Body

1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Not completing high school negatively impacts not only the lives of those who
drop out, but also society as a whole. Young people who drop out of high school are
unlikely have the minimum skills and credentials necessary to function in today’s
increasingly complex society and technology-dependent workplace. Thus, the world
in which dropouts seek entrance will not welcome their limited knowledge and skills,
as demonstrated by their lack of a high school diploma. Moreover, dropping out not
only affects earnings, but also whether or not individuals can even obtain
employment. Baum (2004) argues that students who drop out are less likely to be
employed and will earn less over their working lives. The need for a higher skilled
labor force will make it even harder for dropouts to find good jobs.
On the other hand, a new report stated that one of the major concerns that
arise is the drop-out rates that do not seem to have gone down over the years
(UNESCO, 2012). Across the world, there are high rates of students leaving school.
Alliance of Excellent Education noted that about seven thousand students drop out
every school day in America. In the developing world, Sub-Saharan Africa sees 42
percent while 33 percent leave secondary school before reaching the last level in
South and West Asia (UNESCO, 2012).

2
In the Philippines, the 2008 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media
Survey (FLEMMS), disclosed that out of 67 million Filipinos who are 10 to 64 years
old, only 69.8% Filipinos know how to read and write and a total of 9.2 million are not
functionally literate. This pointed out that the school system is disadvantaged
because of its poor completion rate and low academic performance. In addition,
DepEd Secretary Armin Luistro noted that the dropout situation remains a serious
problem—involving six percent of total elementary enrollment in the public system
and nearly eight percent (7.79% to be exact) in public high schools (Department of
Education, 2012).
In a more specific perspective, Davao City during SY 2012 – 2013
emphasizes 46.93% (actual 4487 students) dropout rate among the Davao Region
(Region XI) Secondary Schools (BEIS, Department of Education, 2012). In addition,
the context of this study focuses more in the situation of dropouts in Sta. Ana
National High School with 8.9% rate every school year (BEIS, Department of
Education, 2012).
Concerning to the predicament, this study examines specific factors and
circumstances that led to dropping out in different gender groups, school levels, and
ethnicity. More specifically, it identifies the causes of dropping out for boys and girls,
for those in the lower and higher school levels, and for those in different tribal/ethnic
members. By comparing the reasons offered by male and female dropouts who left
school during the first and higher school levels, this report provides a detailed insight
on the unique factors that affect subgroups of dropouts and reveals various contexts
3
in which school leaving occurs. Thus, this study directs to one of the major
challenges now by how to make the appropriate dropout reduction plan (DORP) to
improve not just the quality of education but also to address one of the most
concerned problems in the maximization of the national budget in the field of
education. Furthermore, this study will help address the major problem of Sta. Ana
National High School Administration with regards to the No Dropout Policy of the
Department of Education. Likewise, it will also aware the teachers, stakeholders and
school administration on the proper remedy on the certain concerns.
Review of Related Literature
The review of the literature for this study focuses on procedures used to
define the different approaches towards the possible factors affecting the dropout of
students in the secondary level.
The chapter begins with the description made by the researcher to the
gathered literature limited up to its relevance. The researcher outcomes germane
the constructive and precise data match for the study objectives.
Related Review on Factors Associated with Dropouts
While the dropout problem has generated research and new programs over
the last 30 years, the dropout rate has remained relatively unchanged. Students
drop out of school for many reasons. The characteristics of students who dropout,
are often the same as students who do not drop out (Shannon & Bylsma, 2003).
4
The High School Dropout. Teenagers’ dropping out of high school before
completion has been a challenge for educators, parents, and employers for at least
30 years (Haycock & Huang, 2001). As minimum skill expectations have increased
at every educational and employment entry point, so has the importance of attaining
a high school diploma. Despite this trend and the increased severity of the negative
consequences of dropping out (McCaul, Donaldson, Coladarci, & Davis, 1992), for
many public school students—particularly male students from low-income or ethnic
minority families—graduating from high school has remained problematic, even as
the nation’s general educational level has increased (Dillow, 2003).
The Dropout Process. Dropping out is a process that begins well before high
school, and students exhibit identifiable warning signs at least one to three years
before they drop out (e.g., Allensworth, 2005; Neild & Balfanz, 2006; Roderick,
1994; Rumberger, 2004). Furthermore, most students who drop out tend to do so
relatively early in their high school careers. One recent study found that most
students who dropped out of the Philadelphia public schools did so by the end of the
10th grade (Neild & Balfanz, 2006). Although students in Pennsylvania do not have
the legal right to drop out until they are 17 years old, these students are referred to
as “under-credited,” meaning that they have successfully completed relatively few
courses compared to the number of years they have spent in school. This means
that they have dropped out for all practical purposes even though they are not legally
allowed to do it at that age. Furthermore, 70% of Philadelphia students classified as
“near dropouts,” or students who attend class less than 50% of the time, were in the
5
ninth or 10th grade. These students had a 45% chance of dropping out if they had
reached ninth grade, a 34% chance if they had reached tenth grade, a 23% chance
if they had reached eleventh grade, and a 16% chance if they had reached twelfth
grade (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).
Dropping Out as a Process of Disengagement. Dropping out is the
outcome of a long process of disengagement and alienation, preceded by less
severe types of withdrawal, such as truancy and course failures (Finn, 1989, 1993).
The path leading to school withdrawal begins early in a child’s school history. The
identification of potential dropouts can be accomplished during the elementary years
by reviewing student behavior, attendance, and academics (Barrington & Hendricks,
1989).
Who Drops Out of School? Before looking at who drops out of school, it is
necessary to define what it means to drop out. There are several ways of defining
and measuring dropout rates (Kaufman, Kwon, Klein, & Chapman, 1999). One way
is to view dropout as a status assessed at a particular point in time. The status of
dropout is assigned to persons who have not completed high school and who are no
longer enrolled in school or program that can lead to high school completion at a
particular point in time. Although this definition appears straightforward, it involves
determining both what it means to be enrolled and what it means to complete high
school. What it means to be enrolled can be interpreted and defined differently by
individuals and by school districts. And, as pointed out below, there are different
ways of completing high school.

6
Dropout figures reveal how many students quit school; they do not reveal how
many students actually complete it. Historically, most students have completed high
school by earning a diploma, which is typically based on completing a specified
number of credits in specified subject areas, similar to the system used in colleges to
award degrees. In addition, some schools and districts require students to pass a
competency test (Catterall, 1989). More recently, states have required students to
pass a more rigorous high school exit examination often aligned to state standards
(Heubert & Hauser, 1999).
Alternatively, innovations such as Open High School System (OHHS),
Effective Alternative Secondary Education (EASE) and School Initiated Intervention
(SII) are some of the proofs of the Bureau of Secondary Education’s (BSE) untiring
quest for better and quality education. These interventions evolved from the
outcomes of the different seminars conducted by the Secondary Schooling
Alternative (SSA) which is a component of the Secondary Education Development
Improvement Project (SEDIP) in order to address the alarming increase of the high
school dropouts nationwide.
Recent data from the Research and Statistics Division of the Department of
Education shows that the dropout rate has increased from 13.03% for the year 2002-
2003 to 14.30% for the year 2003-2004. Thus, Dropout Reduction Plan (DORP) was
conceptualized and is now into full gear.
Early School Leavers. Early school leaving has multiple origins. Previous
work points to the dynamic and cumulative process in which students accumulate
7
problems before leaving education early. This process is known as the process of
“student attrition”, which has various underlying factors. For example, students are
more likely to drop out of school if they have one or more years of retention in grade
(Plank et al., 2005), or suffer from bad health shocks (Lleras-Muney, 2005; Albouy
and Lequien, 2009; Powdthavee, 2010). In addition, Attwood and Croll (2006) and
Henry (2007) also argued the importance of lack of interest in schooling, as revealed
by truancy behavior. And, among others, Spady (1970), Tinto (1975), Jencks and
Mayer (1990), Wenger (2002) and Anderson (2010) point to the influence of the
student’s commitment to the school, peers, and teachers, and his/her motivation.
Categories of Factors or Indicators Associated with Dropping Out.
Researchers have attempted to identify who drops out of school in order to increase
understanding of the issue and help educators and policymakers develop programs,
policies and interventions that will reduce the numbers of dropouts. The factors
contributing to student drop out may be categorized into: Community Factors; Family
factors; Student demographic and individual factors; and Education and School-
related factors. These factors are closely related and interact with one another.
Community Factors: According to several researchers, Community Factors
are associated to the following factor: Urban Settings; Large Cities; Poor
communities that may influence the risk of dropping out because of a lack of
resources for schools and peer influences; and Employment opportunities.
Family Factors: On the other hand, family factors include the following
factors: (1) Low Family Income Level (Cited in Schargel & Smink, 2001, p. 21); (2)
8
Parent Unemployment; (3) History of Family Members dropping out (Schargel &
Smink, 2001); (4) Family Structure (Rumberger, 2001; MacMillan, 1991; Wolman,
Bruininks & Thurlow, 1989); (5) Family Experiencing Stress/Trauma such as financial
difficulties, divorce, abuse, parent illness or health problems (MacMillan, 1991;
Rosenthal, 1998); (6) Parenting Factors especially parents who do not monitor and
regulate their children’s activities, do not provide emotional support to their child, and
do not encourage their child’s independent decision-making; (7) Parent Involvement
in Children’s Schooling as such for parents who have little involvement in their child’s
schooling or provide low levels of support for learning; and (8) Family Mobility.
Student Demographic and Individual Factors. Student demographics,
characteristics, and/or circumstances have been associated with higher dropout
rates. Such factors includes: (1) Race/Ethnicity that notes minority students are
more likely to attend high-poverty schools that have lower levels of resources and
poorer learning environments (Rumberger, 2001); (2) Gender that emphasizes male
students, particularly representing racial/ethnically diverse groups, have higher
dropout rates than female students; (3) Disabilities such as those students with
emotional/behavioral disabilities and learning disabilities, have higher dropout rates
than students without disabilities; (4) Psychological Factors as such to students with
negative self-perceptions or low-esteem, low aspirations and low self-efficacy
(Schargel & Smink, 2001; Schwartz, 1995; Wehlage et al., 1989; West, 1991;
Shannon & Bylsma, 2003); (5) Illnesses or Alcohol/Drug Problems; (6) Student
Pregnancy; (7) Student Employment such that according to Stern (1997), “most
9
evidence indicates that high school students working more than 15 or 20 hours a
week suffer academically: they have lower grades, do less homework, are more
likely to drop out, or are less likely to complete postsecondary education.”
Furthermore, students who are employed in retail, service, manufacturing, and other
occupations are more likely to drop out than non-workers or students employed in
lawn work or odd jobs (McNeal, 1997); (8) Student’s Age in Comparison to Grade-
level Peers particularly students over-age when entering high school. In addition, the
odds of dropping out increase per each year older a student is upon entering high
school by 109% (Neild, et al 2001); (9) Peers such as students who have friends or
family members who dropped out (Schargel & Smink, 2001); (10) Student’s
Residential and School Mobility (changing homes or schools two or more times);
(11) Poor School Attendance; (12) Poor Academic Achievement such as poor
grades, history of course failure and a history of retention (repeating one or more
grades); (13) Students who receive disciplinary actions in school like those students
who are disciplined frequently, suspended or expelled by schools; (14) Student
Attitudes Toward School such as students who have negative attitudes toward
school, consider coursework irrelevant, do not like school, do not get along with
teachers or other students, do not feel they fit in (Lan & Lanthier, 2003); and (15)
Student Isolation in School like the students who have a low participation in extra-
curricular activities or students identified as socially isolated.
For all students who dropped out, school performance drops dramatically
following the transition to high school (Roderick, 1994).

10
Education and School Related Factors. Education-related factors to high
dropout rates, as researched by The National Dropout Prevention Center and cited
in Shannon & Bylsma, 2003, include: (1) Large School Size and Inappropriate
Teacher-Student Ratios; (2) Long distances and bus rides to school; (3) Poorly
Maintained School Buildings; (4) Cultural Differences between School and Home like
conflict between a student’s home and school culture, particularly between minority
and majority races/ethnicities; (5) Staff Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of teachers
and other school staff toward students such as uncaring, not interested in students
as individuals, and not helpful; (6) Schools with zero tolerance policies or ineffective
discipline systems that are considered unfair and arbitrary by students (especially if
suspensions and expulsions are used as punishment for poor attendance, tardiness,
or truancy have higher dropout rates(Smith, 1991). Ineffective approaches to
discipline problems increase the probability of dropping out more than any other
single factor (Bridge4kids, 2004); (7) High academic standards, grading practices,
and “get tough” policies to end social promotion (Wehlage, 1989); (8) High school
exit exams (Amrein & Berliner, 2002); (9) Truancy and Discipline; (10) Negative
school climate; (11) Lack of appropriate services such as lack of adequate
counseling of students; (12) Curriculum that includes lack of relevant curriculum or
superficial and poor quality curriculum, lack of language instruction for English
Language Learners and lack of curriculum that does not reflect the cultural
backgrounds of students; (13) Instruction such as tracked classes, passive
instructional strategies, inappropriate use of technology, and disregard of student

11
learning styles (Wells, 1990 cited in NDPC Quick Facts);and finally, (14) Dropout
Prevention Programs that deals with counseling, mentoring, tutoring, attendance
monitoring, and after school programs. Unfortunately, many of these programs lack
research or evaluation data to document their effectiveness (Lehr, et.al. 2004).
According to Smith (1991), “In schools where many students fail, are
retained, or are suspended or expelled, dropout rates are higher. Students therefore
do not drop out in isolation from the school; they drop out as a result of their
interaction with the teachers, administrators, peers and activities they encounter
there” (p. 44);
School-related factors positively associated with school performance and
completion rates include: (1) providing direct, individualized tutoring and support to
attend classes, stay focused on school, and complete homework assignments; (2)
participation in vocational education classes; and (3) for students with disabilities
participation in community-based work experience programs (Wagner, et.al., 1993
as cited in Lehr, et. al., 2004).
Lehr and others (2004) categorized the types of interventions according to the
following dimensions: (1) Family Outreach (e.g., strategies that include increased
feedback to parents or home visits); (2) Personal/affective (e.g. regularly scheduled
classroom-based discussions, individual counseling, participation in interpersonal
relations classes; (3) Academic (e.g., provision of special academic courses,
individualized instruction, tutoring); (4) School structure (e.g. implementation of a

12
school within a school, reduction in class sizes, creation of an alternative school);
and (5) Work related (vocational training).
Local Studies
Ensuring that students stay in school until they complete their education is a
major concern in basic education (National Education and Testing Research Center,
1990). Cohort Survival Rates (CSR) for the past 10 years has fluctuated between
60% and 80% in both elementary and secondary levels (Department of Education,
2008). These statistics mean that about between 20 to 40% of Grade 1 pupils do not
reach Grade 6; of the 60 to 75% who enter secondary school, about one-third of
them do not finish high school. If the numbers are added up, they indicate that about
half of Grade 1 pupils complete secondary level; the other half are, for one reason or
another, lost along the way.
These facts reflect a worrisome reality about the holding power of public
schools, which is further elucidated by data on dropouts. The statistics on the
national average dropout rate for each school level has remained higher than
expected (1 to 2%), sometimes as much as 2 digits. Moreover, even if dropouts re-
enter school at some point, many repeaters eventually drop out at a later time. Re-
admission seems to have little positive effect on achievement (Finnan & Chasin,
2007).
Increasing government funding has not also completely addressed the
dropout problem. Despite the general increase in allocation for education through
the past years, the dropout problem remains one of the challenges for educators.
13
Contrary to expectation, allotting more funds to public education did not necessarily
bring about substantial reduction in dropout rates. This is because increase in
budget did not match increase in population and, consequently, in enrollment. The
per capita budget has actually decreased through the years. The budget for basic
education has increased by 25 per cent from 2000 (PhP 80 M) to 2009 (PhP150M).
However, the real value of per capita cost has decreased from Php 6,000 in 2000 to
Php 4,000 in 2009 (Department of Education, 2009). Thus, increase in dropout rates
is not surprising despite increase in the budget because there have been more
students accommodated by the public schools than could be adequately financed.
Studies on dropping out have attributed the phenomenon mainly to poverty
(Barton, 2006). One extensive critical review of about 50 studies on public school
education (Barsaga, 1995) described dropouts as coming from low-income families
whose parents had little or no education, and who were unemployed or had jobs that
gave them little or irregular income. The study also identified reasons for dropping
out such as poor health due to malnutrition, distance between home and school, lack
of interest, and teacher factor. It concluded that the education system then was
―socially selective‖ since most dropouts were from socio-economically
disadvantaged backgrounds. More recent studies have revealed other intriguing
facts about dropping out. First, majority of those who stopped schooling did so
during the first two or three years of elementary and secondary education. Dropout
rates in the first 3 levels of elementary and in the first 2 levels of high school were
higher than those in other grade or year levels (Department of Education, 2006).
14
Second, gender comparisons showed that boys had higher dropout rates in both
elementary and secondary levels compared to girls (1.69% and 0.97% respectively
in the former, and 8.85% and 4.26% respectively in the latter). Among out-of-school
youth, there were also gender disparities that ― weighted against boys (UNESCO,
2005). There were 1.5 more boys who were out of school than there were girls.
Despite such information, lack of carefully planned studies on dropouts has deterred
the formulation of long-term solutions to prevent dropping out (Samuels, 2007).
In the Philippines, as in many other countries of the world, the popular
approach to dropout reduction is to provide an alternative learning system that would
allow at-risk students to complete their basic education outside of a formal school
structure. Such an approach, however, suffers from a too linear view of the problem
of school dropouts (OPS, DepEd, 2009).
The DORP was formulated to respond to the needs of students who cannot
report to class regularly because they are working either as part time or full time or
for any other reason. Research has shown and as our experience in working with
public secondary schools reveals, that the problem is brought on by a host of
factors, hence the dropout intervention cannot certainly be limited to how education
is delivered (Department of Education, 2009).
According to DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2010, issued on June 4, 2010, the
effectiveness of the Dropout Reduction Program (DORP) in reducing dropout rate, in
the attainment of zero dropout rates, in increasing participation rate and improving
learning outcomes using formal, non-formal and informal approaches has been
15
proven in many schools. Yet there are still several schools which did not implement
the DORP effectively.
Theoretical Framework
Since this study is aiming to acquire the students were dropping out from
school, this study is anchored on the following theories:
First are the five theories of Sara Battin-Pearson (2000) namely: the
Academic Mediation Theory, General Deviance Theory, Deviant Affiliation Theory,
Poor Family Socialization Theory and Structural Strains Theory. These theories
categorize the different risk factors that affect students in relation to high school
dropout. The Academic Mediation Theory examines the mediation effect of poor
academic achievement on other factors, such as deviant affiliation, personal
deviance, family socialization and structural strains, associated with school dropout.
Essentially, it looks at how poor academic achievement interacts with and affects the
relationship between high school dropout and other factors.
Battin-Pearson (2000) further emphasizes that there are few indicators on
different factors associated with school dropout. The General deviance theory
includes delinquency, drug use, early pregnancy; individual bonding with antisocial
peers; family background; low parental expectations and a parent's lack of
education; and demographic factors, such as socioeconomic status, gender and
ethnicity. Accordingly, there is a very strong relationship as general deviance is a

16
strong direct predictor of dropout beyond the effect mediated by poor academic
achievement.
Deviant Affiliation Theory of Battin-Pearson (2000) further discusses that
students receive the classification of antisocial if they are likely to drop out
themselves and/or have low school attachment. If an individual has antisocial
friends, he/she is much more likely to drop out of school regardless of how well
he/she is doing in school.
Since the institution of family appears to very formative for a developing child,
Battin-Pearson’s(2000) Poor Family Socialization theory examines the relationship
between family background and dropout rates. According to research, the
relationship is not particularly strong, as academic achievement has much more of
an influence than poor family socialization.
On the other hand, Structural Strains Theory of Battin-Pearson (2000) also
focuses on the relationship between demographic factors, such as socioeconomic
status, gender and ethnicity, and dropout. Boys are much more likely to drop out
than girls and dropouts are most likely from a family with a low socioeconomic status
(Battin-Pearson, 2000). There has been contention over the influence of ethnicity on
dropout rates. However, it is clear that it does have some influence. In some ways,
Battin-Pearson (2000) explains that low socioeconomic status is a significant
predictor of dropout beyond poor academic achievement.
Second is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) of Icek Ajzen (1991) which
states that the best predictor of behavior is one’s intention to perform that behavior.
17
In turn, intentions are determined by attitudes (evaluation of the behavior), subjective
norms (social pressure to perform the behavior), and perceived control (one’s belied
that he or she has the ability to perform the behavior). Thus far, only one study has
used this theory to predict high school dropout and it did so with great success
(Davis, Alzen, Saunders, & Williams, 2002). In this study, inner-city high school
sophomores completed a short questionnaire that assessed each of the components
of the TPB. The authors then predicted whether the students would graduate from
high school three years later. Results revealed that the participants’ responses as
sophomores significantly predicted whether they eventually graduated or dropped
out.
Finally, the last theory to which this study is anchored is the Social Cognitive
Theory of Bandura (1977). Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory emphasizes
how cognitive, behavioral, personal, and environmental factors interact to determine
motivation and behavior (Crothers, Hughes, & Morine, 2008). According to Bandura,
human functioning is the result of the interaction among all three of these factors
(Crothers et al., 2008), as embodied in his Triadic Reciprocal Determinism model
(Wood & Bandura, 1989). While it may seem that one factor is the majority, or lead
reason, there are numerous factors that play a role in human behavior. Furthermore,
the influencing factors are not of equal strength, nor do they all occur concurrently
(Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Based on social cognitive theory, Bandura, (1977) noted: “People can
develop high or low self-efficacy vicariously through other people’s performances. A

18
person can watch another perform and then compare his own competence with the
other individual’s competence. If a person sees someone similar to them succeed, it
can increase their self-efficacy. However, the opposite is also true; seeing someone
similar fail can lower self-efficacy.” In addition, Bandura (1997) emphasizes that
there are two levels of efficacy (low and high) that interact with two types of
environment (responsive and unresponsive) to produce the following four predictive
variables: Success, Depression, Apathy and helplessness, and Effort Intensification
or change of course.
Conceptual Framework
In this study, the following factors for the input-process-output are considered:
the input factors are the following: Dropout risk factors categorized as school-related
factors, individual-related factors, community-related factors and the family-related
factors in terms of: Different Curriculum levels(Grade 7, Grade 8, Third year and
Fourth Year level); Gender (Male and Female); and Ethnicity.
School-related factors are those prevalent factors that are linked with the
school. Included herein are the following: Teacher factors including strictness,
inconsideration and traditional/ineffective teaching; Insufficient school equipment or
facilities; Too many school requirements; Extensive school discipline; and Peer
influence.
19
Individual-related factors, on the other hand, are those inclined with the
learner itself as an individual. Among these factors include the following: Health
problems; Absenteeism and tardiness; Early marriage or pregnancy; Drug abuse
and gambling; Poor academic performance; Lack of interest and distractions; and
Low self-esteem.
Community-related factors are those pervasive factors that affect learners
which are community related. Included herein are the following: Distance from home
to school; Addiction in going to recreation and amusement centers such as malls
and internet shops; Unstable peace and order situations; Calamities and disasters;
and Gangs and fraternities.
Finally, the family-related factors are those indicators of risk factors that are
linked under family. These include the following: Low family income or lack of
financial support; Excessive family responsibilities; Parent’s attitude towards
schooling; Lack of parental guidance; and Broken family.
Other input factors eminent in Figure 1 are the Curriculum Levels, Gender
and Ethnicity. The four different curriculum levels namely: The Grade 7 Curriculum,
the Grade 8 Curriculum, the Third Year Curriculum and the Fourth Year Curriculum.
The Grade 7 and Grade 8 Curriculum are the levels under the new K-12 Curriculum
while the remaining two levels are still under the Secondary Education Curriculum.
These factors as a whole, hypothesized to affect the association between the
dropout risk factors and the dropout of students.

20
Figure 1 also illustrates the process and output of the study. The process
comprises a survey, a focused group discussion that will rely on the survey data, and
finally the document analysis by which qualitative and quantitative data will be
analyzed. As these processes conclude, the formulation of the output which is the
Program Enhancement and Policy Recommendation follows.
Figure 1
Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
Input Process Output
Dropout Risk
Factors  Survey  Program
 School - related  Focus Group Enhancement and
 Family - related Discussion
 Individual - Policy
 Document Recommendation
related
Analysis
 Community-
related
 Grade/Year Level
 Gender
 Ethnicity
21
Statement of the Problem
1. What is the profile of student dropouts in Sta. Ana National High School in
terms of:
a. Grade/ Year Level?
b. Gender?
c. Ethnicity?
2. What is the dominating risk factor that influence students’ dropout in terms of:
a. Grade 7 Curriculum?
b. Grade 8 Curriculum?
c. Third Year Curriculum
d. Fourth Year Curriculum?
3. Is there a significant association between dropout risk factors in terms of:
a. Grade/ Year Level?
b. Gender?
c. Ethnicity?
4. What are the possible remedies/reasons that could have prevented the
student from dropping out? What could have been their alternative decision(s)
of not dropping out?

22
Null Hypothesis
Ho1 There is no significant association between Dropout Risk Factors in terms
of Grade/Year Level.
Ho2There is no significant association between Dropout Risk Factors in terms
of Gender.
Ho3There is no significant association between Dropout Risk Factors in terms
of Ethnicity.
23
Chapter 2
METHOD
In this chapter, the researcher presented the research design, population and
sampling, instrumentation, the procedure of the study and the data analysis. This is
where the methodology of the study is being presented in a clear, efficient and
concise manner.
Research Design
This study is a research survey descriptive design that combines the
collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, 2004),since the
researcher is aiming to know the level of risk factors in Sta. Ana National High
School and to find out whether there is an association with these factors to the high
dropout of students. In addition, the researcher is utilizing multiple methods such as
in-depth interviews and intervention trials through the survey questionnaire.
Furthermore, this research design is more than simply collecting qualitative data
from interviews, or collecting multiple forms of qualitative evidence such as
observations and interviews or multiple types of quantitative evidence such as
surveys and focus group discussions. It involves the intentional collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data and the combination of the strengths of each to
24
answer research questions (Pasick et al., 2009).The design also allowed the
researcher to obtain a true picture of the present condition of the particular
phenomena.
Respondents
The study was conducted in Sta. Ana National High School, Davao City. It has
3 different campuses namely the Main Campus for Grade 7 and Third year students,
the Sales Campus for Grade 8 students and the Guerrero Campus for Fourth year
students. The secondary school students of SY 2013 – 2014 were chosen as
respondents since they are the involved individuals in the Performance of High
Dropout. In addition, the purpose of the study is to acquire the needed information
as basis for the effective implementation of Drop Out Reduction Program (DORP) in
the said school.
Sampling Design
There were 240 student respondents chosen, 60 from the Grade 7 level, 60
from the Grade 8 level, 60 from the Third Year level and 60 from the Fourth year
level. These student respondents were selected using the Purposive Sampling.
Those students who were dropout from the past school years and have repeated the
25
grade/year level were considered. The students who were identified as respondents
have the status - Repeater or “Balik-aral”.
Research Instruments
There is only one questionnaire used in this study. It is a survey questionnaire
(see Appendix I) that was researcher – made that have undergone to validation and
pilot testing. As for the validity of the questionnaire, the researcher presented the
questionnaire to the four (4) Master Teachers from the different departments and one
Head Teacher who is eventually the Administrative Officer of Sta. Ana National High
School (See Appendix F) to ensure that the assessed respondents are met by the
test items. On the other hand, as for the pilot testing, the researcher conducted the
survey in Davao City National High School (DCNHS) with 10 respondents
(repeaters) per grade/year level with the consent of the School Divisions
Superintendent and DCNHS Principal (See Appendices C and D). Item analysis was
also employed.
The questionnaire is a one-page survey sheet that is composed of three (3)
questions that answer an objective, a multiple-choice and an open-ended question
respectively. In addition, the questionnaire was transcribed to Visayan dialect to
acquire more understanding on the part of the respondents. In the statistical
analyses, Frequency Distribution, Percentages and Chi – Square test were used.
26
Data Gathering Procedure
The conduct of the study began during the first week of June and hopefully
will end after the 3rdGrading Period of the said school. This duration was considered
in order to prepare for the availability of the respondents and to cater possible
problems that would happen during the conduct of the study.
In the conduct of the study, the researcher made an endorsement letter and
certification signed by the Dean of USEP College of Education (See Appendices A
and B) to be submitted to the Office of Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) and
an approval letter signed by the SDS (See Appendix C), requesting Davao City
National High School (DCNHS) as a Pilot Testing Center for the Survey
Questionnaire and Sta. Ana National High School (SANHS) to conduct the study.
Once being approved, the researcher then asks the School Principal of
DCNHS (See Appendix D) and SANHS (See Appendix E) the permission to conduct
pilot testing and survey respectively. Once approved, the researcher then proceeds
to the School’s Guidance Office to gather data for dropout and names of the
students with the status of Repeater who eventually will become the respondents of
this study. Only 10 students per grade/year level were asked by the researcher in
DCNHS for Pilot Testing while 60 students per grade/year level were asked in
SANHS for the conduct of this study resulting to 40 respondents for the Pilot Testing
and 240 respondents for the actual conduct of the study.

27
The survey questionnaire is a long bond paper sheet having only three (3)
questions. Each question represents an objective, multiple choice and open-ended
answers respectively. Respondents were asked to answer the survey questionnaire
truthfully.
Once all data have been gathered, the researcher is ready for document and
data analysis.
Data Analysis
The researcher has considered the following statistical tools to answer the
problems of the study:
1. Frequency distribution and Percentage are considered for the profile of the
respondents with the other factors namely grade/year level, gender and ethnicity that
influenced the high dropout of students since the researcher aims to show a
summarized grouping of data from the conducted survey. These are computed by
the researcher manually. In addition, these statistical tools were also used in
determining the dominant risk factors that influence students’ dropout in the different
grade/year levels.
2. Chi-Squared Test is used to know the significant association of the dropout risk
factors namely: school-related factors, individual-related factors, community-related
factors, and family-related factors, to the high dropout of students in each particular
grade/year level, gender and ethnicity. Chi-Squared Test is appropriate for this study
28
since it is designed to establish whether or not an observed frequency distribution
differs from a theoretical distribution and assesses whether paired observations on
two variables, expressed in a contingency table, are independent with each other
(Pearson, 1900). This test was computed through a statistical software.
In addition, a margin of error of 0.05 is used in the analysis of data to know the
significance of its relationship.
3. Since the study is also a research descriptive design, as for the last problem
statement, the researcher used the semantic analysis through the Survey
Questionnaire and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to determine the possible
alternatives and options that the respondents could have done to prevent from
dropping out. The semantic content was drawn from the raw data. These are the
statements made by the respondents in answering question no. 4 in the survey
questionnaire.
29
Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Document Analysis on Students’ Dropout in SANHS
Appendix G shows a summarized report of Sta. Ana National High School on
promotions for SY 2012 - 2013 with four consolidated report on each grade/year
level. This annual report illustrates consolidated dropout distribution, student
retention, and student promotions with respect to grade/year level and gender. This
is supported by the consolidated documents in each grade/year level being prepared
by the different curriculum heads which was noted by the campus heads and school
statistician as well as approved by the school principal. It was written right after the
SY 2012 – 2013 specifically after the teacher-advisers finished their student annual
reports. The School Statistician, Mrs. Rosalina A. Pelos, was the author of this
summarized report and this was approved by the School Principal.
In addition, this document was written to be submitted to the Schools
Divisions Office as part of the annual Division Report which in turn be consolidated
together with other school reports and be submitted to the Regional Office XI. The
purpose of this document is to illustrate the factual numbers of student dropouts,
retention and promotions in the SY 2012 – 2013. This is important to analyze
whether the Dropout Reduction Program (DORP) and other DepEd Policies where
implemented effectively.
30
Based on the report (see Appendix G), the total number of dropped students
for the SY 2012 – 2013 is 625 out of 7088 students or 8.82 percent in the said
school. This is quite alarming since this number of students can form at least 12
sections of 50 students each in the said school year. However, this report doesn’t
even affirms the DepEd policy of Zero Dropout.
Document Analysis on DepEd Region XI Dropout Rate
On the other hand, Appendix H shows the Government Secondary School
Number of Dropout by the Enhanced Basic Education System which was
aggregated by each Division in the Davao Region for the SY 2012 – 2013. This was
an annual report prepared by Linda Antiporta, Administrative Officer II of DepEd
Regional Office XI. It was written after the division offices of Davao region submitted
the consolidated report on Number of Dropouts. This report was intended for the
analysis of school leaving in a regional perspective as well as a consumption of the
DepEd Central Office for the National Report on Dropout.
Based on this report, among the different schools divisions in the Davao
region, Davao City have accumulated the highest percentage of dropouts with a total
of 4487 students out of 9561 dropouts or 46.93 percent. This, in fact is considered to
build an average secondary school with almost 90 sections of 50 students each.

31
As a whole, the effective implementation of Dropout Reduction Plan is truly
needed, thus program enhancements and recommendations must be formulated
and established.
The Dropout Respondents
In this study, Profile of Dropout Respondents stands to be the Moderators.
These moderators are categorized into two factors namely Gender and Ethnicity.
These basically are essential in testing the null hypotheses of the study.
Gender Profile. Part A of Table 1 shows that there were 185 or 77.08 percent
male dropout respondents and the female were 55 or 22.92 percent among the 240
respondents with 60 respondents from each grade/year level curriculum. In addition,
this predominance of male occur in each grade/year level curriculum with 47
(78.33%), 48 (80%), 44 (73.33%) and 46 (76.67%) respondents in Grade 7, Grade
8, Third Year and Fourth Year Curriculum respectively. This indicates that males
dominate in the High Dropout Rate of students in Sta. Ana National High School.
The result substantiates the study conducted by Allensworth (2005), Roderick (1994)
and Rumberger (2004) where being male is one of the demographic factors
associated with dropping out of high school. In addition, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) revealed that boys drop out of school only slightly more
than girls.
32
Ethnicity Profile. As to the respondents’ ethnicity, Part B of Table 1’s
distribution shows that 191 or 79.6 percent dropout respondents were Cebuanos
compared to the other tribes consisting of Boholano, Ilocano, Manobo, Ilonggo,
Tausug, Kalagan, Maranao, Tagalog, Waray and Maguindanaoan with 49 or 20.4
percent respectively. Based on the result, it is inferred that dropped out students in
Sta. Ana National High School are mostly Cebuanos. This result is however in
contrast to the study of Allensworth (2005), Roderick (1994) and Rumberger (2004)
which points out that members of racial or ethnic minority group yields higher
dropout rate than those members belong in the majority group. In addition,
Cebuanos in the Philippines are considered to be one of the majority groups.
Table 1. Profile of Dropout Respondents
Moderators Frequency Distribution

A. Gender Grade 7 % Grade 8 % 3rd Year % 4th Year % Total %
1 Male 47 78.33 48 80.00 44 73.33 46 76.67 185 77.08
2 Female 13 21.67 12 20.00 16 26.67 14 23.33 55 22.92
B. Ethnicity Grade 7 % Grade 8 % 3rd Year % 4th Year % Total %
1 Cebuano 46 76.67 45 75.00 53 88.33 47 78.33 191 79.6
2 Others 13 23.33 15 15.00 6 11.67 15 22.67 49 20.4
N 60 100.00 60 100.00 60 100.00 60 100.00 240 100.00
Dropout Risk Factors in Different Grade/Year Levels
Dropout Risk Factors are categorized into four related factors namely:
school–related factors (SRF), individual-related factors (IRF), community-related
factors (CRF) and family-related factors (FRF). In this study, each risk factor is
divided into at least five (5) indicators in order to fully express the reasons why
students in each grade/year level tend to drop out from schooling.

33
Table 2 shows that there are five (5) indicators in each dropout risk factor
except from the Individual related factors (IRF) with seven (7) indicators. It is also
clear in the table that other indicators are listed based on the respondents’
perspectives hence these indicators are stated by them. In addition, it appears that
only one indicator from each risk factor dominate among the other indicators. These
are: Peer Influence of SRF, Absenteeism and Tardiness of IRF, Addiction in going to
amusement/recreation centers of CRF and Lack of Financial Support of FRF. These
four (4) indicators tend to interchange only in the distribution ranking in the different
grade/year levels. The result is quite similar to the study of DepEd’s Analysis on
Dropout Reduction Plan (DORP) of the 15 Secondary Education Development and
Improvement Project (SEDIP) Divisions (2004) where Absenteeism and Tardiness is
caused by dating, Peer Influence/barkadahan, Playing amusement games during
classes and even indulging in different vices.
To be more specific, Table 2 illustrates that Addiction in going to
amusement/recreation centers of CRF with 33 (55%) top notched in the Grade 7
Curriculum dropouts but is only higher than Absenteeism and Tardiness of IRF with
32 (53.33%) followed by Peer Influence of SRF with 27 (45%) respondents.
On the other hand, Grade 8 Curriculum and Third Year Curriculum have the
same ranking of these indicators however it seems that Peer Influence of SRF have
influenced the respondents more with 39 (65%) and 41 (68.33%) than the Addiction
in going to amusement/recreation centers with 33 (55%) and 34 (56.67%)

34
respectively. These indicators then followed by Absenteeism and Tardiness of IRF in
the third with 24 (40%) and 27 (45%) respectively.
Finally, in the Fourth Year Curriculum, Table 2 shows the same rank of two
indicators have occurred namely Absenteeism and Tardiness of IRF and Addiction in
going to amusement/recreation centers with both 33 (55%) followed by Peer
Influence of SRF with 30 (50%) in the third.
In addition, Table 2 also shows that among the four (4) grade/year levels,
Lack of Financial Support of FRF rank as fourth indicator students’ dropout with 24
(40%), 22 (36.67%), 26 (43.33 %) and 19 (31.67%) respectively. This also affirms to
the study of DepEd DORP of SEDIP Divisions (2004) that stressed Lack of Financial
Support as a result of parents focus on spending more time finding ways and means
to sustain their needs. In other words, parents tend to neglect their parental
responsibilities towards their children’s education because they are preoccupied with
other activities to augment their family income.

35
Table 2. Distribution of Dropout Risk Factors in Different Grade/Year Levels
DROPOUT RISK FACTORS Frequency Distribution

Grade Grade 3rd 4th
% % % % Total %
School-related Factors 7 8 Year Year
1 Teacher factor 8 13.33 4 6.67 10 16.67 13 21.67 35 14.58
Insufficient School
2 6 10.00 6 10.00 7 11.67 3 5.00 22 9.17
Equipment/facilities
3 Too many School Requirements 6 10.00 10 16.67 4 6.67 10 16.67 30 12.50
4 Extensive School Discipline 7 11.67 5 8.33 10 16.67 7 11.67 29 12.08
5 Peer Influence 27 45.00 39 65.00 41 68.33 30 50.00 137 57.08
Individual-related Factors
1 Health Problems 9 15.00 3 5.00 9 15.00 8 13.33 29 12.08
2 Absenteeism and Tardiness 32 53.33 24 40.00 27 45.00 33 55.00 116 48.33
3 Early Marriage/Pregnancy 0 0.00 1 1.67 1 1.67 5 8.33 7 2.92
4 Drug Abuse and Gambling 3 5.00 4 6.67 3 5.00 3 5.00 13 5.42
5 Poor Academic Performance 10 16.67 12 20.00 9 15.00 13 21.67 44 18.33
6 Lack of Interest/Distractions 12 20.00 11 18.33 14 23.33 11 18.33 48 20.00
7 Low Self-esteem 7 11.67 20 33.33 14 23.33 8 13.33 49 20.42
Community-related Factors
1 Distance from home to school 11 18.33 13 21.67 12 20.00 7 11.67 43 17.92
Addiction in going to amusements/
2 33 55.00 33 55.00 34 56.67 33 55.00 133 55.42
recreation centers
3 Unstable peace and order situation 3 5.00 2 3.33 3 5.00 4 6.67 12 5.00
4 Calamities/Disasters 3 5.00 5 8.33 5 8.33 2 3.33 15 6.25
5 Gangs/Fraternities 9 15.00 10 16.67 13 21.67 16 26.67 48 20.00
Family-related Factors
1 Lack of Financial Support 24 40.00 22 36.67 26 43.33 19 31.67 91 37.92
2 Excessive Family Responsibilities 7 11.67 5 8.33 5 8.33 8 13.33 25 10.42
3 Parent's attitude towards schooling 5 8.33 12 20.00 10 16.67 6 10.00 33 13.75
4 Lack of Parental Guidance 5 8.33 10 16.67 10 16.67 10 16.67 35 14.58
5 Broken Family 9 15.00 12 20.00 15 25.00 9 15.00 45 18.75
36
Significant Association between Dropout Risk Factors and Grade/Year Level
Among the 22 different indicators categorized into five dropout risk factors,
only the indicators: Peer Influence of School-related factors (see Table3), Early
Marriage/Pregnancy of Individual-related factors (see, Table 4) and Low Self-esteem
of IRF (see, Table 5) are considered to have an association with the students’
dropout in terms of grade/year level.
Table 3 Part A indicates that, on average, 34 respondents affirmed that Peer
Influence of School-related Factors (SRF) is associated with dropout in terms of
grade/year level. The rate for Grade 7 was below average and the rate of Third year
was above average. As can be seen by the frequencies cross tabulated in Table 3
Part B, there is a significant association between risk factors and dropout in terms of
grade/year level, X2(3, N=240) = 9.439, p<.05.
On the other hand, indicators namely Early Marriage/Pregnancies and Low
Self-Esteem of Individual-related factors also happened to be significantly
associated with dropout in terms of grade/year levels (see Table 4 and Table 5). As
indicated in Table 4 Part B, the calculated X 2(3, N=240) = 8.682, p < .05. This means
that fourth year students are exposed more in early marriage/pregnancies compared
to the other grade/year level as shown in Part A of Table 4. Furthermore, Table 5 also
shows that Low Self-esteem is significantly associated with the dropout in terms of
grade/year level. It is supported in Table 5 Part B with the calculated X 2 (3,N=240) =
11.155, p<.05. This signifies that Grade 8 students experienced Low Self-esteem
compared to other grade/year levels. Additionally, these indicate that the values,
37
0.034and 0.011 for Early Marriage/Pregnancies and Low Self-Esteem are significant.
This suggest that the null hypothesis, Ho 1 (there is no significant association of
dropout risk factors in terms of grade/year level) can be rejected.
Using the Chi-Square test procedure, the researcher determined that the
respondents’ affirmation (yes) on these indicators as reasons for dropout was not
constant over the course of an average grade/year level. This was primarily due to
more Third year students were influenced by Peers, more Fourth Year students
underwent Early Marriage/Pregnancies and more Grade 8 students experienced
Low Self-Esteem. When test’s range was restricted to grade/year levels, the affirmed
(yes) rates appeared to be more uniform.
Table3. Peer Influence of SRF in terms of Grade/Year Level
Part A. Crosstab
Grade/Year Level
Grade Grade Third Fourth Total
7 8 Year Year
Count 33 21 19 30 103
Expected Count 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 103.0
no
% within
55.0% 35.0% 31.7% 50.0% 42.9%
Peer Grade/Year Level
Influence Count 27 39 41 30 137
Expected Count 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 137.0
yes
% within
45.0% 65.0% 68.3% 50.0% 57.1%
Grade/Year Level
Count 60 60 60 60 240
Expected Count 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 240.0
Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Grade/Year Level
38
Part B. Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.439a 3 .024
Likelihood Ratio 9.510 3 .023
Linear-by-Linear
.410 1 .522
Association
N of Valid Cases 240
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 25.75.
Table 4. Early Marriage/Pregnancy in terms of Grade/Year Level
Part A. Crosstab
Grade/Year Level
Grade Grade Third Fourth Total
7 8 Year Year
Count 60 59 59 55 233
Expected
58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 233.0
Count
no
% within
Grade/Year 100.0% 98.3% 98.3% 91.7% 97.1%
Early Marriage/ Level
Pregnancy Count 0 1 1 5 7
Expected
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 7.0
Count
yes
% within
Grade/Year 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 8.3% 2.9%
Level
Count 60 60 60 60 240
Expected
60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 240.0
Count
Total
% within
Grade/Year 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Level
39

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
6.594 1 .010
Association
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.75.
Table 5. Low Self Esteem in terms of Grade/Year Level

Part A. Crosstab
Grade/Year Level Total
Grade Grade Third Fourth
7 8 Year Year
Count 53 40 46 52 191
Expected Count 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 191.0
no
% within
88.3% 66.7% 76.7% 86.7% 79.6%
Low Self Grade/Year Level
Esteem Count 7 20 14 8 49
Expected Count 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 49.0
yes
% within
11.7% 33.3% 23.3% 13.3% 20.4%
Grade/Year Level
Count 60 60 60 60 240
Expected Count 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 240.0
Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Grade/Year Level
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
.046 1 .830
Association
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.25.
40
Significant Association between Dropout Risk Factors and Gender
Among the 22 different indicators categorized into five dropout risk factors,
only the indicators: Early Marriage/Pregnancy of Individual-related factors (see,
Table 6), Addiction in going to amusements/recreation centers of Community-related
factors (see, Table 7) and Broken Family of Family-related factors (see, Table 8) are
considered to have an association with the students’ dropout in terms of gender.
Table 6 Part A indicates that Early Marriage/Pregnancy of Individual-related
factors (IRF) is associated with dropout in terms of gender. The rate for Male was
below average and the rate of Female was above average. Table 6 Part B indicates
that the calculated value X2(1, N=240) = 9.606, p<.05. Because the significance level
is 0.002 thus, Ho2 (there is no significant association of dropout risk factors in terms
of gender) can be rejected.
On the other hand, Table 7 Part A indicates that, on average, 103 male
respondents and 31 female respondents affirmed that Addiction in going to
amusements/recreation centers of Community-related factors (CRF) is a reason for
dropout. The association between these variables was significant, X 2 (1, N=240) =
6.864, p<.05. The rate for Male students was above average and the rate of Female
students was below average. Because the level (0.009) is significant, thus, H 1 (there
is no significant association of dropout risk factors in terms of gender) can be
rejected.
Finally, indicator Broken Family of Family-related factors (FRF) also
happened to be significantly associated with dropout in terms of gender since the

41
calculated X2(1, N=240) =5.008, p<.05 as indicated in Table 8 Part B. This means
that male students have experienced broken family more compared to the female
students as shown in Part A of Table 8. This suggest that the null hypothesis, Ho 2
(there is no significant association of dropout risk factors in terms of gender) can be
rejected.
respondents’ affirmation (yes) on Early Marriage/Pregnancies, Addiction in going to
amusements/recreation centers and Broken Family as reasons for dropout was not
constant over the course of an average gender status. This was primarily due to
more Female students experienced more on Early Marriages/Pregnancies, more
Male students undergo on Addiction in going to amusements/recreation centers and
on Broken Family. When test’s range was restricted in terms of gender, the affirmed
(yes) rates appeared to be more uniform.
Table 6. Early Marriage/Pregnancy in terms of Gender
Part A. Crosstab
Gender Total
Male Female
Early Count 183 50 233

Marriage/Pregnancy
Expected
no 179.6 53.4 233.0
Count
% within
98.9% 90.9% 97.1%
Gender
yes Count 2 5 7
Expected 5.4 1.6 7.0
Count
42
% within
1.1% 9.1% 2.9%
Gender
Count 185 55 240
Expected
Total 185.0 55.0 240.0
Count
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gender
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Continuity Correctionb 6.985 1 .008
Linear-by-Linear
9.566 1 .002
Association
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.60.
Table 7. Addiction in going to amusements in terms of Gender

Part A. Crosstab
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 74 33 107
no Expected Count 82.5 24.5 107.0
Addiction in going to % within Gender 40.0% 60.0% 44.6%
amusements Count 111 22 133
yes Expected Count 102.5 30.5 133.0
% within Gender 60.0% 40.0% 55.4%
Count 185 55 240
Total Expected Count 185.0 55.0 240.0
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
43

(2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
6.835 1 .009
Association
Table 8. Broken Family in terms of Gender

Part A. Crosstab
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 156 39 195

no Expected Count 150.3 44.7 195.0
Broken % within Gender 84.3% 70.9% 81.2%

Family Count 29 16 45
yes Expected Count 34.7 10.3 45.0
% within Gender 15.7% 29.1% 18.8%
Count 185 55 240
Total Expected Count 185.0 55.0 240.0
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Value df Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)
44

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.987 1 .026
Significant Association between Dropout Risk Factors and Ethnicity
In terms of Ethnicity as an association dropout risk factors in students’
dropout, only the indicators: Too many School Requirements of School-related
factors (see, Table 9) and Calamities/Disasters of Community-related factors (see,
Table 10) are considered to have significant association with the students’ dropout in
terms of ethnicity.
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the association
between the risk factors and students’ ethnicity. The association between these
variables was significant, X 2 (1, N=240) = 5.572, p<.05. Table 9 Part A indicates that,
on average, 19 Cebuano students and 11 students on other tribes affirmed that Too
many school requirements of School-related factors (SRF) is associated with
dropout in terms of ethnicity. The actual rate for Cebuano students was below
average and the rate of students from other tribe was above average.
On the other hand, Table 10 Part A indicates that Calamities/Disasters of
Community-related factors (CRF) is also associated with dropout in terms of
ethnicity. The actual rate for Cebuano students was very average compared to the
rate of students from other tribes which was completely nothing or zero. Table 7 Part
45
B indicates that the calculated X 2(1, N=240) = 4.105, p<.05 was significant. Since
the significance level (0.043) is lower than the rejection threshold of 0.05, Ho 3 (there
is no significant association of dropout risk factors in terms of ethnicity) can be
rejected.
respondents’ affirmation (yes) on too many school requirements and
calamities/disasters as reasons for dropout was not constant over the course of an
average ethnicity status. This was primarily due to more Cebuano students have the
hard time on dealing too many school requirements and no students from the other
tribes considered calamities/disasters as reasons for dropout. When test’s range
was restricted in terms of ethnicity, the affirmed (yes) rates appeared to be more
uniform.
Table 9. Too many School Requirements in terms of Ethnicity
Part A. Crosstab
Ethnicity Total
Cebuano Others
Count 172 38 210
Expected
167.1 42.9 210.0
no Count
% within
90.1% 77.6% 87.5%
Too many School Ethnicity
Requirements Count 19 11 30
Expected
23.9 6.1 30.0
yes Count
% within
9.9% 22.4% 12.5%
Ethnicity
Total Count 191 49 240
46
Expected
191.0 49.0 240.0
Count
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Ethnicity
47

(2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
5.549 1 .018
Association
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
6.13.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Table 10. Calamities/Disasters in terms of Ethnicity
Part A. Crosstab
Ethnicity Total
Cebuano Others
Count 176 49 225

Expected
no 179.1 45.9 225.0
Count
% within
92.1% 100.0% 93.8%
Ethnicity
Calamities/Disasters
Count 15 0 15
Expected
yes 11.9 3.1 15.0
Count
% within
7.9% 0.0% 6.2%
Ethnicity
Total Count 191 49 240
Expected 191.0 49.0 240.0
Count
48
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Ethnicity

(2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear
4.088 1 .043
Association
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
3.06.
Other reasons for dropping out and their alternative remedies to prevent it
As stated, the repeaters/Balik-aral students are the subject of this study to
prove the actual indicators or reasons for school leaving. This is justified why some
parallel information about them were asked for in the course of this research as
disclosed in the following questionnaires (Appendices I and J) and was consolidated
in Table 11.
The information revealed about the other reasons for student dropout and
their alternative remedies in preventing it were given primarily by the respondents
themselves. Table 11 Part A illustrates that the most frequent other indicator not
listed in the survey questionnaire was due to employment. In each grade/year level,
at least one respondent or an average of 3 respondents say that employment is one

49
reason for dropout. This result affirms the study of Nava (2009) that notes that 50%
of her respondents regardless of age and gender dropout due to financial problems
in which in turn had to work to sustain their needs and finances. This, in addition,
substantiates the earlier findings that poverty is the major cause of school leaving
(Nava, 2009).
Another part of Table 11 (Part B) shows the alternative decisions/remedies of
students in order to prevent from dropping out or school leaving. Basically, these are
the responses given by the respondents on the Focused Group Discussion (FGD)
conducted by the researcher. As shown in Table 11, the data revealed that the top
five prevalent alternative decisions/remedies given by the respondents in order to
prevent from dropping out are: (1) Focus on Studies; (2) Self-realization on
success/poverty; (3) Self-realization to family role; (4) Anxiety of being left behind
and; (5) Avoid absenteeism and tardiness.
Of the 240 respondents, 59 respondents or almost 25 percent cited focus on
studies as a primary alternative remedy to prevent from dropping it. This in fact
shows that no one can help the students except their own effort in schooling.
Second and third alternative remedies are the self-realization of students on
success/poverty and their role in the family which are indications that the students
need to think maturely for future benefits not only for self but also for his/her family’s
welfare.
The fourth alternative remedy is anxiety of being left behind as cited by three
different grade/year levels but zero responses in the fourth year level. This is
50
expected since most of the fourth year students are focused to graduate than
considering of being left behind. In addition, this is eminent to lower levels since they
actually see their classmates promoted in the next level because they are
accommodated in the same school.
Also included in the top five alternative remedies to prevent from dropping out
is avoiding absenteeism and tardiness in which teacher factor and peer influence
can actually affect thus teacher must motivate and innovate teaching strategies to
maximize student attendance and participation.
Other remedies cited are working while studying, avoiding bad influence and
cutting classes and proving self-worth.

51
Table 11. Other reasons for dropout and their alternative remedies
Part A. Other indicators for dropout Grade 7 Grade 8 3rd year 4th year Total
1 Employment 1 2 3 6 12
2 bullied by school mates 0 0 1 0 1
3 accused by teachers 0 0 0 1 1
4 death of a parent 0 0 0 1 1
5 parent harassment 0 0 0 1 1
6 student curiosity on other things 0 0 0 1 1
Part B. Remedies for preventing dropping out Grade 7 Grade 8 3rd year 4th year Total
1 focus on studies 9 14 12 24 59
2 self-realization on success/poverty 12 7 11 12 42
3 self-realization to family role 12 13 8 7 40
4 anxiety of being left behind 6 14 7 0 27
5 avoid absenteeism and tardiness 6 6 2 3 17
6 be a working student 2 2 2 10 16
7 avoid bad influence 3 8 2 1 14
8 avoid cutting classes 2 1 2 3 8
9 proving self-worth 2 0 4 1 7
10 no chance left for me 2 1 2 1 6
11 being optimistic always 0 2 2 1 5
12 change teachers' attitude on students 1 0 0 1 2
13 repay on parent's efforts 1 0 0 1 2
14 learning from mistakes 0 0 1 1 2
15 reminding the effects of not doing anything 0 0 3 0 3
16 have counselling when depressed 0 0 1 1 2
thinking that there's nothing worth doing than
17 this 1 0 0 0 1
18 let teacher understand financial problems 1 0 0 0 1
19 transfer school with near distance from home 1 0 0 0 1
20 be good to teachers 1 0 0 0 1
21 change school to start fresh 1 0 0 0 1
22 transfer school with near distance from home 1 0 0 0 1
23 ask others for financial support 0 0 1 0 1
24 looking forward for college life 0 0 1 0 1
25 avoid conflicts 0 0 1 0 1
26 manage time on leisure 0 0 0 1 1
27 resolving family issues 0 1 0 1 2
52
Chapter 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the different risk factors that affect
students’ dropout in Sta. Ana National High School (SANHS). A research survey
descriptive design with the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was
followed by the researcher. Hence, a self-made survey questionnaire was created
that have undergone validation by experts of SANHS and pilot testing in Davao City
National High School. The study sought to find out the primary indicators of risk
factors in students dropout. Specifically, this study aimed to find out whether these
risk factors are associated with the high dropout of students in terms of grade/year
level, gender and ethnicity. Finally, this study determined various alternative
decisions/remedies of students to prevent them from dropping out.
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions are advanced:
1. In general, the high dropout of students in Sta. Ana National High School
were male as well as belong to the Cebuano tribe.

2. The repeaters of Sta. Ana National High School in general considered Peer
Influence of School-related factors as the primary indicator for dropping out

53
followed by Addiction in going to amusements/recreation centers of
Community-related factors. It is then preceded by Absenteeism and Tardiness
of Individual-related factors and finally by Lack of Financial Support of Family-
related factors in the fourth rank.

3. In terms of grade/year level, only the School-related factors particularly Peer
Influence and Individual-related factors particularly Early Marriage/Pregnancy
and Low Self-esteem influenced high dropout. Family-related factors and
School-related factors have do not affect with high dropout of students in
terms of grade/year level.

4. In terms of gender, Individual-related factors particularly Early
Marriage/Pregnancies, Community-related factors especially Addiction in
going to amusements/recreation centers and Family-related factors
particularly Broken Family have a significant association with high dropout of
students. School-related factors, however don’t have any significant
association with high dropout in terms of gender.

5. In terms of ethnicity, too many School Requirements of School-related factors
and Calamities/Disasters of Community-related factors are the only indicators
that caused significant association to high dropout of students. In contrast,
Individual-related factors and Family-related factors happened to have no
significant association with high dropout in terms of ethnicity.

6. Focus on studies, Self-realization on success, poverty and family role, anxiety
of being left behind and avoiding absenteeism and tardiness were the primary
alternative remedies of students to stay in the educational system. Most of
these are psychological efforts for students however avoiding absenteeism

54
and tardiness can be helped by teachers’ efforts through innovative teaching
strategies and motivation to the students.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered:
1. Sta. Ana National High School, in general, must consider the following
possible school interventions to maximize students participation and lessen
dropout rate of students:

a. English Bridge and Math-Sci Plus for students who have less than 80%
final grade in the English, Math and Science subjects on the previous
school year. This will commence immediately on the first month of the
new school year.

b. Building School DORP Committee – these are teachers who shall be in
charge with organizing, designing and implementing the School DORP.

c. Incentives for Attendance and Punctuality – giving awards to students
who completed a whole month of schooling without any incident of
absenteeism and tardiness.

d. 100% Withholding Power Award – an award given to teacher-advisers
that have 100% completion rate of their advisory class for the whole
school year.
e. One-club One-student Program – a program promoting students to
participate at least one school-based club and other co-curricular
activities to keep students’ interest in schooling.

55
f. Peer Tutorial or Service Learning – peer teaching tutorial program
wherein excelling students are tapped as tutors for struggling students in
their levels. Peer tutors will be given certificates and recognitions.

g. School-Community Collaboration – planning activities that promote
supportive environment for youth.

h. Building a Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan including conflict
resolution to deal with potential violence and crisis management.

i. Family Engagement Plan – plan that involves parents towards learning
experiences of their children.

j. Teacher Orientation on DORP, Project EASE, SSI and OI – an annual in
service training of teachers to remind that certain programs and projects
exist to prevent student dropout.

k. Evaluation on School Secureness and Discipline – annual assessment on
student access in entering and going out of school.

2. Following Programs that exist in the School must be given more emphasis
and work to cater the maximize student awareness on school policies for the
welfare of students:
a. Parent and Student Orientation at the beginning of the school year.
b. Enhancement Seminars for teachers – training teachers in different
teaching strategies to develop the multiple intelligence and diverse
learning styles of students as well as creating a conducive atmosphere.

c. Remedial Classes – teachers provide remedial classes to students at risk
of failing or dropping out.

d. Sunday Schools – students who are working can enrolled in Sunday high
school to continue their schooling.

e. Alternative Learning System (ALS) – students 15 years old and above
are encourage to enroll in this system and take the Philippine Educational
Placement Test (TEST) for educational status acceleration.

56
f. Guidance Programs Implementations

g. Monthly Parent-Teacher Conference – a conference between teacher and
parents that deals with the updates of students’ performance.

h. Home visitation of teachers.
3. A similar study should be conducted extending the limitation and scope of
the study like conducting it in a cluster wide or division wide perspective.

57
58
59
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50, 179–211.
Albouy, V. and Lequien, L. (2009). Does compulsory education lower mortality?

Journal of Health Economics. 28(1), 155-168
Allensworth, E.M. (2005). Dropout Rates after High-Stakes Testing in Elementary

School: A Study of the Contradictory Effects of Chicago’s Efforts to End
Social Promotion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 27(4), 341-
364
Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative
consequences of high stakes testing. Mesa, AZ: Education Policy Studies
Laboratory, Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/PESL0-211-125-EPRU.pdf
Anderson, D. J. (1998). If You Let Me Play: The effects of participation in high school
athletics on student’s behavior and economic success. Cornell University,
Ph.D. Dissertation.
Annesi, J.J., & J.L. Unruh (2004). Effects of a cognitive behavioral treatment protocol
on the drop-out rates of exercise participants in 17 YMCA facilities of six
cities. Psychol Rep. 2004 Aug;95(1):250-6.
Attwood, G. and Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school pupils: prevalence,

trajectories and pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education 21(4), 467-
484.
Balfanz, R. (2007, August 16). Locating and transforming the low performing high
schools which produce the nation‘s dropouts. Retrieved from John Hopkins
University, Center for Social Organization of Schools Website:
http://www.all4ed.org/files/Balfanz.pdf
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating
behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125-
139. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.125
Bandura, A. (1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

60
Barrington, B.L. & Hendricks, B. (1989). Differentiating characteristics of high school

graduates, dropouts, and non-graduates. Journal of Education Research,
89(6), 309-319.
Barsaga, E.B. (1995). The holding power of the elementary education system in the
Philippines. Quezon City: Innotech.
Barton, P.E. (2006). The dropout problems: Losing ground. Educational Leadership,
63, 5, 14-18.
Battin-Pearson, Sara (2000). "Predictors of Early High School Dropout: A Test of

Five Theories". Journal of Educational Psychology.
Baum, S. and Payea, K., Education Pays, 2004: The Benefits of Higher Education
for Individuals and Society, College Board (2004).
Bridges4kids (2004). Retrieved from the internet in December 2004.

www.bridge4kids.org/articles/2-04/awake2-04.html
Catterall, J.S. (November 1987). On the social costs of dropping out of school. The
High School Journal,71,19-30.
Child Trends. (2013). High school dropout rates. Retrieved from the internet
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=high-school-dropout-rates
Creswell, John (2004). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-112790-
6.
Crothers, L. M., Hughes, T. L., & Morine, K. A. (2008).Theory and cases in school-
based consultation: A resource for school psychologists, school counselors,
special educators, and other mental health professionals. New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved
fromhttp://books.google.com/books?id=vKsXLZkKiyIC
Davis, L. E., Ajzen, I., Saunders, J., & Williams, T. (2002). The decision of African
American students to complete high school: An application of the Theory of
Planned Behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 810–819.
DCS-DepEd (2013). Davao Socio-Economic Indicators 2013.

seiflyer201320130620110423.pdf
Department of Education (2006). Basic education information system-quick count

2005-2006. Pasig: Department of Education.
61
Department of Education (2008). Nationwide survey on school enrollment and

education plans. Pasig: Department of Education.
Department of Education (2009). Fact sheet: Basic education statistics. Pasig:

Department of Education.
Department of Education (2011). “Number of high school drop-out drops.” Republic

of the Philippines. Web. 25 January 2011: deped.gov.ph.
Department of Education (2012). Basic Education Information System. Department

of Education Region XI Account. 125.212.87.101
Department of Education (2012). Basic Education Information System. Sta Ana

National High School Account. 125.212.87.101
Department of Education (2012). Nationwide survey on school enrollment and

education plans. NCR: Department of Education.
Dillow, S. (2003). Education Statistics Quarterly (No. NCES-2003-604). Washington

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2).
Finn, J.D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Buffalo, NY: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Finnan, C. & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving students:

The transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 625-629.
FLEMMS (Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey) (2008).

Documentation Report. National Statistics Office, National Economy and
Development Authority. 26-46.
Haycock, K., & Huang, S. (2001). Are today's high school graduates ready? Thinking
K-16, 5(1), 3-17.
Henry, K.L. (2007). Who’s skipping school: characteristics of truants in 8th and 10 th
grade. Journal of School Health 77(1), 29-35
Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M., Eds. (1999). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking,
Promotion, and Graduation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
62
Jencks, C. and Mayer, S.E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a

poor neighborhood. In L. Lynn Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city
poverty in the United States. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Kakuru D. Muhwezi (2003). Gender Sensitive Educational Policy and Practice:

Uganda Case study. International Bureau of Education
Kasente D. (2003). Gender and Education in Uganda: A Case Study for Monitoring
Report. Makerere University.
Kaufman, P., Kwon, J. Y., Klein, S., & Chapman, C. D. (1999.). Dropout Rates in the
United States: 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Lan, W. & Lanthier, R. (2003). Changes in students’ academic performance and

perceptions of school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(3).
Lee, Valerie E., David T. Burkam (2003) "Dropping out of High School: The Role of
School Organization and Structure". American Educational Research Journal.
Lehr, C.A., Johnson, D.A., Bremer, C., Coslo, A., and Thompson, M. (2004, May).
Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from Policy and research to
practice. A manual for policymakers, administrators, and educators.
Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition
(NCSET). http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/default.asp
Lleras-Muney, A. (2005). The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in

the United States. Review of Economic Studies. 72, 189-221.
Lochner, L., and Moretti, E. (2004). “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence
from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self Reports.” The American Economic
Review, 94 (1), 155-189.
MacMillan, D. L. (1991). Hidden youth: dropouts from special education. Reston, VA:
The Council for Exceptional Children.
McCaul, E. J., Donaldson, G. A. J., Coladarci, T., & Davis, W. E. (1992).

Consequences of dropping out of school: Findings from High School and
Beyond. Journal of Educational Research, 85(4), 198-208.
McNeal, R.B. Jr. (1997). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts.
Sociology of Education, 68(1).
63
National Education and Testing Research Center, (1990). Study on wastage in

elementary education in the Philippines. Pasig City: Department of Education.
National Statistics Office, NSO (2007). Statistical Bulletin, Region XI, Davao City.
Retrieved from http://www.davaocity.gov.ph/davao/demography.aspx
Nava, F.G. (2009). Factor in School Leaving: Variations Across Gender Groups,
School Levels and Locations. Education Quarterly: UP College of Education.
Vol. 67 (1), 62-78.
Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). Unfulfilled promise: The dimensions and
characteristics of Philadelphia’s dropout crisis, 2000–2005.Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/new/Neild_Balfanz_06.pdf.
Neild, R.C., Stoner-Eby, S., & Furstenberg, F.F. Jr. (2001). Connecting entrance and
departure: the transition to ninth grade and high school dropout. Paper
presented at the Conference on Dropout in America: How severe is the
problem? What do we know about intervention and prevention? Civil Rights
Project. Graduate School of Education. Harvard University.
Nicholas, J. D., & White, J. (2001). Impact of peer networks on achievement of high
school Algebra students. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 267-273.
Odaga O. and Heneveld W., (1995). Girls and schools in Sub-Saharan African from
Analysis to Action. The International Bank for Reconstruction / World Bank,
Washington DC.
OPS, DepEd (2005). Statistical Bulletin.
Ormrod, J. (2011),“Educational Psychology”, Pearson Education, Inc.

Massachusetts, USA.
Pasick, R. J., Burke, N. J., Barker, J. C., Galen, J., Bird, J. A., Otero-Sabogal, R., et
al. (2009). Behavioral theory in a diverse society: Like a compass on Mars.
Health Education Behavior, 36(5), 11S-35S.
Pearson, Karl (1900). "On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the
probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be
reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling". Philosophical
Magazine Series 5 50(302): 157–175.
Plank, S., DeLuca, S., Estacion, A. (2005). Dropping Out of High School and the
Place of Career and Technical Education: A Survival Analysis of Surviving
High School. National Research Center for Career and Technical Education,
64
S.P.M.N. & National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical

Education, C.O.H.
Powdthavee, N. (2010). Does education reduce the risk of hypertension? Estimating

the biomarker effect of compulsory schooling in England. Journal of Human
Capital. 4, 173-202.
Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the

association. American Education Research Journal, 31, 729–759.
Rosenthal, B.S. (1998). Non-school correlates of dropout: An integrative review of

the literature. Children & Youth Services Review, 20 (5), 413-433.
Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Why students drop out of school. In Orfield, G. (Ed.),

Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis (pp. 131–156).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rumberger, R. W. (2001, April). Who drops out of school and why. Paper prepared
for the National Research Council, Committee on Educational Excellence and
Testing Equity Workshop, and incorporated into their report: A. Beatty, U.
Neiser,W. Trent, and J. Herbert (Eds). Understanding dropouts: Statistics,
strategies, and high-stakes testing. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Samuels, C. (2007). Lack of research, data hurts dropout efforts, experts say.
Education Week, 26, 8.
Schargel, F.P., & Smink, J. (2001). Strategies to help solve our school dropout
problem. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Schwartz, W. (1995). New information on youth who drop out: why they leave and
what happens to them. For parents/about parents. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 006).
Shannon, G. S. & Bylsma, P. (2003). Helping students finish school: why students
drop out and how to help them graduate. Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Olympia, WA.
SEDIP (2004). School Dropout Reduction Plans, unpublished.
Smith, G.A. (1991). Program planning for at-risk students. In L.L. West (Ed.,),
Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth. Gaithersburg, MD:
Aspen Publishers.
65
Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and

synthesis. Interchange 1, 64-85.
Stern, D. (1997). Learning and Earning: The value of working for urban students.
Eric Digest. Number 128. EDO-UD-97-9.
http://ericweb.tc.columbia.edu/digest/dig128.asp
Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer

associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school- and
individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban
Society, 40(2), 179-204.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Review of Educational Research 45, 89-125.
UIS (UNESCO Institute of Statistics) (2012). Reaching Out-of-School Children is

Crucial for Development. UIS Fact Sheet No.18. June.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2005). Children out of school: Measuring exclusion
from primary education. Montreal: UNESCO.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004).

Issue Brief: Educational Attainment of High School Drop Outs Eight Years
Later, NCES 2005-026.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005026.pdf.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., D’Amico, R., Jay, E.D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marden, C., et al.
(1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive
report from the national longitudinal transition study of special education
students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs.
Wehlage, G.G., Rutter, R.A., Smith, G.A., Lesko, H., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989).
Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. New York, NY: The
Falmer Press
Wells, S.E. (1990). At risk youth. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
Wenger, J. (2002). Does the dropout age matter? How mandatory schooling laws
impact high school completion and school choice. Public Finance and
Management 2(4), 507-543.
West, L.L. (Ed.). (1991). Introduction. Effective strategies for dropout prevention of
at-risk youth. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
66
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-

regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415
Wolman, C., Bruininks, R.H., & Thurlow, M.L (1989). Dropouts and dropout
programs: Implication for special education. Remedial and Special Education,
10(5), 6-20.
67
APPENDIX A
Endorsement Letter from the Dean to Conduct the Study

68
APPENDIX B
Certification from the Dean to the Researcher

69
APPENDIX C
Letter of Approval from the School’s Division Superintendent toConduct the Study
70
APPENDIX D
Letter of Request to the School Principal of Davao City National High School to Conduct the Pilot
Testing of the Researcher’s Survey Questionnaire
71
APPENDIX E
Letter of Request to the School Principal of Sta. Ana National High School to Conduct the Study
72
APPENDIX F
Certification for the Vaidity of the Researcher’s Survey Questionnaire

73
Appendix G
SANHS School Documents

74
75
76
77
78
Appendix H
DepEd Region XI Document on Dropout Rate

79
Appendix I
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name (Pangalan): _________________________________ Gender (Kinatawhan): ______________

Tribe (Tribu): _____________________________________Religion (Relihiyon): _______________
Grade/Year (Grado/Tuig): Grade 7 Grade 8 Third Year Fourth Year
Note: The purpose of this survey is to collect information that will allow teachers and educators to
better understand students’ various experiences. This questionnaire is NOT a TEST. We hope you will
answer each question truthfully, because we need your answer. We hope you answer as many
questions as you can. Your responses will be combined with those of other respondents and the
answers you give will never be identified as yours.
(Pahinumdum: Ang tumung aning survey kay para makakuha og impormasyon na makatabang sa
mga magtutudlo na masabtan pag maayo ang mga kaagi sa mga estudyante. Kini dili isa ka TEST.
Nagahamdum mi na tubagun ninyo tanan pangutana sa tibuok makaya nga nay kamatuoran kay
ginakinahanglan gayod namu ang inyong mga tubag. Itibo namu inyung mga tubag sa laing mga
gipangpangutana og dili kini makaila sa inyong kaugalingun.)
1. What year level did you repeat high school? (Unsa nga tuig ka mibalik og high school?)
___________________________________________________________________________
2. What is/are the reason(s) why you leave school? Please check the box(es) that correspond the
reasons.(Unsang mga rason nganung nibiya ka sa pag-eskwela? Itsek ang kahon o mga kahon na
nagpasabot sa rason.
School-Related (Naay kabahin sa Eskwelahan)
Teacher Factor
(tungod sa maestro sama sa kaistrikto, way klarong pagtudlo og di pagsabot sa
estudyante)
Insufficient school equipment/facilities (way klarong gamit og pasilidad sa eskwelahan)
Too many school requirements
(Pagpanubra sa mga buluhaton sama sa assignments og projects)
Extensive School Discipline (Istriktong Pamalaud sa Eskwelahan)
Peer Influence (Maling impluwensya sa mga kauban sa eskwelahan)
Individual-Related (Naay kabahin sa imung Kaugalingun)

Health Problems (Pirmi Magkasakit)
Absenteeism and Tardiness (Kanunay na di pagsulod sa eskwela og sige ka-late)
Early Marriage/Pregnancy (Nagpakasal og sayo o Nabuntis)
Drug Abuse and Gambling (Paggamit og droga o kanunay nga sugal)
Poor Academic Performance (Gagmay og Grado sa Eskwelahan)
Lack of Interest/Distractions
(Way interes sa pag-eskwela o daghang distorbo sa pag-eskwela)
Low self Esteem
(Di kasabay sa pag-eskwela, ulawon og kulang na pagsalig sa kaugalingun)
80
Community-Related (Naay kabahin sa imung Kumunidad)

Distance from home to school (Ang kalayo sa imung eskwelahan gikan sa inyung balay)
Addiction on going to amusement/recreation centers
(Pagkahilig sa internet, mall og ubang laag-laag)
Unstable peace and order situation (Kagubot sa inyung lugar o barangay nga gikapuy-an)
Calamities/Disasters
(Kalamidad og Disgrasya sama sa grabing pag-ulan, pagbaha og sunog)
Gangs/Fraternities (Pagkamyembro sa mga gang og laing grupo)
Family-Related (Naay kabahin sa imung pamilya)

Lack of Financial Support (Kulang nga Suporta Pinansyal sa imung pag-eskwela)
Excessive family responsibilities (Pagpanubra sa mga buluhat on sa balay)
Parent’s attitude towards schooling
(Panlantaw sa imung Ginikanan kabahin sa imung pag-eskwela)
Lack of Parental Guidance (Kulang nga Pag-alagad sa Ginikanan)
Broken Family (Nagbulag ang mga Ginikanan)
Other reasons (ubang rason na wa sa pilianan sa taas): _____________________________
3. Given the chance, would you drop or not? What could have been done to prevent you from
dropping out?
(Kung tagaan kag higayon, mubiya ba ka sa pag-eskwela o dili? Unsa kaha imung laing
pamaagi aron wa ka mibiya?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
81
Appendix J
FGD QUESTIONNAIRE
Name (Pangalan): _________________________________ Gender (Kinatawhan): ______________

Tribe (Tribu): _____________________________________Religion (Relihiyon): _______________
Grade/Year (Grado/Tuig): Grade 7 Grade 8 Third Year Fourth Year
Note: The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information that will allow teachers and
educators to better understand students’ various experiences. This questionnaire is NOT a TEST. We
hope you will answer each question truthfully, because we need your answer. We hope you answer
as many questions as you can. Your responses will be combined with those of other respondents and
the answers you give will never be identified as yours.
(Pahinumdum: Ang tumung aning survey kay para makakuha og impormasyon na makatabang sa
mga magtutudlo na masabtan pag maayo ang mga kaagi sa mga estudyante. Kini dili isa ka TEST.
Nagahamdum mi na tubagun ninyo tanan pangutana sa tibuok makaya nga nay kamatuoran kay
ginakinahanglan gayod namu ang inyong mga tubag. Itibo namu inyung mga tubag sa laing mga
gipangpangutana og dili kini makaila sa inyong kaugalingun.)
1. Is there any reasons other than the indicators listed in the survey questionnaire why you leave
school? If so, what indicators was/were it?
(Aduna bay laing mga rason na wala nalista sa survey questionnaire nganung mibiya ka sa imung
pag-eskwela? Kung naa, unsa mang rason kadto?
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Given the chance, would you drop or not? What could have been done to prevent you from
dropping out?
(Kung tagaan kag higayon, mubiya ba ka sa pag-eskwela o dili? Unsa kaha imung laing pamaagi
aron wa ka mibiya?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
82
CURRICULUM VITAE
HAZSHER B. MUNJILUL
Brgy. 21 – 1221-B Blk. 67 Piapi, 8000 Davao City
hmunjilul@gmail.com, moja6589@yahoo.com
09199915401
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Age : 24
Date of Birth : June 5, 1989
Place of Birth : Davao City
Civil Status : Married
Occupation : Secondary School Teacher I
Citizenship : Filipino
Height : 5’6’’
Weight : 75 kg
Father’s Name : Nasser J. Munjilul
Mother’s Name : Rosie B. Munjilul
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Elementary : Magsaysay Memorial Elementary School
Secondary : Davao City National High School
Tertiary : University of Southeastern Philippines

83
Course : Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Math
Graduate School : University of Southeastern Philippines
Course : Master of Education in Educational Management
WORK EXPERIENCES
June 23, 2011 – Present Sta. Ana National High School

D. Suazo St., Davao City
Secondary School Teacher 1
December 10, 2010 – May 8, 2011 Guerrero St., Davao City

G-Ultimate Net Café
Internet Clerk
June 15, 2010 – October 14, 2010 Dr. Santiago Dakudao Sr. National HS
Malagamot Panacan, Davao City
Sub Teacher – Math and 4TH Year Adviser
June 8, 2009- June 12, 2010 Davao Jones Academy

Buhangin Davao City
Subject Teacher – 8 different subjects
Sports Coordinator,
BSP Coordinator
School SSG and Comelec Adviser
January 23, 2008 – March 16, 2010 Gaisano Mall of Davao

KFC Food Chain
Pantry and Dining Crew
September 29 2007 Quezon Elementary School

BEI Poll Clerk during Election
January 19, 2007 – January 20, 2008 Victoria Plaza

Jollibee Food Chain
Kitchen and Dining Crew
June 13, 2006- October 2006 Sta. Ana Avenue, Davao City
Data-S Net Café
Internet Clerk
84
SEMINARS ATTENDED (last 5 years)
 PLDT Infoteach Outreach Program July 31 – Aug. 2, 2013

 Reg. Training of Trainers on Clinical
Supervision vis-à-vis Teaching Strategies April 26, 2013
 SANHS Teachers and Employees
Enhancement Seminar December 14, 2012
 K – 12 Regional Training for Math May 17 – 21, 2012
 3Day Enhancement Sem for Math Teachers Sep. 28, 30 – Oct. 7, 2012
 Sem. On Organizing and Managing
Educational Institutions Oct. 9, 2010
 Summer INSET for 1styr Private HS Teachers Apr. 19 – 21, 2010
 Math Ideas and Life Applications Feb. 20, 2010

Body

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Body

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PROBLEM AND RELATED LITERATURE

increasingly complex society and technology-dependent workplace. Thus, the world

South and West Asia (UNESCO, 2012).

problem—involving six percent of total elementary enrollment in the public system

In a more specific perspective, Davao City during SY 2012 – 2013

(Region XI) Secondary Schools (BEIS, Department of Education, 2012). In addition,

Concerning to the predicament, this study examines specific factors and

concerned problems in the maximization of the national budget in the field of

school administration on the proper remedy on the certain concerns.

Review of Related Literature

students in the secondary level.

gathered literature limited up to its relevance. The researcher outcomes germane

Related Review on Factors Associated with Dropouts

many public school students—particularly male students from low-income or ethnic

minority families—graduating from high school has remained problematic, even as

the nation’s general educational level has increased (Dillow, 2003).

as “under-credited,” meaning that they have successfully completed relatively few

allowed to do it at that age. Furthermore, 70% of Philadelphia students classified as

grade (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).

Dropping Out as a Process of Disengagement. Dropping out is the

outcome of a long process of disengagement and alienation, preceded by less

identification of potential dropouts can be accomplished during the elementary years

by reviewing student behavior, attendance, and academics (Barrington & Hendricks,

is to view dropout as a status assessed at a particular point in time. The status of

particular point in time. Although this definition appears straightforward, it involves

school. What it means to be enrolled can be interpreted and defined differently by

ways of completing high school.

school by earning a diploma, which is typically based on completing a specified

(Heubert & Hauser, 1999).

Alternatively, innovations such as Open High School System (OHHS),

Effective Alternative Secondary Education (EASE) and School Initiated Intervention

outcomes of the different seminars conducted by the Secondary Schooling

Alternative (SSA) which is a component of the Secondary Education Development

school dropouts nationwide.

conceptualized and is now into full gear.

Categories of Factors or Indicators Associated with Dropping Out.

Community Factors: According to several researchers, Community Factors

resources for schools and peer influences; and Employment opportunities.

difficulties, divorce, abuse, parent illness or health problems (MacMillan, 1991;

do not encourage their child’s independent decision-making; (7) Parent Involvement

Student Demographic and Individual Factors. Student demographics,

characteristics, and/or circumstances have been associated with higher dropout

students, particularly representing racial/ethnically diverse groups, have higher

emotional/behavioral disabilities and learning disabilities, have higher dropout rates

negative self-perceptions or low-esteem, low aspirations and low self-efficacy

likely to drop out, or are less likely to complete postsecondary education.”

who are disciplined frequently, suspended or expelled by schools; (14) Student

curricular activities or students identified as socially isolated.

following the transition to high school (Roderick, 1994).

Education and School Related Factors. Education-related factors to high

or truancy have higher dropout rates(Smith, 1991). Ineffective approaches to

school climate; (11) Lack of appropriate services such as lack of adequate

counseling of students; (12) Curriculum that includes lack of relevant curriculum or

backgrounds of students; (13) Instruction such as tracked classes, passive

instructional strategies, inappropriate use of technology, and disregard of student

Prevention Programs that deals with counseling, mentoring, tutoring, attendance

research or evaluation data to document their effectiveness (Lehr, et.al. 2004).

there” (p. 44);

School-related factors positively associated with school performance and

participation in community-based work experience programs (Wagner, et.al., 1993

as cited in Lehr, et. al., 2004).

feedback to parents or home visits); (2) Personal/affective (e.g. regularly scheduled