SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 1

FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS’ DECISION

TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL

HERMOGENES C. ORION, JR
orionjrh@cjc.edu.ph
Chairperson, Sunday College Program
Cor Jesu College

ERIKKA JUNE D. FOROSUELO

erikkajune@yahoo.com
Program Head, Sunday College-BSBA

JEAN M. CAVALIDA
jean_cavalida@yahoo.com
Program Head, Psychology
Cor Jesu College

Abstract - Dropping out is a serious problem because it denies individual

students their fundamental human right to education. The study aims to find
out the reasons why students drop out of school and the factors that contribute
to ‘the high dropout rate in order to provide a programme design to identify
mode of interventions to address the problem. It is a descriptive-correlational
and comparative type of research. Descriptively, results revealed that financial
resources were the major reason why students drop out of school. Inferentially,
result showed significant differences in terms of policies and practices, student-
teacher relationship, financial resources and academic performance except the
nature of the curriculum which shows no significant difference by the number
of times the students dropped from school year 2010-2011 to school year 2012-
2013, while age, civil status and sources of tuition payment are contributory
factors that lead students to drop out of school.

Keywords: dropout, policies and practices, student-teacher relationship,

nature of the school curriculum, financial resources

INTRODUCTION

Most students go to college with the hope of giving themselves the

foundation that they need to be successful in life or the skill that they need
to find a good job. Every year, a number of students attend college, but many
of them often fail or drop out within less than three years. Dropping out is a
serious problem because it denies individual students their fundamental human
right to education.
2 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

According to Apollo Research Institute, (2012), more than 8 million adults

are currently enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions; total enrollment
is projected to increase up to 20% by 2016. However, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) data indicate that less than half of all students
enrolled in a 4-year bachelor’s program will earn a degree. In one study conducted
by the NCES, only 28.1% of full-time and 5% of part-time nontraditional
learners—who comprise the majority of degree-seeking students—had earned
an associate’s or bachelor’s degree after 6 years of study. These high dropout rates
demand a deeper examination of the reasons why many college students fail to
complete degree programs (Apollo Research Institute, 2012).

In the Philippines, the dropout rates revealed an alarming 83.7 percent,

meaning the country is producing 2.13 million college dropouts annually. In
this case, the Philippine government must, in the next education generation
or the next 14 years be able to reverse the current situation from 80 percent of
college students enrolled in private schools and 20 percent in state universities
and colleges (SUCs) to 20 percent, private colleges, and 80 percent SUCs
(Manila Bulletin, 2012).

In Digos City, Sunday College Division of Cor Jesu College has been
existing for eight (8) years. Since then, it has been tremendously increasing its
first year population from 2005-2006. Most of the students are self-supporting
and working in order to pursue and earn a bachelor’s degree.

Despite the socialized tuition fee offered by the school, it has been observed
that many students have dropped out in the next curriculum year. Records from
the registrar’s office show that 28.74% of the students have already dropped
out in the second semester of SY 2010-2011 and SY 2012-2013. Considering
that the college has lower tuition fee and entrance fee as compared to other
neighboring colleges in the province of Davao del Sur, students are expected to
finish their bachelor’s degree, and thus, they should not drop out of school. But
still, a big number of students dropped out.

The study intends to find out the reasons why students drop out of school
and the factors that relatively contribute to the high dropout rate. Results of the
study will provide programme design to identify mode of interventions which
the school undertakes to address the problem.

The study attempts to identify the factors affecting the CJC Sunday college
students’ decision to drop out of school and the differences and relationships to
the students’ dropout from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013. The researchers
aim to (1) determine the Sunday college students’ socio-demographic profile
of age in terms of civil status and sources of tuition payment (2) determine the
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 3

level of the factors affecting the Sunday college students’ decision to drop out of
school with regard to policies and practices, student-teacher relationship, nature
of school curriculum, financial resources and academic performance (3) find if
there is a significant relationship in the factors affecting students’ decision to
drop out of school by the number of times they dropped from SY 2010-2011 to
SY 2012-2013 in terms of policies and practices, student-teacher relationship,
nature of school curriculum, financial resources and academic performance (4)
determine if there is a significant difference in the students’ socio demographic
profile by the number of times they dropped from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-
2013 when classified according to age, civil status and sources of tuition
payment (5) find if significant relationship exists between the factors affecting
students’ decision to drop out of school and the students’ drop out of school
from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 (6) determine if significant relationship
exists between students’ socio-demographic profile and the students’ drop out of
school from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 (7) identify possible intervention
programs that can be proposed using the findings of the study.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study made use of the descriptive-correlational and comparative

design. It would determine the extent to which different variables are related
to each other in the population of interest. These critical distinguishing
characteristics are the effort to estimate the difference or relationship (Sevilla,
et.al, 1992 as cited by Villa, 2011). From the design, the study aimed to find
the significant relationship between the factors affecting students’ decision to
drop out of school and the students’ actual act of dropping out of school from
SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013.

Respondents

The respondents of the study were the (48) Sunday College students. It
made use of the non-probability sampling specifically the purposive sampling.
The researchers chose students with complete records from the Registrar and
Guidance offices and who momentarily dropped out of school from SY 2010-
2011to SY 2012-2013.

Measures

In measuring the variables, the secondary data on the Sunday College

students’ profile, and students’ GPA were gathered from the offices of school
registrar and guidance and testing center.
4 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

A researcher-made questionnaire was utilized. The instrument consisted

of the following: part 1, demographic profile and part II, questions related to
the factors affecting students’ decision to drop out of school using the 5-point
likert scale. The questionnaire was validated and pilot-tested, and test results
were item-analyzed which resulted to 0.8210 reliability coefficient of the test
instrument. Using the Cronbach’s Alpha, it showed that the research instrument
was very reliable.

Respondents were asked to encircle the items that most corresponded to

how they thought the statement described them using the 5-point scale with
the following interpretations:

Descriptive Rating and Interpretation

Interval Descriptive
Weight Range/Scale Rating Interpretation
5 4.51-5.0 (SA) Strongly means that the respondent
Agree strongly favors the statement in
all cases
4 3.51-4.50 (A) Agree means that the respondent favors
the statement in majority of the
cases
3 (NDA) Neither means that the respondent is
Disagree or undecided or unsure
Agree
2 (D) Disagree means that the respondent does
not favor the statement in few
cases
1 (SD) Strongly means that the respondent is not
Disagree totally in favor of the statement

Academic performance based on students’ grade point average (GPA) was

obtained with the following interpretations:

GPA Scale Descriptive Rating Interpretation

1.00-1.49 Very Highly Satisfactory Excellent
1.50-1.99 Highly Satisfactory Very Good
2.00-2.49 Satisfactory Good
2.50-2.99 Moderate Fair
3.00 Low (Passing) Poor
5.00 Very Low (Failing) Very Poor
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 5

Procedure

In conducting the study, the following steps were undertaken by the

researchers:

First, the researchers asked permission from the College Dean and the
Registrar together with the Guidance and Counseling Coordinator to use
records of the Sunday College students. Second, as the letters of request were
approved; the researchers made the survey questionnaires. Third, the survey
questionnaire was validated by three (3) professors. The notes or comments
made by the questionnaire evaluators served as the bases which items would
be retained or removed. Fourth, the research instrument was pilot-tested to 32
students who were currently enrolled in the Sunday College. Fifth, results were
item analyzed and few items were discarded. Using the Cronbach Alpha, the
coefficient relationship of survey questionnaire was 0.8210 which is rated very
reliable.. Sixth, the process of communicating information to the respondents
and seeking their consent was to establish mutual understanding between
researchers and participants. Each participant was individually called for and
was given opportunity to ask question pertaining the survey questionnaire and
to discuss the information and their decision if they wish to participate in the
survey or not. Thus, information on the following matters were communicated
to the respondents: how the research will be monitored; contact details of
the researchers; how privacy and confidentiality will be protected; how the
participants can withdraw from further participation at any stage, along with
any implications on the withdrawal, and whether it will be possible to withdraw
data. After the individual and group briefing, all of the identified respondents
agreed to the terms and conditions discussed by the researchers and gave their
voluntary consent. Seventh, validated questionnaire was administered to the 48
respondents of the study Finally, the data gathered were tabulated, computed,
analyzed and interpreted with the aid of the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) Software.

Data Analysis

The statistical data were computed and analyzed with the use of Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 14 Software. The statistical tools are the
following: (1) Frequency and percentage distribution were used to describe the
students’ socio-demographic profile of age in terms of civil status and sources
of tuition payment; (2) Mean score was employed to determine the level of
each factor affecting students’ decision to drop out of school by the number of
times they dropped from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in terms of policies
and practices, student-teacher relationship, nature of the school curriculum,
6 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

financial resources and academic performance; (3) One-way Analysis of Variance

(One-Way ANOVA) was utilized, whether significant difference exists in the
factors affecting students’ decision to drop out of school by the number of times
they dropped from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 and in the students’ socio-
demographic profile by the number of times they dropped from SY 2010-2011
to SY 2012-2013 in terms of age, civil status, and sources of tuition payment;
(4) Post hoc analysis was used to detect an effect of some specific size and scores
which further utilize to identify the differences actually observed in the study.
Hence, it will be employed only when significant difference will be observed
in the ANOVA Test and; (5) Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used
to test whether significant relationship exists between the factors affecting the
students’ decision to drop out of school and the students’ Drop Out of School
from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013; and the significant relationship between
students’ socio-demographic profile and the students’ dropout of school from
SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013. All interpretations were based on 0.05 alpha
level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The following are the results of the analyses and interpretations of the
findings based on the statistical tests employed in the study.

Descriptive Statistical Results

1. It reveals that students aging from 18 to 22 years old with the greatest
frequency counts of 25 or 52.02% and 16 or 33.33% were mostly
single and working students. As cited by Hoobler, Wayne, and Lemmon
(2009),the traditional conceptions of marriage has entailing greater social
responsibilities outside the workplace for women while studying at the
same time as compared to single working-students. This holds true to the
laboratory experiment conducted by Correll, Benard, & Paik, (2007).
Participants rated working students who are married as less competent and
committed to their jobs than working students who are single.
2. Among the five (5) factors that affect students’ decision to drop out of
school, financial resources were the major reason why students drop out
of school. It revealed a descriptive equivalent of neither agree nor disagree
which means that availability of financial resources seemed unpredictable
as perceived by the respondents. Some were dependent on cash advances
from their employers, some were coming from parents’ financial support
and some were from unstable salary proceeds. The findings from this study
were consistent with previous findings by Sweeten (2004), who identified
economic reason as one of the causes for students to drop out of school.
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 7

Data from the Philippine National Statistics and Coordination Board

(NSCB) show that the ratio of graduates to enrollment for tertiary education
stands at 16 percent to less than 18 percent from 1994 to 2001. And, the NSCB
reported, in the past 10 years, the total number of college graduates increased by
an average of only 2.9 percent. The number of graduates also increased to only
481,862 in Academic Year 2009-2010 from 363,640 in AY 2000-2001. Based
on the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) 2008 data, out of 100
Grade 1 pupils, only 66 finish Grade 6 and only 58 of them enroll in first year
high school. Of the 58, only 43 finish high school. Of the 43 only 23 finished
high school enrolled in college, and of the 23, only 14 eventually graduate from
college. The dropout rate among college students, according to the CHED, has
reached an alarming 83.7 percent. This means that the country is producing
2.13 million college dropouts annually while graduates stand at close to
500,000 only. CHED records also showed that enrollment in tertiary education
slowed down from 1999 to 2002, and then dropped gradually starting 2002
to 2003, with negative 0.8 percent growth in 2004-2005 for both public and
private schools. Except for the big jump in 1998-1999, enrollment continues to
decline. Moreover, tertiary education enrollment even in state universities and
colleges shows a decelerating trend, weakening to negative 1.2 percent growth
in 2004-2005, despite the lower cost of public education. In the case of private
schools, the decline started as early as 2002 Manila Bulletin, (2012).

Inferential Statistical Results

1. There is a significant difference in the factors affecting students’ decision

to drop out of school in terms of policies and practices, student-teacher
relationship, financial resources and academic performance. However,
significant difference does not exist in the nature of school curriculum by
the number of times they dropped from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013.
Below are the specific results of each of the indicators:

Policies and Practices - The computed mean score of SY 2010-2011 is 4.48,
SY 2011-2012 is 4.49 and SY 2012-2013 is 4.55, having the f-value of
5.937 with p-value of 0.003 that is less than 0.05 level of significance. The
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the factors affecting
students’ decision to drop out of school by the number of times they
dropped out of school from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in terms of
policies and practices is rejected. It implies that policies and practices of the
school lead to the students’ decision to drop out of school from SY 2010-
2011 to SY 2012-2013. The policies and practices include maximizing class
schedule to ensure standard as mandated by CHED and the school services
provided to the students through quality educational facilities; the no I.D,
8 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

no uniform policy; teacher performance and students’ learning; select and

develop teachers’ competency to ensure high quality instruction; and the
implementation of the classroom attendance policy. Educational settings
and school policies are important influences on the patterns of completion
and early leaving. It is well established that, after controlling for various
intake and other relevant factors, there remain substantial differences
between individual schools in the proportion of students who remain to
complete college (Rumberger and Thomas, 2005). This is a particularly
important finding for schools’ policymakers because schools are one of the
principal mechanisms for targeting policies to improve rates of completion.

Student-teacher relationship - Results reveal that the mean scores of 4.06, SY

2010-2011; 4.28, SY 2011-2012; 4.19, SY 2012-2013 having the f-value
of 5.529 with p-value of 0.005 that is less than 0.05 level of significance.
The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the factors
affecting the students’ decision to drop out of school by the number of
times they dropped out of school from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in
terms of student-teacher relationship is rejected. The findings are consistent
with findings by Govindaraju and Venkatesan, (2010) who found out that
neglect by teachers, poor teaching, discrimination, cruelty or punishment
meted out by teachers, absence as being among the teacher-centric reasons
for dropping out of school in rural settings in India. In this study most
students indicated that teachers’ uncaring behavior acts are a push out factor
to many of them. Caring teachers have been shown by Croninger and Lee
(2001) in a study in America to be an important source of social capital for
students, positive relationships between students and teachers both in and
out of class which reduces the probability of dropping out by nearly half.
Such a relationship is important particularly to students from disadvantaged
backgrounds and those experiencing academic difficulties who are at risk of
dropping out. Contributing to this debate Stearns and Glennie (2006) note
that factors internal to the school, such as disciplinary policies or conflicts
with students or teachers, might serve to push students out of school. In this
study, it emerged that students are less likely to drop out of schools if the
relationships between teachers and students (as perceived by the students)
are more positive, a finding consistent with findings made by Wotherspoon
(2004) in a study of high school dropouts in Japan.

Financial Resources - The mean scores of SY 2010-2011 is 3.45, SY 2011-

2012 is 3.37, ad SY 2012-2013 is 3.49 having the f-value of 6.889 with
the p-value of 0.001 that is less than 0.05 alpha level of significance. The
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the factors affecting
the students’ decision by the number of times the dropped out from SY
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 9

2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in terms of financial resources is rejected.

This indicates that the students’ decision to drop out of school was affected
by the number of times they dropped in terms of financial resources.
According to Hunter and May (2011), it seems for students from poorer
backgrounds in particular the pressure on them to withdraw from school
increases as they get older, particularly as the opportunity cost of their time
increases. With the parents of most drop outs not employed, and income
levels are low, most children are called on to supplement the household’s
income, either through wage-earning employment themselves or taking on
additional tasks to free up other household members for work resulting in
them dropping out of school.

Academic Performance - The computed mean score of SY 2010-2011 is 3.54,
SY 2011-20-2012 is 3.32 and SY 2012-2013 is 3.93 having the f-value of
4.690 with p-value of .011 that is less than 0.05 level of significance. The
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the factors affecting
the students’ decision to drop out of school by the number of times they
dropped out of school from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in terms of
academic performance is rejected. It indicates that the students’ decision
to drop out of school is affected by their academic performance from SY
2010-2013 to SY 2012-2013. According to Loury and Gorman (2007),
college employment may also have a detrimental effect as time spent in
market work reduces time available for the accumulation of schooling-
related human capital. In addition, fatigue from extensive employment
hours may reduce the productivity of schooling-related activity that does
occur (Oettinger, 2010).

Nature of School Curriculum - The mean score of 4.35 for SY 2010-2011,

4.25 for SY 2011-2012, and 4.44 for SY 2012-2013 having the f-value of
2.146 with p-value of 0.121 level of significance. The null hypothesis that
there is no significant difference in the factors affecting the students’ decision
to drop out of school from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in terms of the
nature of school curriculum is accepted. This indicates the Sunday College
students’ decision to drop out of school was not affected in terms of the
nature of school curriculum by the number of times they dropped out of
school. The finding connotes that majority of the Sunday College students
are in favor of how the school curriculum is being implemented in terms
of motivating the learner using activity-based instruction; identifying pre-
requisite subjects or courses for each program; encourages inquiry and
creativity by being democratic with regard to procedure and accepting
individual differences; observing 54-hour CHED minimum requirements
for a 3-unit subject; and providing avenue for translating curriculum into
10 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

concrete learning experiences. From the above findings, it indicates that

Sunday College students perceived the school curriculum to be common
and is able to set high expectations for all, and is linked to clear learning
goals, that is connected to pathways that lead to employment. (OECD,
2008)

2. Results reveal that students’ socio-demographic profile affects the number

of times they dropped from school year 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013 in
terms of age. As cited by Lewin (2007), repetition and late enrolment cause
a student to be over the age-in-college-level appropriate. Over age entry
and progression, delays college completion to ages where male and female
may be subject to growing pressure to contribute to household income, and
to enter into marriage. Roderick (2004) shows that in the U.S. students
who repeat in college are significantly more prone to drop out even after
controlling for difference in background characteristics. In general, older
students have higher opportunity cost of schooling which is linked to the
probability of drop out. Similarly, older female students face issues of school
safety. Pregnancy and marriage which are associated with dropping out
from school, and this is particularly important in low enrolment countries
in terms of age, SY 2010-2011 has significantly higher mean difference
value than SY 2011-2012 and SY 2012-2013 by 0.43750 and 0.64583
respectively. However, SY 2011-2012 and SY 2012-2013 have significantly
lower mean difference value than SY 2010-2011 and SY 2012-2013 by
-0.43750 and -0.64583. It means that when classified by school year,
significant difference exists on the age in the students’ socio-demographic
profile. SY 2010-2011 has significantly high positive description on
how they are affected by the age of the students. The findings agree with
Cameron, (2005), that age-specific dropout rates for older student increase
drastically after the age of 16-18.Furthermore, students fully agree that civil
status is necessary and important indicator of socio-demographic profile
that would affect the number of times they dropped from school year 2010-
2011 to SY 2012-2013.

In addition, women who marry in their teens tend to have more children
and to have those children earlier. Teenage marriage is also associated with
much lower education levels; women who marry before the age of 19 are
50% more likely to drop out of high school or college and four times less
likely to graduate from college (Klepinger, Lundberg, and Plotnick 2002).
The negative outcomes associated with early marriage and dropping out
of school have the potential to affect not only the individual making the
decision but also her children and the rest of society.
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 11

In terms of civil status, SY 2010-2011 has significantly higher mean

difference value than SY 2012-2013 by 0.35417. Nevertheless, the SY 2012-
2013 is significantly lower in mean difference value than the SY 2010-2011
by -0.35417. This means that when classified by school year, significant
difference exists in civil status in the students’ socio-demographic profile,
SY 2010-2011. School Year 2010-2011 has significantly high positive
perception on how students’ socio-demographic profile in terms of civil
status affect the number of students dropped out of school. The findings
agree with Lochner and Moretti, (2004), that the negative outcomes
associated with marriage and dropping out of school have the potential to
affect not only the individual making the decision but also her children and
her future.

In terms of sources of tuition payment, it was found out that the mean
scores of 4.47 for SY 2010-2011, 4.45 for SY 2011-2012 and 4.67 for SY
2012-2013 having the f-value of 5.603 with p-value of 0.005 that is less
than 0.05 alpha level of significance. The null hypothesis that there is no
significant difference in the students’ socio-demographic profile by school
year in terms of source of tuition payment is rejected. It implies that in the
students’ socio-demographic profile for all school years, Sunday College
students valued much the sources of tuition payments. These findings agree
with Pullin (2008), that working students are working hard to compensate
for the effort, financial resources and time they invested in order achieve
their goals, wherein financial aspect becomes an ultimate necessity for them
to be able to finish school.

3. The results revealed that the students’ decision to drop out of school in
terms of policies and practices, students-teacher relationship, nature of the
school curriculum, financial resources and academic performance do not
significantly relate to students’ dropout of school from SY 2010-2011 to SY
2012-2013.The result implies that students’ decisions to drop out of school
were not perceived by them as significant to their dropping out of school.
As cited by Azam (2007), the major social cause of dropping out of school
does not have significant effect on the school related factors but more from
societal aspect, family background and students’ emotional readiness to
engage into studying and learning.

4. In the findings of Bushnik (2001) in his research entitled “Education,

Skills and Learning Research Paper-Learning, Earning and Leaving: The
Relationship Between Working and Dropping Out, his analysis confirms
that there is a significant relationship between socio-demographic profile of
students and their decision to dropout out of school. Having controlled for
12 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

a number of characteristics including demographics, socio-demographics,

parental and peer influences, school-related and engagement in school,
substance use and other extracurricular activities, students who did not
work at all or those who worked more than 30 hours per week were at
a higher risk of dropping out than those students who worked moderate
hours. Students who worked 30 hours (in order to pay for their educational
expenses) or more were at the highest risk of dropping out. There are many
possible explanations for this. Some students may have been far enough
along in the dropping out process to prefer working to schooling or some
may think they are old enough to continue schooling or some are married
and their family already becomes their topmost priority so they prefer to
drop out of school. Some students may have needed money and decided
that the opportunity cost of staying in school was too high. These ideas
are supported by the fact that 44% of heavy workers reported that they
had dropped out because of “wanting to work” or “having to work/money
problems.” Although there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship,
knowing that working many hours is related to dropping out could help to
identify those students who are at a higher risk of leaving school without
graduating. (Lavoie, 2002)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research results revealed that 18-22 year old students were mostly
single and working. It was found out that the major reason why students drop
out of school was the lack of financial resources. Thus, the indicators namely
policies and practices, student-teacher relationship, financial resources and
academic performance affected students’ decision to drop out of school while
the nature of school curriculum showed no significant difference by the number
of times the students dropped from SY 2010-2011 to SY 2012-2013. Age, civil
status and sources of tuition payment were contributory factors that led them
to drop out of school.

However, no significant relationship was observed between students’

decision to drop out of school in terms of policies and practices, student-
teacher relationship, nature of the school curriculum, financial resources, and
academic performance and students’ dropout of school from SY 2010-2011 to
SY 2012-2013. Similarly, no significant relationship exists between students’
socio-demographic profile in terms of age, civil status and sources of tuition
payment and students’ decision to dropout of school from SY 2010-2011 to
SY 2012-2013.

A program design is presented to help lessen students’ decision to drop

out of school. Below are the details:
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 13

PROGRAM TITLE:

PREVENTING DROP OUTS: AN ADVOCACY AND ACTION

GUIDE OF THE SUNDAY COLLEGE DIVISION

Rationale

In a study made on the “Factors Affecting Students Decision to Dropout

of School, it was found out that several indicators need improvement. These
areas include policies and practices, student-teacher relationship, financial
resources, and academic performance. Using the salient findings as basis for the
proposed interventions, four (4) specific programmes are designed.

This proposal aims to address the needs of the respondents and the Sunday
College Division as a whole.

PROGRAM CONCEPT DESCRIPTION

The program intervention scheme is more on prevention strategy for

students’ who plan to drop out of school before or after a semester ends. Before
and after the midterm examination, Sunday College instructors are required
to conduct academic counseling. As a result of the counseling, instructors will
have to identify students with inclination to drop out to be given preventive
measures.

The following are the specific programs:

1. THE ADOPT-A-STUDENT PROGRAM – a number of instructors

expressed their need of house helpers who are willing to enroll in the
Sunday College Program. A coordinator will be assigned to list down
interested students who want to avail of the program. Qualified applicants
will undergo interview for further background checking and information.
This program will help address students who drop out of school due to
financial problems. This is an initiative that falls under one of the CJC’s
pillars which is apostleship to support the financial needs of the students by
providing alternatives through other forms of scholarship.

2. SC ACADEMY - This program will be administered by the SC Programme

Heads who will be responsible to look for instructors or competent students
who can spare time out of their busy schedules. Students with academic
problems are placed at random into “family groups” of 5-10 identified
14 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

members that meet 3x a week for a specific academic session. Instructors/

students provide the modules and referrals in the “extended day” program.
Parents are encouraged to participate, and the instructors/students visit
each student’s home at (least once) to introduce and explain the program
objectives. This will help address problem on academic performance
that lead students to drop out from school. For the instructors who will
volunteer to render their time, their effort will be given due credit as part
of the community engagement in the SC Program. Moreover, to further
encourage these instructors, they can also earn additional points that will be
credited to the rank and promotion for the faculty. Volunteer students will
also obtain points that will be reflected in their co-curricular activity and
whoever gets the highest points will receive a co-curricular reward during
student recognition day.

3. TFP (Teacher Formation Program) - The main goal of the program is to

revisit the role of the teacher not just to transfer learning but also to lead by
example by displaying positive values and caring behavior so that students
will be motivated to continue their studies inside the classroom. This will
help address problem on student-teacher relationship and facilitates mutual
understanding between teacher and their students. Student representatives
from each division will also be invited. Teachers will be given the opportunity
to share their classroom teaching experiences (both good and bad) and so
with the students. There will be group sharing sessions between the teachers
and the student representatives together with the assistance of the school
guidance counselors who will be responsible for the counseling.

4. SCPPO PROGRAMREMINDERS (Sunday College Policies and

Practices Orientation) - This program will be implemented once in every
semester to re-orient students with the major Sunday College policies
under CHED mandate. This orientation program will be facilitated by the
Sunday College Division Chairperson, Programme Head and participated
by the School Registrar.
 SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014) | 15

LITERATURE CITED
Apollo Research Institute. (2012, May) Why students drop out from school.
Retrieved, March 6, 2013, from paulyniceroldens.hubpages.com/hub/
What-Causes-College-Students-to-Fail-or-Dropout#comment8223407.

Azzam, A.M. (2007). Why students drop out. educational leadership, 64(7):
91-93. Retrieved July 9, 2012 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/
educational-leadership /apr07/vol64/num07/Why-Students-Drop-Out.
aspx

Bushnik,L.(2005).Education, skills and learning-research papers, learning,

earning and leaving: The relationship between working and dropping
out. Ottawa, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Educational Statistics
Division.

Cameron, L.(2005).‘Primary completion rates.’EPDC Technical Paper WP-

09-0. Washington DC: Education Policy and Data Center

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I.(2007). Getting a Job: Is there a
motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338.

Croninger, R.G. ,& Lee, V.E.(2001). Social Capital and Dropping Out of
High School: Benefits to at Risk Students of Teachers’ Support and
Guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4): 548-582.

Govindaraju, R., &Venkatesan, S.(2010). A study on school drop-outs in

rural settings. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 47-53.

Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G.(2009). Bosses’ perceptions of

family-work conflict and women’s promotability: glass ceiling effects.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 939-957.

Klepinger, D., Lundberg, S. and Plotnick. R.(2002). “How does adolescent

fertility affect the human capital and wages of young women?” Journal
of Human Resources 34:421–48

Lavoie, C.(2002). Youth employment situation in Canada: Explanations

and future outlook.Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada,
Strategic Policy, Applied Research Branch.
16 | SLONGAN Volume 2 (2014)

Lewin, K.M.(2008). Strategies for Sustainable Financing of Secondary

Education in Africa. World Bank Working Paper No 136 Africa Human
Development Series World Bank Washington.

Lochner, L. and Moretti, E.(2004). “The effect of education on crime:

evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports.” American
Economic Review 94,155–89.

Loury, L.D. & Garman, D.(2007). College selectivity and earnings. Journal of
Labor Economics,13(2), 289-308.

Manila Bulletin. (2012, December 4).College Education for Poor Students.

Retrieved April 25, 2014 from https://ph.news.yahoo.com

OECD. (2008).Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First

results from teaching and learning international survey, the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France

Oettinger, G.S.(2010). Parents’ financial support, students’ employment, and

academic performance in college. Unpublished manuscript.

Pullin, D.(2008). Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn. New York.

Cambridge University Press.

Roderick, M.(2004).Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the

association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759

Rumberger, R.W., & Thomas, SL. (2000). The Distribution of dropout and
turnover rates among urban and suburban high shools. Sociology of
Education, 73(1), 39-67.

Stearns, E. & Glennie, E.J.(2006). When and why dropouts leave high school.
Youth & Society, 38 (1), 29-57. Retrieved March, 2013 from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X05282764

Sweeten, G.A.(2004). School dropout and subsequent offending

distinguishing selection fromcCausation. Retrieved February 15, 2009
from, http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitsreani/l903/191/1 /dissertation.
pdf

Wotherspoon, T (2004). The sociology of education in canada: critical

perspectives. Toronto: Oxford University Press.