducted by the 6ational 7tatistics
Office #67O'. (he estimate of the dropout rate,
accordin to the official definition for school
year #7@' 2004;200. is &.=3 percent for the
elementary level and <.== percent for the
secondary level.
The Filipino child
2
Policy Brief No. 4
Table 1. School attendance and nonattendance characteristics, !!4
7ource of basic dataA "nnual 9overty :ndicators 7urvey 2004, 6ational 7tatistics Office.
Table . "easons for not attending school by age group, !!4
a with some elementary education
b with some secondary education
7ource of basic dataA "nnual 9overty :ndicators 7urvey 2004, 6ational 7tatistics Office.
of reular transportation to school' is
hardly mentioned #only 2/ for elemen+
tary and 0.4/ for secondary' as a
reason for droppin out of schools.
(he reasons provided for not bein in
school by socioeconomic class reveal
interestin differences. For the bottom
20 percent with some elementary
schoolin, lac! of personal interest is
the most oft+cited reason #2&/' while
for the top 20 percent, employmentB
loo!in for wor! is the most cited
reason #23/' as seen in (able 2.
"mon those with some secondary
education, hih cost of education is the
most cited reason #24/' for the
bottom 20 percent while for the top 20
percent, employmentBloo!in for wor!
is aain the most cited reason #4./',
somethin that is certainly *uite
surprisin iven such income roup.
"nother notable piece of information in
(able 1 is that boys have hiher
dropout rates than irls, particularly
those with some secondary education.
2
:t should be emphasi>ed that this
problem has been lossed over for
years perhaps because the reconi>ed
lobal problem is that boys outperform
irls in many other countries. :t needs
to be pointed out that the difference in
the 9hilippine picture of boys bein
outperformed by the irls has already
been oin on for *uite some time. For
instance, various census and labor
force survey data show that the
proportion of adult population #2. years
and above' with collee education has
been hiher for irls than boys since
1=<.. "nd this ap is not narrowin
but widenin #Orbeta 1==.'.
(he reasons for droppin out of
school by se1 show very interestin
results.
elementary school level #22/ and
21/, respectively' despite the fact that
elementary school attendance is mostly
in public schools where there are
virtually no school fees. (his hihlihts
revealin piece of information is that
contrary to common assertion, avail+
ability of schools #lac! of school or lac!
For instance, amon those with
some elementary education, there is
a very hih proportion #41/' of boys
statin
the commonly forotten fact that there
are other costs besides school fees that
have prevented school+aed children
from attendin school. "nother
2 7ee David, "lbert, and Carreon+
Donterola #200=' for more information on
this issue.
...0oys have hiher dropout rates than irls, particularly those with
some secondary education. :t should be emphasi>ed that this
problem has been lossed over for years perhaps because the
reconi>ed lobal problem is that boys outperform irls in many
other countries. :t needs to be pointed out that the difference in
the 9hilippine picture of boys bein outperformed by the irls
has already been oin on for *uite some time.
?lementary
7chool+ae #&;11 yrs'
6umber /
7econdary
7chool+ae #12;1. yrs'
6umber /
(otal school+aed population 12,.=0,30. 100 <,3=1,212 100
9roportion attendin school 11,340,220 =4 &,==4,333 3=
9roportion not attendin school <.0,4<4 & 3=&,22. 11
6ot currently attendin by se1
Female . 3
Dale < 1.
6ot currently attendin
by income *uintile
0ottom 20/ 2. 23
%ower middle 20/ 22 22
Diddle 20/ 13 22
5pper middle 20/ 10 12
(op 20/ 4 .
Eeason
?lementary
a
/ Ean!
7econdary
b
/ Ean!
%ac! of personal interest
?conomic
$ih cost of educationB
parents cannot afford e1penses
?mploymentBloo!in for wor!
$ouse!eepin
"ccessibility of school
7chools are very farBno school
within the baranay
6o reular transportation
Others
Others
:llnessBdisability
Cannot cope with school wor!
Finished schoolin
2..1 1
22.1 2
20.3 2
=.< 4
1.3 3
0.2 =
..2 .
2.& &
2.2 <
0.2 10
1&.2 2
2=.0 2
22.1 1
12.2 4
0.4 =
0.2 10
..3 .
1.2 &
1.1 <
0.< 3
lac! of personal interest as a reason
compared with 24 percent amon irls
citin such reason #(able 4'. :n terms
of employment iven as a reason, 2&
percent of boys with some elementary
schoolin cited it while only 11 percent
or less than half of the irls mentioned
it as reason. Finally, a star! difference
is shown between irls and boys
insofar as house!eepin as a reason
for droppin out is concerned. "mon
the irls, 2& percent ave it as reason
while only less than 1 percent of the
boys cited it. (his confirms the !nown
stereotype of house!eepin roles for
irls even at an early ae and
continues to be true amon those with
some secondary education. "lso
amon those with some secondary
schoolin, economic reasons such as
employ+ mentBloo!in for wor! and
hih cost of education are the most
cited reasons for both boys and irls.
:mplications for policy
(he primary reason for dropout is lac!
of personal interest. 5nfortunately, this
particular reason is *uite comple1 and
may be due to several reasons. :t may
be due to demand+side issues such as
poor information on the value of
education. :t may also be that the poor
are very impatient
2
and do not see the
returns to education #which may only
be felt a few years down the road' as
an attractive proposition. (he reason
can also be a supply+side issue where
the education system is not producin
relevant results for school+aed
children and their families. "nd finally,
lac! of personal interest can be a
result of the interaction of demand and
supply+side
Table #. "easons for not attending school by le$el and by socioeconomic class, !!4
?lementary
a
0ottom 20/ (op
20/
7econdary
b
0ottom 20/ (op
20/
%ac! of personal interest 2..< 2<.0 1<.= 1&.0
$ih cost of educationBparents
cannot afford e1penses 24.1 11.3 24.. 13.=
?mploymentBloo!in for wor! 12.3 23.1 13.4 44.=
$ouse!eepin 12.3 3.4 1&.. 11.1
Others <.2 4.1 =.1 ..1
7chools are very farBno school
within the baranay 2.< 0.. 0.= 0.1
Cannot cope with school wor! 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.1
:llnessBdisability 1.2 ... 0.< 1.<
6o reular transportation 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2
Finished schoolin 0.0 1.0 0.& 0.3
a with some elementary education
b with some secondary education
7ource of basic dataA "nnual 9overty :ndicators 7urvey 2004, 6ational 7tatistics Office.
Table 4. "easons for not attending school by le$el and by se%, !!4
Eeasons
?lementary
a
Dale Female
7econdary
b
Dale Female
%ac! of personal interest 40.3 24.2 22.1 10.4
?mploymentBloo!in for wor! 2..= 11.0 2=.4 24.3
$ih cost of educationBparents
cannot afford e1penses 21.. 22.2 2=.= 23.2
Others 4.2 <.4 2.= <.<
Cannot cope with school wor! 2.. 2.0 1.2 0.=
:llnessBdisability 2.1 2.. 1.1 1.2
7chools are very farBno school
within the baranay 1.& 2.1 0.. 0.4
$ouse!eepin 0.= 2&.4 1.0 2..4
6o reular transportation 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2
Finished schoolin 0.2 0.1 0.& 0.3
a with some elementary education
b with some secondary education
7ource of basic dataA "nnual 9overty :ndicators 7urvey 2004, 6ational 7tatistics Office.
issues such as the accumulation of
frustrations in school because students
are not able to cope with lessons due
to poor school environment andBor
poor
household environment. 5nless we are
able to understand this comple1 issue
better, we cannot be precise on how
to deal with it.
:n this reard, only eneral proposals
can be provided at this point. One,
ma!e the education system more
relevant to the realities of the commu+
nities where the children live in. (his
can include improvin the relevance of
the curriculum and improvin
pedaoy.
Eemedial actions on students showin
(he primary reason for dropout is lac! of personal interest...:t may
be due to demand+side issues such as poor information on the
value of education. :t may also be that the poor are very impatient
and do not see the returns to education #which may only be felt a
few years down the road' as an attractive proposition. (he reason
can also be a supply+side issue where the education system is
not
poor results may also help. 7ystemati+
cally provide more resources to
schools with hih dropout rate may
also help. Finally, cooperation amon
community and schools for a
concerted effort at
producin relevant results for school+aed children and their
families .
3 $i
h discount rate.
-iven the preponderance of economic reasons for droppin out,
sustained and inclusive economic rowth would be the lon+term
solution. (he onoin conditional cash transfer prorams which
provide cash to poor families if they !eep their children in school
should be able to ma!e a dent on the dropout problem, particularly
for those citin employment or loo!in for wor! as a reason.
"nd finally, special attention to boys is
warranted in solvin the dropout
problem. (heir reasons iven)lac! of
personal interest, employment, and
loo!in for wor!)should be loo!ed into
more deeply. D
Eeferences
David, C., F. "lbert, and 7. Carreon+
Donterola. 200=. :n pursuit of
se1
implementin better truancy laws will
definitely help.
:t is interestin to note that this reason
of lac! of personal interest starts early
amon those with some elementary
education and is considerably lower
amon those with some hih school
education. (his means that if we can
only !eep children in school loner,
droppin out because of this reason
will decline. Clearly, this is the
predomi+ nant reason for boys and for
those in the bottom 20 percent income
roups. (hus, any attempt to taret
these roups would need to reconi>e
this ma,or reason.
(wo, iven the preponderance of
economic reasons for droppin out,
sustained and inclusive economic
rowth would be the lon+term solu+
tion. (he onoin conditional cash
transfer prorams which provide cash
to poor families if they !eep their
children in school should be able to
ma!e a dent on the dropout problem,
particularly for those citin employment
or loo!in for wor! as a reason. 0ut
only a riorous impact evaluation can
provide the answer on whether this
intuitively appealin hypothesis will be
validated.
9rovidin more schools may solve
other schoolin problems but it will not
be an effective tool for reducin
dropout as the nonavailability of
schools is not mentioned by many as a
reason for droppin out of school.
parityA "re irls becomin more edu+
cated than boys? 9:D7 96 200=+0..
Da!ati CityA 9hilippine :nstitute for
Development 7tudies.
$anushe!, ?., G. %avy, and H. $itomi. 200&.
Do student care about school *uality?
Determinants of dropout behaviour in
developin countries. 60?E Wor!in
9aper 12<2<. Cambride, Dassachu+
settsA 6ational 0ureau of ?conomic
Eesearch.
Orbeta, ". 1==.. 9opulation chane,
womenIs role and status and develop+
ment in the 9hilippines. 9opulation and
Development "sian 9opulation 7tudies
7eries 6o. 142. 0an!o!A ?conomic and
7ocial Commission for "sia and the
9acific.
9hilippine :nstitute
for Development
7tudies
6?D" sa Da!ati 0uildin
10& "morsolo 7treet, %easpi
Gillae 122= Da!ati City
(el. 6os.A #&2+2'
3=42.34B3=2.<0. Fa1 6os.A #&2+
2' 3=2=.3=B3=42.34
?mailA publicationsJpid s . o v .ph
WebsiteA httpABBww w .pid s . o v .ph
(he Filipino Child Policy Brief is culled from studies
under the ,oint 56:C?F+9:D7 pro,ect titled K-lobal
study on child poverty and disparitiesA 9hilippines.L :t
hihlihts specific issues on child poverty in the
9hilippines and draws out their implications for
policy.
(he author is "niceto C. Orbeta Fr., 7enior Eesearch
Fellow at the :nstitute. (he views e1pressed are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
those of 56:C?F policy or prorammes and 9:D7.