Role of Public Policies and Process of Dropping Out

Along with pull out and push out factors, the secondary school dropped out pupils also reported that some ineffective school and public policies were reasons for their dropping out. 6.5.1 Ineffective School and Public Policies

Sometimes ineffective policies and practices at local and national level contribute to poor academic performance and subsequent dropout. For example, Mughal and Aldridge reported through the perspectives of the head teachers in rural Punjab:

…the government policies of introducing an English-medium syllabus, using teachers as community motivators during school time, putting teachers under unnecessary monitoring, demanding needless paperwork, linking promotion and increments with school results, and introducing capricious examination systems, not permitting class 9 failures to repeat the same class, are all contributing to the dropout problem at

secondary level in rural Punjab. (Mughal & Aldridge, 2017: p. 373) Similar themes are stated by Rahmat, a class 10 dropout. He said:

I lost my interest in studies during primary classes as I know that I would get progressed regardless of if I worked hard or not. I had no fear of failing. I had no fear of teachers. The teachers did not teach us very well because they knew that they would promote everyone to the next class regardless whether they pass or fail.

This study also evidenced, through the dropped out pupils themselves, that the English medium syllabus at secondary level was causing them to dropout from school. The dropped out boys recalled similar experiences of English language difficulty and the automated progression policy in early classes. It was further revealed that the government of Punjab had stopped corporal punishment and introduced a non-deregistration policy for absentee pupils at public schools. The research observed that each school had a billboard with the advertising campaign, ‘Mar Nahi – Payar’, meaning ‘No corporal punishment but love’.

Three of the dropped out boys said that they intentionally remained absent from the school for a long period of time on many occasions because they knew that they would not be deregistered from the class or punished for it. Thus, while such policies may help the government to keep the maximum number of students on the register, they are contributing to

181

poor educational outcomes for children and their subsequent dropping out from secondary classes.

Regardless of the reasons for their dropping out, 17 of the 18 respondents were found to be involved in paid work after they dropped out of school. Four became cattle herders, and 10 were working with local masons, on tea stalls, at brick kilns, or on trucks and other passenger vehicles; one was working at a petrol station in a nearby town, and another was a sales assistant at a local bakery. Danish, whose father’s borrowing and sickness meant that Danish dropped out of class 9, was working at a local barber’s shop for Rs.30 ($0.30) per day.

The findings of this study further imply that secondary school dropped out children do not have the necessary qualifications or skills to engage in work that is not low skilled and low paid. It is evident that children who have dropped out of school have less education, training and skills compared to their peers who have completed school; therefore, they have fewer job opportunities in the labour market (Brekke, 2014).

Finally, for the pull out factors of dropping out, the perspectives of the male and female teachers and heads of schools are very similar to those stated by the dropped out boys themselves. However, for push out factors, a big discrepancy is evident between the views of school staff and the dropped out pupils. The school dropouts largely blame poor teaching quality, bullying from class teachers, rote learning practices and the lack of teachers’ interest in teaching. Meanwhile, along with some pull out factors and policy-related factors, the teachers and heads of school mostly held school dropouts and their parents responsible for dropping out from secondary classes. This finding is consistent with previous studies that show that the teachers and head teachers generally do not accept that teaching practices and the school culture push some children out of school (Bridgeland et al., 2009; Patterson et al., 2007; Seidu & Adzahlie-Mensah, 2010; Smyth & Hattam, 2002).

6.6 Conclusion

This chapter has accounted the perspectives of the secondary school boys on their dropping out. They stated various pull out factors of dropping out, such as: household poverty; parental illness or death; loss of family income; a large number of siblings; pressure of domestic responsibilities; personal attitudes and non-academic interests; lack of family support in learning; and poor schooling in early classes and subsequent failure in class 9. Push out factors are: poor quality teaching; school location; practices of rote learning and memorization and

182

bullying from class teachers. The policy related factors associated with dropping out are: automated progression in early classes; the English-medium syllabus; and the non- deregistration policy for absentee pupils.

Concerning the pull out factors of dropping out, the perspectives of the school staff and the dropped out pupils are almost similar. However, they have differences over the push out factors. The dropped out children are critical of poor teaching practices and bullying by class teachers, whereas the teachers and the head teachers argue that the long-distance schools, shortage of secondary school teachers, overcrowded classes, inadequate classrooms and lack of physical facilities are the main push out factors of dropping out. In contrast, the community members of school councils directly hold teachers responsible for not being sufficiently interested in teaching. They are of the view that some teachers do not prepare their lessons properly because they were more interested in managing their personal businesses during school time.

Apart from the reasons for dropping out, the chapter also found different types of dropouts, identifying three types. The first were the compulsive dropouts, who dropped out of secondary classes to meet urgent family financial needs, where it had become compulsory for them to drop out of school and earn money for their family. Having to make a choice between school continuance and family survival they opted to quit schooling and strive for the poverty- stricken family. The second were optional dropouts who dropped out to pursue a non-academic career despite being able to continue their schooling. The third was the passive dropout, who accepted their poor academic background as an inborn individual characteristic and acknowledged that they had not studied sufficiently hard in the early classes. They did not mention personal effort, such as peer support or attending supplementary tuition, to improve their academic performance.

It is pertinent to understand the perspectives of the families of the school dropouts on the issue of their children dropping out from secondary education. The next chapter reports the perceptions of the 14 fathers of the secondary school dropped out boys. It also maps out the similarities and differences between the perspectives of teachers, heads of schools, community members of school councils, the dropped out boys, and their fathers.

183

Chapter 7: Reasons for Dropping Out: Perspectives of the