International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381

Typology of school dropout: The dimensions and dynamics of dropout in Ghana

Eric Daniel Ananga

CREATE Research Associate, Centre for International Education, Education Department, University of Sussex, Essex House, Brighton BN1 9QQ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:

Dropout

Drop-in

Exclusion

Temporary dropout

Permanent dropout

Ghana

A B S T R A C T

This paper explores the dropout experience of children who dropped out of schools located in two rural

communities1 in the Central Region of Ghana. The main research question sought to explore the meaning

and types of drop out founded on the views of children who had dropped out of school. The study tracked 18

children aged 7–17 years. Snowball sampling was employed to identify participants of the study. Data was

collected from children and significant others2 using in-depth interviews. Using CREATE’s analytical

framework of zones of exclusion, this paper identify five type of school dropouts and argues that policies to

prevent dropout and encourage drop-in requires specific rather than general targeting.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jedudev

1. Introduction

Education is generally seen as a powerful tool for reducingpoverty and achievement of economic growth. It empowerspeople, improves individuals’ earning potential, promotes ahealthy population, is a major determinant of democracy andhelps build a competitive economy (Huisman and Smiths, 2009).Access to education is therefore at the centre of the develop-ment agenda for most low income countries. With the UnitedNations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education is aright for every child of school going age. The start of theEducation for All (EFA) campaign after the World EducationForum in Jomtien in 1990 has seen remarkable progress ingetting children in developing countries into basic education.Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of children tend to drop out ofschool (UNESCO, 2007a). The EFA Global Monitoring Report2010 reports that while enrolment rates are rising, millions ofchildren enter primary school only to drop out before complet-ing a full primary cycle and in sub-Saharan Africa, some 28million pupils drop out of school each year (UNESCO, 2010). Ithas been argued that in much of Africa, the problem ofeducational access is not entirely about children not enrollingin school but also about starting school and dropping out(Dumas et al., 2004; Hunt, 2008; Lewin, 2007). Thus the problemshifts from getting children into school to keeping them inschool. Children who terminate schooling before they havefinished the curriculum do not develop their potential to theirfullest and countries that experience it waste scarce resources.

E-mail address: edananga@gmail.com.1 The two rural communities are located in the newly created Mfantseman

District in of the Central region in Ghana.2 Significant others in this study include teachers and parents.

0738-0593/$ – see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.01.006

In Ghana improvement in enrolment and initial access at thebasic education level has grown over the years and GrossEnrolment Rates are now above 95% (MOESS, 2007). While basicschool enrolment in Ghana has improved significantly in recentyears, one major challenge facing it has been high cases of drop out(MOESS, 2007). Over 20% of school-age Ghanaian children haveeither dropped out or never enrolled in school (Ampiah and Adu-Yeboah, 2009). A report on the state of education in Ghana byAkyeampong et al. (2007) and other studies confirm the reality ofdropouts in Ghana’s basic school system (GSS, 2003; MOESS, 2007).For example, in 2006 the non-completion rates stood at 15% and35% for primary and JHS levels (MOESS, 2007). The GhanaDemographic and Health Survey (DHS), reports that dropout ratesacross all grades in Ghana are similar (4%) except for grade three,which is 5%. Males have higher dropout rates than females inalmost all grades. Also, from grades 1 through 6, dropout rates inrural areas stood at 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.6%, 3.4%, 3.6% and 3.9%respectively compared with 3.3%, 3.9%, 5.5%, 4.6%, 3.8% and 4.5%(GSS, 2009). There are however wide regional variations in dropoutrates. The regions with worse dropout rates are the Upper West,Northern, and Central regions. In the Central region, where thisstudy was located, dropout rates from grades 1 through 6 stood at7.3%, 8.2%, 10.7%, 8.5%, 8.6% and 6.2% respectively. To achieveuniversal basic education 2015 target in Ghana, policy attentionneeds to focus more on addressing dropouts. Few studies in Ghanahave focused on children’s views of dropout, their explanation anddefinition(s) of it. According to a dropout study in Ghana byAmpiah and Adu-Yeboah (2009) they cited Akyeampong et al.(2007) as only dwelling only on the causes by listing critical events.Hunt (2008) argues that dropout is a process which needs to beunderstood because of its relevance for policy (see also Ampiahand Adu-Yeboah, 2009). In this paper, I highlight the voice of thechildren (aged 7–17 years) who experience dropout and use theirdefinitions and explanations of dropout to explain the dropout

3 6–14 years is the official age for completing basic education in Ghana.

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381 375

process. The research questions explored in this study were; howdo dropouts understand and interpret dropout? And how dochildren’s definition(s) of dropout manifest in the types of dropoutthat exist in the study area?

Using the narratives of children who dropped out of school, Ihave constructed a unique typology of dropout with character-istics of the 18 children who went to school for at least one yearbefore terminating. I have gathered information on those whohave not returned and those who have, the grade at which theydropped out of school and I also have the most important socio-economic and demographic characteristics of their familybackground. This household-level information is combined withinformation about their pattern of attendance in the schoolsthey have dropped out from. This paper explores types of schooldropout and the dimensions and dynamics using the analyticmodel developed by The Consortium for Research on Educa-tional Access Transitions and Equity (CREATE). The approachthis paper adopts is that of descriptive analysis. It begins bypointing out the diverse definitions children give of dropout. Thepaper extends beyond the diverse definitions and focuses onspecific peculiarities of children (low attendees and schooldeserters) to highlight nuances in definitions of dropout. Theresults are reported and discussed. Policy implications andconclusions are drawn in the concluding section. This paper isdrawn from a chapter produced in my DPhil thesis which is on-going.

2. Defining dropout: perspectives from the literature

This section is devoted to how dropout is defined in theliterature. The notion of dropout is an elusive and complex issue todefine. A child might stop attending school, but only for a brief timebefore resuming his or her education, which makes any attempt atcoining a suitable term based on duration of withdrawal generallydifficult.

The school dropout phenomenon is perceived to be a gradualprocess that is set in motion by a range of factors (Akyeamponget al., 2007; Hunt, 2008). In defining dropout, UNESCO (2005)proposes the description ‘‘early school-leaving,’’ going on to arguethat this means exiting the formal education system withoutcompleting the cycle or programme that was started.

Some commentators, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), suggest that a dropout is apupil who leaves a specific level of the education system withoutfirst achieving the appropriate qualification (OECD, 2002).Similarly, Marrow’s (1987) designation, defines a dropout thus:

. . . any student previously enrolled in a school, who is no longeractively enrolled as indicated by fifteen days of consecutiveunexcused absences, who has not satisfied local standards forgraduation, and for whom no official request has been receivedsignifying enrolment in another state-licensed educationalinstitution. (Marrow, 1987)

Although Marrow’s definition appears to be more satisfactoryas it goes further in setting conditions that must first be met beforea pupil qualifies as a dropout, its universal application to differentcontexts may pose serious problems and might not reflect the truepicture of the phenomenon. For example, if the ‘‘fifteen days of

consecutive unexcused absences’’ rule were to be taken as the soledeterminant of dropout status, the vast majority of Ghanaianpupils would qualify.

Moreover, in the Ghanaian context, there are instances inwhich pupils migrate to other communities, where they gainadmission to private or public schools without necessarilyobtaining any official leave to do so. This suggests that if Marrow’s

definition is universally applied, such pupils have technicallydropped out whereas in reality, they are still pursuing theireducation. If such caveats are to be overcome, it may be moreappropriate to consider using operational and or groundeddefinition.

The importance of focusing on operational definition indiscussing the dropout phenomenon is evident in the literatureproduced by organisations, institutions and individuals. In studieson the monitoring of school dropouts in Albania, Kazakhstan,Latvia, Mongolia, Slovakia and Tajikistan, dropout definitions wereoperationalised (see Dedze et al., 2005; ESP, 2007). In Latvia,dropout is defined in two ways: (a) ‘‘a child who [has] dropped out of

the education process [i.e. a pupil who has not completed basic

education and no longer attends school];’’ and (b) ‘‘children on the

verge of dropping out [i.e. pupils who have not attended school for six

months and thus are unable to meet the demands set for basic

education]’’ (Dedze et al., 2005).In the case of Slovakia, the definition only includes those pupils

who have not completed basic education (ESP, 2007), withoutnecessarily incorporating those on the verge of dropping out, as isthe case with Latvia. The Albanian context captures dropout as ‘‘astudent who leaves school before its completion, for any reason other

than death, without being enrolled in another school or institution’’

(ESP, 2007). In Mongolia, the term ‘dropout’ is used to refer to achild who ‘quits’ school after attending a period of formaleducation.

Some of these definitions only point to the ‘quitting’ of school ordeath of the pupil as constituting dropout, failing to take intoaccount other considerations, such as whether withdrawal istemporary or permanent; the phenomenon of dropping in again;cases in which a pupil attends school but is silently excluded; andother instances in which the pupil is physically present in schoolbut may not be learning anything, thus could have ‘dropped out’mentally. All these issues need to be captured contextually and indetail if the complexities around the phenomenon are to beunderstood.

In the Ghanaian context, Fentiman (1999) defines a dropout as achild who has not completed the nine years of basic education. Yet,as mentioned earlier, defining dropout in this way may beconcealing the possibility of the child returning to school,especially if he or she is still of official school age. According toAkyeampong et al. (2007), a dropout is a child who has enrolled inschool but is no longer currently attending, although it is possiblethat such a child may re-enter the education system at some stage(Akyeampong et al., 2007). I draw on this later definition in thispaper and use children’s definitions to redefine dropout as havingtwo dimensions. It focuses on children who had initial access butattended intermittently, sometimes stopping entirely with thepossibility of returning.

3. Definition of educational access

CREATE views access to basic education to include admissionand progression at appropriate age3 in grade, children need toattend school regularly, gain satisfactory levels of achievement andhave equitable opportunity to progress to post-secondary educa-tional levels. Children who never enrol as well as others whogained initial access but are unable to progress due to lowachievement, irregular attendance and dropout are regarded asbeing excluded from educational access. This paper adoptsCREATEs expanded definition of access. The six ‘zones of exclusion’in the CREATE analytic model, relates to Ghana’s basic educationsystem and is described in the text box.

Fig. 2. Zones of exclusion in Ghana.Source: Lewin (2009).

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381376

CREATE identifies 6 zones of exclusion. Fig. 1 shows a cross

sectional model by grade of participation which locates those

who are being excluded and those excluded from access to

conventional education systems. The model illuminates how

typically enrolments decline steeply through the primary

grades in low enrolment countries, and how those attending

irregularly and achieving poorly fall into ‘‘at risk’’ zones. In the

hypothetical model more than half of all children leave before

completing primary school, and about half of the primary

completers are selected into lower secondary school where

attrition continues.

� Zone 0 – children experience little or no pre-school access.

� Zone 1 – children who never enrol and attend school.

� Zone 2 – primary dropout children who after initial entry have

been excluded. Depending on the age at enrolment and

dropping out, the dropout status of children in Zone 2 may be

temporary because of the possibility of returning to school.

� Zone 3 – over age children, irregular attenders and low-

achievers at the primary level who are ‘silently excluded’ and

learn little. These children are in school but at risk of dropping

out permanently.

� Zone 4 – primary leavers who are not entering lower

secondary; In the Ghanaian context, some children may

enter Zone 4 because they could not make the transition from

primary (grade six) to lower secondary school (grade seven).

� Zone 5 – lower secondary dropouts, these children are also

characterised by over age in grade, recurrent intermittent

attendance and child labour.

� Zone 6 – overage children, irregular attenders, low-achievers

and those silently excluded at lower secondary level. These

children are at risk of dropping out from lower secondary

school. They are intermittent attendees and low achievers

resulting in the risk of dropping out permanently.

Source: Adapted from Lewin (2007).Fig. 1 presents a schematic illustration of the ‘zones of

exclusion’. In this paper, the typology of dropout discussed isfocused on children who are confined to Zones 2–6 in the Ghanaiancontext.

Fig. 2 illustrates the location of Ghanaian children in CREATEexclusion model. Focusing on zones 2 through 6, this diagramillustrates the attrition of boys and girls from grade one to nine.

Fig. 1. CREATE zones of exclusion.Source: Lewin (2009).

Thus, as pupils progress through the basic grades, the numbers ofthose who drop out of school increase, leaving only a smallproportion that get to grade nine to finish basic schooling.

4. Why children dropout of school

While the previous section looked at how dropout is definedand CREATE’s conceptualisation of access in relation to Ghana, thefocus of this section is on the causes of dropout taken from theliterature. Empirical research on dropouts has identified a range ofinterrelated demand and supply factors within children’s families,schools and community that interact in a complex manner to pushor pull children out of school (Hunt, 2008). In a cross-countryreview of literature on dropout, several factors including socio-economic conditions of households and school related factors werefound to lead to dropout (see Hunt, 2008). For brevity, only some ofthe most important studies are reviewed below. The review drawson literature on the causes of school dropout in Ghana and otherdeveloping country contexts. There are some methodologicaldifferences between some of the empirical literature and thisstudy. Many of the studies on cause of drop out reviewed in thispaper approached dropout quantitatively mostly using householdsurvey and large scale questionnaire. Some adopted a statisticalapproach while others used a mixed research approach.

Conditions in children’s family and socio-economic back-grounds are a key contributory factor to dropout. Householdcomposition, arrangement, interaction and support play crucialroles in retention and completion. In most cases, the compositionand structure of the household – gender, size, education, health,and income of members shape access and retention (Al Samarraiand Peasgood, 1998; Grant and Hallman, 2006; Glick and Sahn,2006; Nekatibeb, 2002; Ainsworth et al., 2005; Ersado, 2005;Connelly and Zheng, 2003; Duryea, 2003). The cost of schoolingimpacts on household decisions around access and retention.Where households cannot afford schooling costs, children maysuspend schooling pending a solution. For some children, dropoutmeans temporary insolvency in the household so the opportunitycost of schooling rises during harvest season. In rural Ghana,children drop out of school to engage in child labour (Fentimanet al., 1999). According to Ghana Child Labour Survey, a child froma low income household may start working to make some moneyto support family income (GSS, 2003) and this may result inirregular attendance which ultimately leads to drop out. Manyirregular attendees temporarily withdraw from school andultimately drop out (Akyeampong and Ananga, 2010). Also,children’s seasonal migration was found to result in dropout.Hashim (2005) reports that by age 13, children from economicallypoorer households in northern Ghana drop out of school to migrateto viable market areas where their labour is in demand. A study in

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381 377

Ethiopia, show how children enrol at the beginning of the schoolyear but drop out by the middle of the school year as a result ofdemands on their labour during harvest time. Such children re-enrol the following year but, again, are unable to complete theschool year (Colclough et al., 2000). Research shows that prolongedabsenteeism, grade repetition and dropout were the results of childlabour (Colclough et al., 2000). Child labour in whatever formcreates pressure on the child’s schooling time. For example, whenchildren combine work with school, this often leads to irregularattendance (Brock and Cammish, 1997; Ersado, 2005). In somecases, child labour leads to high incidents of lateness (Guarcelloet al., 2005). Child labour in the form of agricultural work is oftenseasonal, which clashes with school hours, may lead to seasonalwithdrawal – dropout. Such ‘dropouts’ may be temporary (Hunt,2008), but often leads to a more permanent departure from school(Boyle et al., 2002; PROBE, 1999).

It is also widely acknowledged that schools exert powerfulinfluences on pupils’ achievement and dropout rates. A hostileschool environment, lack of support at school (PROBE Report 1999)and school practices and processes that children considerunsuitable could result in drop out (Hunt, 2008). Enrolling overageand grade repetition increases the likelihood that children drop outas they get older (UIS/UNICEF, 2005; Hunt, 2008).

Being over aged in grade predisposes children to drop out(Ersado, 2005; UNESCO, 2010). With the age of children in gradeone ranging from 4 to 11 years, and in grade nine from 13 to 21years in most sub-Saharan African countries (Lewin, 2007),problems with teaching different age of different children in thesame grade may result in some children being pushed out ofschool. Teachers’ approach to teaching, attitude towards pupils,unavailability and absenteeism are found to shape regularity ofschool attendance, progression and completion (Ames, 2004;Batbaatar et al., 2006; Glick and Sahn, 2006). It is argued thatchildren dropout of school when personal, financial, home oremployment problems coincide with their lack of confidence in theschool’s ability to give them adequate support. Schools thereforehave the potential to act as powerful support mechanisms forchildren, enabling them to handle external difficulties withoutdropping out (UNESCO, 2007b). The next section focuses oncontext and methods of the study.

5. Context and methods of the study

5.1. Participants

This study is located in two of the eight educational circuits inthe Mfantseman municipality in the Central Region of Ghana. TheCentral region is one of the deprived regions of Ghana. Themunicipality has a total population of 152,264 comprising 69,670males and 82,594 females who reside in 168 settlements of which148 are rural. The participants in this study are selected from 2rural schools located in the Narkwa and Dominase educationalcircuits. From Narkwa circuit, one school from Narkwa communitywas selected and in Dominase circuit, one school in the Kyeakorcommunity was also selected. Narkwa community has a popula-tion of 5859 with 2721 males and 3138 females whiles Kyeakor hasa total population of 2231 with 1023 males and 1208 females. Inthese communities, fishing (in Narkwa) and subsistence farming,trading are the main occupations. There is high migration ofchildren to fishing towns such as Half Assini, Axim, Fasu,4 and to laCote d’Ivoire.5 In terms of socio-economic activity, the selectedcommunities are typical of other communities in the municipality.

4 Half Assini, Axim and Fasu are fishing communities in the western region of

Ghana.5 Cote d’Ivoire is located to the western border of Ghana.

The municipality’s total school age population in 2003 was40,624, out of which 22,360 children enrolled, leaving 18,264 (45%)out of school (MOEYS/GES, 2005). For primary school agepopulation (6–11 years old), which totalled 28,962, only 17,995were enrolled. The male–female enrolment ratio stood at 51:49 infavour of boys. The school age population (12–14 years old) of11,662 had a total of 8523 enrolled at the JHS in the ratio of 53:47for boys and girls. The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for primaryschool was 87.2% and for JHS was 73.1%. The NER for primary andJHS were 60.4% and 37.4% respectively. Drop out per annum in theprimary and junior high school (JHS) constituted 2.2% and 1.2%respectively (MOESS, 2005). These figures may reveal only afraction of the real dropout figures because of poor record keepingin schools. One of the challenges facing effective school attendancein the study area includes the incidence of child labour/work andindependent child migration which often reflects as seasonalwithdrawals/intermittent attendance in attendance registers. Thestudy area was selected for the study because of the demographiccharacteristics that pose challenge to schooling and its accessibili-ty with regards to location. Interviews were conducted with 18children who dropped out of school. Although the focus of thisstudy is to highlight the voices of children, I also interviewed 6school teachers and 6 parents.

5.2. Selection of cases, data collection and analysis

To identify dropout children to participate in this study, I madeinitial contacts with some school pupils who had previouslydropped out but had returned to school. I also walked in theNarkwa and Kyeakor townships during school hours when school-age children would be expected to be in school to identify childrennot in school. After contacting a child, I negotiated access byseeking consent from the child’s parents and assent from childrenbefore engaging them in the study. The first contact with thechildren who had returned to school and those I met loitering intown during school hours led me to identify other children whoparticipated in the study.

During the period of data collection, I conducted in-depthinterviews with all 18 children who participated in this study.Interviews with the children were unstructured, with episodicinterviews and generative narrative questions used. I conducted atotal of 46 interviews with the children, 36 interviews in the firstphase of data collection (twice with all 18 children) and 10interviews during the second phase. I audio recorded andtranscribed all the interviews personally. Also, I examined allthe children’s past attendance records prior to their dropping out. Igave children disposable cameras to take photographs of activitiesthey engaged in that shape their schooling behaviour. Drop outchildren who had returned to school, also took photographs ofactivities going on in the school which they disliked. Thephotographs were very useful in opening conversations withchildren. I observed activities in the community that childrenmentioned to have pushed and/or pulled them to drop out ofschool. To gain first-hand information about seasonal migrationand what dropout children do when they migrate, I followed 12 ofthe children who migrated. The data for this study was collected intwo phases within a period of 11 months (between June to October2008 and October 2009 to March 2010).

The in-depth interviews sought to find out what children’sdefinition(s) of dropout are and how the definition(s) manifest thetypes of dropout that exist in the study area. I analysed the data byidentifying emerging themes. I developed an inductive typology oftypes of dropout founded on the nuances in children’s definition ofdropout which highlight the reason for dropping out, the length oftime a child spent as a dropout, and the child’s aspirations towardsschooling work and economic wellbeing.

Fig. 3. The typologies of dropout: dimensions and dynamics.Source: Author’s

construct.

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381378

The evidence presented in this report is important but caution isneeded when generalising to Ghana as a whole for a number ofreasons. First, the study population is of rural children who hadterminated schooling and only those I was able to track. Secondly,the study focuses on dropouts in a rural setting, I would bereluctant to draw any conclusions about how policy changes mayimpact on urban school dropouts.

6. Results and discussion

This section discusses the results of the data analysis.

6.1. Children’s general views on dropout: dimensions and dynamics

From the interview data, I found out that children’s definitionsof dropout are diverse, but that they all amount to deserting school.Based on children’s accounts, five types of dropout emerged (seeillustration in Fig. 3). In my analysis of children’s accounts, I haveclassified drop out as sporadic dropout6; event dropout7; long-term dropout8; unsettled dropout9; and settled dropout.10

If translated literally from English to Fante,11 the nearestmeaning to ‘drop out’ suggests to fall off, to desert or to departfrom something. Children who participated in this study defined‘drop out’ as to: ‘abandon’, ‘terminate’, ‘desert’ or ‘quit’ school.From the interview discussions, I noticed that children’s defini-tions of the term correlated with their explanations of why theydropped out of school and the varying lengths of time they spentout of school.

For example, to one category of children, the definition ofdropout was founded on the idea of ‘intermittent attendance’ or‘seasonal withdrawal’ motivated by economic survival needs.Such a view illustrates a concept of dropout based on atemporary economic situation. To another category of children,the definition of dropout as a permanent condition was equallymotivated by economic survival needs, but with an additionallack of interest in schooling caused by the perceived diminishingvalue of education. Thus, the varying definitions of dropout werelargely founded on the child’s current situation, which wassometimes the reason for leaving school. The following sectiondifferentiates between the temporary and permanent dimen-sions of dropout.

6.2. Dropout as temporary

Sporadic dropout

In my discussion with a group of children who had stoppedattending school owing to temporary economic needs, dropoutwas defined as temporary withdrawal from school. Such childrendropped out of school for periods that lasted between 5 and 10weeks. Of the 18 dropout children interviewed, the 10 who hadreturned to school defined dropout as temporary. For Ama, a 13year-old girl, dropout meant, ‘‘to attend school for a period of time

and stop attending as a result of a problem; or staying in the house for

maybe four to eight weeks without attending school pending a solution

to the problem.’’

6 Dropping out of school temporarily due to economic survival needs.7 Terminating schooling temporarily as a result of one or more critical events,

such as the death of a parent, sickness, conflict with school authorities, etc.8 Deserting school for two to four years, but with the possibility of returning to

school; that is, falling out of one’s cohort group.9 Permanently dropping out of school with no prospect of any particular

economic activity or apparent means of survival.10 Dropping out of school permanently but engaged in a vocation, trade or other

economic activity for survival.11 The Fante language is the native dialect of the study area and is spoken in most

parts of the Central Region of Ghana.

This view perceives dropout as temporary termination ofschooling in the short term owing to the child’s economic survivalneeds. I term this type ‘sporadic dropout’. Its manifestation ismarked by continuous or intermittent non-attendance for periodslasting between 8 and 12 weeks before returning to school.

In terms of the CREATE exclusion model, these children may fallinto exclusion zones 3 and 6. Such temporary dropout casesconstitute children at risk of dropping out or those silently excluded;pupils who may not be able to complete the curriculumrequirements to proceed to the next grade. In the school at whichI collected data, procedure to the next grade was based on aminimum school attendance rate of 50%, and success in continuousand end of term assessments. Failure to meet these requirementsled to grade repetition, something that sporadic dropouts wereoften subject to.

Event dropout

Children’s views of dropout according to another definitionreflected one or more critical events in their lives. I term this type‘event dropout’. Here, dropout is defined as a condition that is anoutcome of one or more critical events, either at school, at home orboth. Such events encourage the child’s motivation to suspendschooling. Event dropout manifests itself in the child continuouslystaying away from school from one to two years. Events includemigration of a child’s family; the death of one or both parents;conflict between a child and one or more teachers; or acombination of two or more of these factors. Accordingly, forYaw, a 15 year-old boy, a dropout was ‘‘a child who stops attending

school because the teacher tells him or her not to set foot in the

classroom again.’’Certain events at school may cause dropout to occur. For

example, when conflict emerged between a child and teacher, achild might be found guilty and punished. Children who refuse toconform to punishment can be told not to return to class until theterms of the punishment had been met.

The case of Adjoa, a 17 year-old girl, is another example. Shetold me, ‘‘After stopping school for some time, I attempted to goback in the second term. . .but the teachers told me that I couldn’tbe admitted in the second term; so, I should go back when the next

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381 379

first term began.’’ She fell pregnant before the start of the newacademic year. Thus, the school’s postponement of Adjoa’sreadmission appears to have contributed to the exacerbation ofher dropout status.

In some cases, such events may occur in the child’s household.For example, Ama, a 13 year-old girl, stopped schooling because ofthe death of her parents. Thus, she told me, ‘‘A dropout is a child who

stops attending school because of the death of the parents.’’Another child, Abu, said, ‘‘A dropout is a child whose parents

have migrated and he has to stop school and join them.’’Children who are event dropouts may return to school when the

situation that caused them to stop attending improves. Of the 18children I tracked, 5 of the event dropout cases had originally falleninto the sporadic dropout category. It possible event dropoutswould move into more permanent dropout status.

Long-term dropout

For a third category of children, the definition of dropout isbased on the prolonged periods they have remained out of schooland on their ‘overage’ status. These children have been out ofschool for periods lasting between 2 and 4 academic years, tend tobe older than 12 years of age, and are significantly older than theprescribed age for the grade they have attained. Accordingly, forthem, dropout means falling out of their cohort group. I term thisthird type ‘long-term dropout’.

Kwame, a 15 year-old boy who dropped out of class three,defined a dropout as ‘‘a child who stops attending school, and his orher classmates are now about to complete school.’’

Another 15 year-old boy, Kodjo, who also dropped out of hiscohort group, illustrated the definition of long-term dropout thus:‘‘A dropout is someone like my friend Mensah or me, who has stopped

attending school for a long time. . . My friend stopped attending school

when we were going to grade 4, but I stopped in grade 5. . . Our

classmates are now in grade 7 [junior high school,].’’Children who fall into the long-term dropout category are

significantly older than the prescribed age for their grade; but, likesporadic and dropouts, they are usually hopeful of returning toschool. Indeed, 3 of the 18 children I interviewed who had fallen outof their cohort and spent more than two years out of school returnedto their classes during my fieldwork. In one case, I was told the childreturned to school when one teacher bought him a school uniformand promised to support him if he returns to school.

The 3 types of dropout – sporadic, event and long-term – thatemerged from children’s accounts typify the status of dropout as atemporary condition. Such children may not have considered theirsituation to be permanent because they envisaged a return toschool as the most likely outcome of the current situation.Nevertheless, for some children, what started as a brief deferral ofschooling – sporadic dropout – became event dropout and fromthere proceeded to long-term dropout.

The concept of dropping out carries dynamics within it thatrange from a temporary condition with the probability of returningto school to a permanent state. The pink arrows lines in Fig. 3 showthe movement of pupils to school dropouts. Dropout dynamics areillustrated by the black arrowed lines connecting ‘sporadicdropout’ to ‘event dropout’ and to ‘long-term dropout’.

Children I interviewed who became sporadic dropouts oftenreturned to school – indicated by the green arrow line pointingtowards school, but some of them dropout again this time tobecome permanent dropouts. Also, some temporary dropoutchildren for whom the value of schooling is diminished and theyspent more years out of school and have become older in agebecome permanent dropouts (indicated with the big black arrowfrom temporary dropout box to permanent dropout box). Whilethe temporary dropout cases that I refer as ‘sporadic dropouts’ mayfall within CREATE exclusion zones 3 and 6, event dropout andlong-term dropout cases generally fall within zones 2, 4 and 5.

In summary, the temporality of dropout and possible drop in ofthe children I tracked typically appears to signal a process thatstarts with missing school regularly often as a result of economicsurvival needs, but can deteriorate into a more protracted absencefuelled by conditions within the school or at home until the childdrops out on a more permanent basis. Next, I discuss the views ofchildren who drop out of school permanently.

6.3. Dropout as permanent

For a second category of children, their dropout status shiftedfrom a temporary to a permanent condition, their definitions of‘dropout’ revealing the fourth and fifth types. Children in thiscategory define dropout as permanent because they have nointention of returning to school. While some of them felt rejectedby the school, others began to earn a living from child labour, andthe rest considered that they were too old to attend the same gradeas younger children. Such a definition of dropout appears to befounded on the perceived diminishing value of schooling. Childrenin this category fall into two groups – unsettled and settled

dropouts.

6.4. Unsettled dropouts

According to the views of those children I refer as ‘unsettled

dropouts’, the definition suggests unsettledness. Nana, a 16 year-old girl, used her situation to define her status, saying, ‘‘When I

stopped schooling and did not re-enter school. . .I had become a

dropout. . .I’m not sure I want to go back to school again. . . I don’t even

know what to do now.’’Two other children – Kwamena and Akwesi, both 17 year-olds –

also expressed their views on the subject. For Kwamena, a dropoutwas ‘‘a child who has been in school for a period of time but has

decided not to attend school again because he is too old.’’

Akwesi added, ‘‘. . .you see, if a child is older than his classmatesand he has stopped attending school, and doesn’t make an effort togo back, that child has become a dropout.’’ These views illustratechildren’s doubts about going back to school. Such indecision mayresult from feelings of embarrassment at being too old for a givengrade and the prospect of having to attend class with youngerchildren.

Kwamena noted his reluctance to learn with younger children,thus: ‘‘In fact, it is not easy to go back to school because I am olderthan all these children I have to join when I go back.’’

Akwesi’s response also posed a question that demonstrates thefrustrations and despair of an overage child. He asked, ‘‘What am Isupposed to do? I don’t know whether to stay at home and work,learn some trade, or go back to school. I am older and bigger thanmost of the children at school. I would find it humiliating to jointhose young children again.’’

These views of dropout demonstrate indecision about goingback to school. Such children may claim to have permanentlydropped out, but a prevailing uncertainty suggests that they mightreturn to school if they saw any sign of hope and support ingraduating (as indicated in Fig. 3 by the green broken arrow). I wastold by one head that, ‘‘Several older children who dropped out re-

entered school when the capitation grant scheme was introduced

recently.’’ During my fieldwork, one of these children re-enrolledand started attending school again. For this reason, I referred tothem as unsettled dropouts.

6.5. Settled dropout

To a fifth and final group of dropout children who are settled inan alternative occupation to school, the definition of dropout isfounded on their current situation. These children are engaged in a

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381380

vocation or learning a trade. Kwame, a 17 year-old boy who wasearning a living in the informal labour market, said, ‘‘To dropout

means to stop attending school to work for money.’’Another child, Esi, a 15 years old girl, saw the status of dropout

as a permanent condition based on the difficulty of learning atschool. She described her predicament, explaining, ‘‘A dropout is

someone like me who don’t understand what is taught at school. I left

school and I don’t want to go back because I didn’t understand

anything. I was just wasting my time walking five miles to school every

day.’’

This last category of children who consider that school is not forthem tend to learn a vocation or engage in petty trading. Theirdecision not go back to school is a reflection of the perceiveddiminishing value of education. The girls focus on learning a trade(dressmaking, hair dressing), engaging in petty trading while theboys find a job (fishing, faming) straight away in order to earnmoney.

In my sample, children who defined ‘dropout’ as a permanentcondition were significantly overage when they dropped out ofprimary school. They, like unsettled dropouts, fall into exclusionzones 2, 4 and 5.

6.6. Types of dropout and exclusion

This study has enabled me to look at how dropout is defined andthe types of dropout found in a rural Ghanaian context, from theperspective of affected children themselves. It has provided avaluable insight into the relationship between children’s accounts ofexclusion and how their views of dropout fit the CREATE model ofzones of exclusion. The study found that the five types of dropoutthat emerged fall within CREATE exclusion zones 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The evidence from the study shows that in this rural context,dropout may be temporary or permanent. Children’s economicsurvival needs and critical events both within school and out ofschool shape the length of time a child may stay out of school.Often, children who start attending school intermittently becomesporadic dropouts and begin their journey towards permanentdropout status. In terms of CREATE zones of exclusion, sporadicdropouts are regarded as being at heightened risk of ceasing toattend school completely.

However, the evidence also shows that low attendance, whichhas hitherto been regarded as a sign of being at risk, can actually be atype of dropout. While some children may drop out of schoolingtemporarily with a return to classes being very likely, others –especially those who are overage and for whom schooling has lost itsvalue – drop out permanently. Such children may focus more oneconomic well-being by engaging in child labour or learning a trade.

7. Conclusions and policy implications

The children’s views of dropout examined in this study are veryuseful because they allow us to focus on the nuances of theirdefinitions, which highlight the types and forms of dropout incontext. The different types of dropout are defined as gaining initialaccess but not currently attending, although a return to school ispossible. A school dropout may therefore be defined broadly as anychild who:

� accomplished some basic education but has terminated hisor her schooling for more than one academic term withoutpermission;� has not progressed from one grade to the next and is not

repeating;� has not completed the nine years of basic education but still has

chance of returning to graduate, and� has stopped schooling to enter a trade or vocation.

Preventing dropout and encouraging drop in requires targetingthe different peculiarities of children who manifest the temporaryand the permanent dimensions of drop out. Interventions aimed atpreventing dropout should focus on the specific types of dropout.Policy makers should recorgnise that while a sporadic, event andlong-term dropout cases may require different approaches toprevent them or encourage to return, children who are signifi-cantly over-age and see themselves as permanent dropouts maynot be interested in returning to the classroom. I provide a list ofsuggestions for possible intervention:

� Policy makers could focus on identifying responsibility forchildren who attend irregularly and drop out of school.Responsibility could be located within the school with teachersand pupils working together, to follow up on children at risk,support the learning needs of children ‘at risk’ and work withregular attendees to track irregular attendees. Responsibilitieswithin the community could rest with parents, parent teacherassociation members, school management committee membersand other key stakeholders who can work together with teachersto ensure regular attendance.� Introducing multi-grade teaching and learning in schools where

there are many cases of over age enrolments and where long-term drop outs return to school would help. Also, providingalternative school programmes that can help reintegrate overagechildren for whom schooling has lost its value and who need toimprove their literacy and numeracy skills. Introducing flexibleschool calendars to cater for persistent irregular attendance andtemporary dropout caused by seasonality of economic andagricultural activities that encourage sporadic dropout. Schoolprogrammes may also be designed to suit children’s physicalmobility. Mobile schools and flexible timetables designed tomake use of periods of time when they are not working may beuseful.� It is important that problems arising from conflict between

pupils and teachers, (including issues of corporal punishment)are discussed by involving children, parents, parent teacherassociation leaders, teachers and school management committeeleaders, in order to reduce drop out.

This study has shown that dropout is the outcome of a process.Once children start attending school irregularly, if nothing is doneby way of prevention, the child often becomes a sporadic dropoutand from there on, to event dropout, and long-term dropout. Often,what starts as temporary withdrawal from school eventuallyresults in permanent dropout. The five types of dropout thatemerged from this study are helpful distinctions for policy, for thetargeting of at-risk children and encouraging dropouts to dropback in. If the pupils who are ‘at risk’ are ignored, they may becometomorrows out of school children. It is only when we address theproblem of school dropout alongside enrolments, can the broadergoals of education for all be reached. This way, the UN declarationof education as a human right may be realised.

References

Ainsworth, M., Beegle, K., Koda, G., 2005. The impact of adult mortality and parentaldeaths on primary schooling in north-western Tanzania. The Journal of Devel-opment Studies 41 (3), 412–439.

Akyeampong, A.K., Ananga, E.D., 2010. Reducing school dropouts through inclusiveapproaches to education in Ghana. http://www.eldis.org/index.cfm?objectid=132A5AA5-9E0B-0456-5BB24B4C5495B04E (accessed on the 20.07.10).

Akyeampong, A.K., Djangmah, J., Oduro, A., Seidu, A., Hunt, F., 2007. Access to BasicEducation in Ghana: The Evidence and the Issues. CREATE Country AnalyticReview. University of Sussex, Brighton.

Al Samarrai, S., Peasgood, T., 1998. Educational attainments and household char-acteristics in Tanzania. Economics of Education Review 17 (4), 395–417.

Ames, P., 2004. Schooling for girls in rural Peru. id21 [Internet]. Available fromhttp://www.id21.org/id21ext/insightsedu3art7.html (accessed 29.09.09).

E.D. Ananga / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 374–381 381

Ampiah, G., Adu-Yeboah, C., 2009. Mapping the incidence of School dropouts: a casestudy of communities in Northern Ghana. Comparative Education 45 (2), 219–232.

Batbaatar, M., Bold, T., Marshall, J., Oyuntsetseg, D., Tamir, C., Tumennast, G., 2006.Children on the move: rural-urban migration and access to education inMongolia. CHIP Report No. 17. Save the Children UK/CHIP.

Boyle, S., Brock, A., Mace, J., Sibbons, M., 2002. Reaching the Poor: The ‘Costs’ ofSending Children to School. Synthesis Report. DFID, London.

Brock, C., Cammish, N., 1997. Factors Affecting Female Participation in Education inSeven Developing Countries. Education Research Paper No. 9. DFID, London.

Colclough, C., Rose, P., Tembon, M., 2000. Gender inequalities in primary schooling:The roles of poverty and adverse cultural practice. International Journal ofEducational Development 20, 5–27.

Connelly, R., Zheng, Z., 2003. Determinants of school enrolment and completionof 10 to 18 year olds in China. Economics of Education Review 22 (4), 379–388.

Dedze, I., Kruzmetra, M., Lazdina, S., Mikisko, I., 2005. Factors hindering completionof basic education in Latvia. Latvia, Riga: Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS.

Dumas, C., Glick, P., Lambert, S., Sahn, D., Sarr, L., 2004. Progression Through Schooland Academic Performance in Senegal: Descriptive Survey Results WorkingPaper. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Duryea, S., 2003. School Attendance, Child Labor and Local Labor Market Fluctua-tions in Urban Brazil. World Development 31 (7), 1165–1178.

Ersado, L., 2005. Child Labor and Schooling Decisions in Urban and Rural Areas:Comparative Evidence from Nepal, Peru, and Zimbabwe. World Development33 (3), 455–480.

ESP, 2007. Monitoring School Dropouts: Albania, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Mongolia,Slovakia, and Tajikistan. Education Support Program (ESP) of the Open SocietyInstitute, Budapest.

Fentiman, A., Hall, A., Bundy, D., 1999. School enrolment patterns in rural Ghana: acomparative study of the impact of location, gender, age and health on chil-dren’s access to basic schooling. Comparative Education 35 (3), 331–349.

GSS, 2003. Ghana Child Labour Survey. GSS: Accra.GSS, 2009. Ghana Demographic and Health Survey 2008.Glick, P., Sahn, D.E., 2006. The demand for primary schooling in Madagascar: price,

quality, and the choice between public and private providers. Journal ofDevelopment Economics 79, 118–145.

Grant, M, Hallman, K., 2006. Pregnancy related school dropout and prior schoolperformance in South Africa. Population Council, New York.

Guarcello, L., Lyon, S., Rosati, F., 2005. Impact of Children’s Work on SchoolAttendance and Performance: A Review of School Survey Evidence from FiveCountries. Understanding Children’s Work.

Hashim, I.M., 2005. Exploring the Linkages between Children’s Independent Migra-tion and Education: Evidence from Ghana. DRC on Migration, Globalisation andPoverty. Brighton: University of Sussex.

Huisman, J., Smiths, J., 2009. Keeping children in school: household and district-level determinants of school dropout in 322 districts of 30 developing countries.Nijmegen Center for Economics (NiCE) Working Paper 09-105. http://www.ru.nl/nice/workingpapers.

Hunt, F., 2008. Dropping out from school: a cross country review of literature. CREATEPathway to Access Research Monograph No. 20. Brighton University of Sussex.

Lewin, K.M., 2007. Improving Access, Equity and Transitions in Education: Creatinga Research Agenda CREATE Pathway to Access Research Monograph No. 1.Brighton University of Success.

Lewin, K.M., 2009. Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: patterns, problemsand possibilities. Comparative Education 45 (2), 151–174.

Marrow, G., 1987. In: Husen, T., Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds.), The International Ency-clopedia of Education. Vol. 3. Pergamon, p. 1603.

Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MOESS), 2005. Preliminary EducationSector Performance Report. Ministry of Education, Accra.

Ministry of Education Science and Sports, 2007. Preliminary Education SectorPerformance Report. Ministry of Education, Accra.

MOEYS/GES, 2005. School Mapping Report of Mfantseman District. Ministry ofEducation/UNICEF, Accra.

Nekatibeb, T., 2002. Low participation of female students in primary education: acase study of drop outs from the Amhara and Oromia Regional States inEthiopia. Addis Ababa, UNESCO.

OECD, 2002. Education at a Glance. OECD, Paris.The PROBE Team, 1999. Public Report on Basic Education in India; The PROBE Team.

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.UIS/UNICEF, 2005. Children Out of School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary

Education. UNESCO UIS, Montreal.UNESCO, 2005. World Education Report. New York.UNESCO, 2007. Enhancing learning; From access to success. UNESCO.UNESCO, 2007b. 2008 Global Monitoring Report-EFA by 2015: Will We Make It?

UNESCO and Oxford Publishers.UNESCO, 2010. EFA-Global Monitoring Report Reaching the Marginalised. UNESCO/

Oxford Publishers.