Peer Reviewed Journals High School Dropout and Social Class

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Enquiry Article

Does lack of parental involvement impact school dropout amid Indian adolescents? evidence from a console study

• Ronak Paul,
• Rashmi Rashmi,
• Shobhit Srivastava

ten

• Published: May 10, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251520

Figures

Abstract

Despite the gross enrolment ratio of Indian children, being nearly 91% in grades 6–8, the equivalently soaring rates of school dropout later 8^th grade remains a huge concern for the policymakers. Researches from the developed countries and some developing countries have shown the benefits of parental interest in their children's education in terms of reduced dropout rates. However, at that place is a stark absence of similar evidence in the Indian context. Our study examines whether the lack of parental involvement during master schooling of Indian children eventually results in school dropout when the children go adolescents. We used IHDS panel data of children (eight–11 years) in round-I who become adolescents (15–18 years) in round-2. Bivariate, multivariable and stratified analyses were performed using logistic regression models. The findings from the multivariable models bear witness that children, whose parents did non -participate in PTA meetings, -hash out academic progress with schoolteacher and -supervise their children's homework in round-I respectively had 1.xv (95% CI: 1.01–1.30), 1.xiv (95% CI: one.01–i.29) and ane.17 (95% CI: 1.01–one.34) times higher risk of school dropout in round-II. Further, a similar relationship was observed when hypothesized human relationship by gender, type of school attended and blazon of community of the children were examined. Amid male children, parents' non-participation in PTA meetings was associated with 1.21 (95% CI: 1.02–1.44) times greater odds of school dropout. Children from private schools also had a 2.17 (95% CI: 1.42–3.32) times greater hazard of dropout if their parents did not supervise their children in homework These findings highlight the crucial function of parental involvement in their children'southward main teaching, in terms of reduced school dropout. The findings call for programmatic interventions that create awareness and encourage parental participation in their children'southward schooling.

Citation: Paul R, Rashmi R, Srivastava S (2021) Does lack of parental involvement affect schoolhouse dropout among Indian adolescents? prove from a panel study. PLoS One 16(5): e0251520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251520

Editor: Srinivas Goli, University of Western Australia, AUSTRALIA

Received: November 4, 2020; Accepted: April 28, 2021; Published: May 10, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Paul et al. This is an open up access commodity distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Information Availability: This study used a publicly available secondary dataset with no information that could atomic number 82 to the identification of the respondents. The IHDS datasets used in our study can be downloaded from the Inter-Academy Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) data repository. The information are available at https://world wide web.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/36151/versions/V6 and https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/22626.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors accept declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

With the global commitment of Education for All, India started moving towards the goal of universal elementary education in 1992. While initiatives like the Right to Education Deed, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the Mid-day meal scheme and many more than, resulted in rapid increment of primary school enrolments, the result of discontinuation of schooling education had grown unacceptably in Republic of india [1]. Equally per National Education Policy (NEP) report, the gross enrolment ratio (GER) for grades 6–8 was xc.9%, while for grades ix–x and 11–12 it was 79.3% and 56.five% respectively [2]. This shows the successful effort of bringing children under the formal education organization through primary schooling. However, the increasing dropout rate among Indian children, especially after eight^th course, has put the long-term benefits of such gross enrolment into question. "No detention policy", that ruled out course retention upto 8^th form, brought downwardly the dropout rates to half during 2014–15 from the highs of 2006–07. Nonetheless, the prevalent rate of school dropout among adolescents is however a major cause of concern [three]. According to NFHS-4, 3.9% of male and 3.2%, female children feel dropout due to repeated failure in schoolhouse [four]. Grade repetition emerged as a stressful event for early adolescents [5, half dozen]. Repetitive failures not just affects the confidence but inculcates negative attitude among children which farther disrupts their continuation to secondary schooling [6, 7]. Moreover, school dropouts are responsible for long-term consequences like illiteracy, unemployment, low wage, kid labour, mental health issues and interest in criminal activities [8–10].

Besides socio-economic, household and kid-related characteristics, parental participation in home and schoolhouse is seen equally an important predictor of teaching and evolution amid children in both developed and developing countries [11, 12]. Parental interest in child schooling indicates the office of parents in guiding the children in their learning procedure as well every bit dedicating time to look afterward the vicissitudes of their life and career. Existing researches accept used different definitions of parental involvement. Joyce Epstein came with a typology of parental interest that includes good parenting (providing housing, nutrition and interacting with child), communication with the schoolhouse, volunteering in classrooms or events, pedagogy at home (educational choice and help in homework), decision-making (participation in PTA) and collaborating with the community [13]. In developed countries, research had shown that children at any age are benefitted from a certain amount of parental involvement [14]. Another study found that parents who continually motivate their children for doing their best in whatsoever activities they like had helped improve accomplishment among children [15]. Additionally, one study highlighted the benefits of parental involvement, amid Spanish adolescents, in terms of better bookish achievement [16]. School composition and peer group was also considered to be a crucial determinant of kid schooling and education after sixteen years of historic period [11]. Ane written report of British children had shown the negative affect of maternal deprivation on their educational attainment [17]. Taken together these studies suggest that a majority of children benefit from experiencing parental involvement during their elementary education.

Despite such well-established benefits of parental involvement in schooling across developed and developing countries, there is a lack of similar research in the Indian context. Gimmicky research in developing countries talks virtually factors that touch educational attainment and dropout among children [eighteen–20]. Particularly in the case of India, illiteracy among parents, poverty, the gender of the children, family size and religion are proven roadblocks to the quality and continuity of education in Republic of india [21–25]. Ane report had shown the association of several household characteristics with school dropout among Indian children [26]. A couple of Indian cross-sectional studies had also talked about the negative association of lack of parental involvement on the continuity and accomplishment of formal pedagogy amongst children at the elementary level [27, 28]. Another study establish parental aspirations every bit an important predictor of a child's schooling and achievements [29]. The bear witness found from this Indian literature had also shown a differential in the association across the residence, gender and type of schoolhouse facilities. However, there is a famine of show showing the impact of lack of parental interest during primary schooling on the continuity of their children's education in a after class. This gives us the point of departure for the present written report. The objective of our study is to examine whether the lack of parental interest during chief schooling of the children somewhen upshot in detrimental outcomes, in terms of schoolhouse dropout, when the children get adolescents. To fulfil this objective, we employ the Bharat Man Development Survey (IHDS) panel information for children aged eight–xi years in round-I who become adolescents aged 15–18 years in circular-Two. Our study hypothesizes that there is no relationship of lack of parental involvement in round-I with the school dropout status of adolescents in round-2. Further, we examine whether this hypothesized relationship varies across unlike subsets of the Indian population.

Methods

Data source

This written report used round-I and round-Ii of the India Human Development Survey (IHDS), conducted by the National Quango of Practical Economical Research (NCAER) in collaboration with the Academy of Maryland, USA. IHDS round-I is a nationally representative survey that collected data from 41,554 households across all states and spousal relationship territories of India except Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep, during 2004–05 [30]. IHDS round-Ii carried out during 2011–12, collected data from 42,152 households with geographical coverage similar to round-I [31]. IHDS circular-2 re-interviewed 83% of the households from round-I. IHDS adopted a stratified random sampling survey design and informed consent were obtained from all the interviewee. Further details regarding survey description, sampling design and data quality tin can exist plant elsewhere [32–34]. Additional information on informed consent is available from the survey questionnaires available from the IHDS website [35, 36].

Our study utilized the panel data for 9840 children anile 8–11 years in round-I who became 15–eighteen years one-time during round-Ii. There were 17,061 children aged 8–eleven years in round-I among whom 104 died, three,454 migrated and three,663 children were untraceable during round-II. Further, we excluded the data for 122 children who had missing information regarding their school dropout status in round-Ii. Therefore, for investigating the relationship betwixt parental involvement in circular-I with school dropout in round-Ii, the analytical sample size is 9718 adolescents. Amidst 9,718 children, 7,445 (77%) children were enrolled for schooling education in both rounds. Yet, 2,273 (23%) children who were enrolled in the circular–I had experienced school dropout in circular-2.

Ethics argument

This report used a publicly available secondary dataset with no information that could lead to the identification of the respondents. The IHDS datasets used in our report tin be downloaded from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) information repository [35, 36].

Outcome variables

The outcome variables of this study are a binary indicator of whether a student dropped out of schoolhouse between round–I and–Ii when they become aged 15–18 years (adolescents) during round-Two. School dropout statuses of students were obtained from the binary indicators of their schoolhouse enrolment status collected during both rounds of IHDS. We have included only those children who were enrolled in a school during round-I. Amidst them, children who were enrolled in school during round-I but were non enrolled during circular-II were categorized as "yeah" (school dropout) and those who were enrolled during both rounds were categorized equally "no".

Explanatory variables

The three binary indicators of lack of parental interest are the explanatory variables in this study. These three indicators are–whether the parents participate in parent-instructor association (PTA) meetings; parents discussed the bookish progress of the students with their schoolteacher; and, parents supervise the students while doing homework. These three variables were measured for children aged 8–11 during round-I and have been categorized into "yes" and "no".

The variables for parental participation in PTA meetings, and, whether parents discussed the academic progress of their children with the schoolteacher within a year, was constructed from the similar question that IHDS asked from parents of children aged eight–11 in circular-I. Further, during round-I information was collected regarding whether the mother, whatever adult men, any adult women or other children of the household supervises the children while doing homework. If anyone supervised the students while doing homework, then they were coded as "yes" and otherwise were coded into "no".

Control variables

Existing studies prove that several factors other than lack of parental interest also influence the school dropout of students. We controlled for the confounding issue of these relevant factors in our written report, conditional to their availability in IHDS datasets. The misreckoning factors related to the student and their school are–age of the student in years, the gender of the pupil (male, female), type of educatee (ameliorate than average, boilerplate and below), blazon of school attended by the student (public school, private school), the student takes individual tuition (no, yes). Nosotros likewise controlled for parent-related characteristics–mother's level of education (no formal schooling, less than v years of schooling, 6–10 years of schooling, more than than 10 years of schooling), female parent'southward working status (not working, working), begetter's level of teaching (no formal schooling, less than 5 years of schooling, vi–10 years of schooling, more than than 10 years of schooling), father'due south working status (non working, working). Further, the socio-economical characteristics of the student households were also included–household wealth quintile (richest, rich, eye, poor, poorest), household beneath poverty line (BPL) status (not-poor, poor), caste of the household (scheduled tribes (ST), scheduled castes (SC), other backward classes (OBC), others), religion of the household (Hindu, Muslim, others), type of customs the student belongs (rural, urban), country region a student comes from–(northern, north-eastern, central, eastern, western, southern). All these factors were measured for the panel of children aged 8–eleven during round-I.

Additionally, nosotros included the binary variable of whether the students had repeated a grade between circular-I and round-Two. We synthetic this variable from the two binary variables of whether the students had ever repeated a grade during round-I and circular-Two respectively. Those students, who had not repeated any form in both rounds were categorized every bit "No repeat" and who had not repeated a course in circular-I just had repeated grade in round-II were categorized equally "Repeat".

Household wealth quintile was measured in round-I using master component analysis [37]. Wealth scores for each household were generated using the information on household asset ownership, livestock ownership, building material used in household, household water source, household sanitation facility and the number of rooms. Based on the wealth score the households were classified into five categories (poorest, poor, centre, rich, richest) such that the households with the everyman 20 percentile score belonged to the "poorest" category, households with the next low xx percentile score belonged to the "poor" category and so forth.

The country regions during round-I were formed past including the erstwhile 33 states and union territories of India into six categories. The northern region includes Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana Himachal Pradesh, erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan. The north-eastern region includes Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim. The central region consists of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The eastern zone consists of Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha and West Bengal. The western region comprises Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Goa, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The southern region comprises erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.

Statistical methods

We performed bivariate and multivariable analysis using logistic regression models to accomplish the study objectives. Owing to the binary nature of the outcome variable, we performed bivariate analysis using the chi-square test for association. Equivalently, we undertook multivariate analysis by estimating multivariable logistic regression models. In the multivariable models, the clan between parental interest in round-I and school dropout in round-2 was shown using odds ratios. Odds ratio gives the odds of school dropout of adolescents, from i category of an explanatory variable in comparison to the reference category of that explanatory variable after decision-making for the result of other confounding factors, relative to those adolescents who did not experience schoolhouse dropout [38].

Further, we performed a stratified multivariable assay to bank check for the differential bear upon, of lack of parental interest in round-I on the school dropout of adolescents in circular-II, by their gender, type of school attended and type of community they belong to. The first gear up of stratified analysis models involved estimating dissever multivariable logistic regression models for subsamples of male and female children. In the second and third sets of regression models, we divided the full sample into subsamples of public-private school and rural-urban children respectively.

We checked for multicollinearity in the multiple variable regression models and the mean values of variance inflation factor (VIF) for each of the models were less than 1.3. Therefore, multicollinearity does not affect our estimated models [38]. We also checked for possible interaction effects between the explanatory variables used in our study [39]. We found bear witness of interaction result between–course repetition and country region, wealth quintile and country region, religion and country region. However, we did non observe suitable explanations in existing literature for these observed interaction furnishings, in the Indian context, and therefore did not include them in our statistical models. Our study results are un-weighted, equally the use of panel data requires the awarding of panel weights. Nevertheless, IHDS does not provide split up panel weights for analysis. All the statistical estimations were done using the STATA software version xiii.0 [twoscore].

Results

Sample description

Tabular array 1 shows the absolute and percentage distribution of children aged viii–11 by relevant parental, demographic and socio-economic characteristics during round-I. Nosotros found that among the panel of children 55%, 29% and 13% of the children have parents who did not–attend PTA meetings,–discuss academic progress with the schoolteacher and–supervise their children while doing homework respectively. When we come to demographic characteristics, 53% of children were male and 75% attended public school. Furthermore, the male parent and mother of 55% and 26% of children have had no formal schooling respectively. Nosotros as well observe that 29% of children come from households below the poverty line and 7% and 23% of children belonged to the ST and SC category respectively. Moreover, 79% of children belonged to a Hindu household and 72% come from a rural customs. Coming to geographic distribution, a bulk (38%) of the children come from the northern region followed by eighteen% and 15% coming from the southern and eastern regions of Bharat respectively. We observed that the percentage difference of children by demographic, socio-economic and geographic characteristics was like between the cross-exclusive and console datasets. Only pct distribution by age of the children (in years) varied by more than ii% between the ii datasets.

Tabular array i. Accented and percentage distribution of children past parental involvement variables and other relevant demographic and socio-economical characteristics across the cross-sectional and panel datasets for children aged 8–eleven years in round-I.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0251520.t001

Bivariate analysis

Section 1 of Table ii shows the bivariate association between the lack of parental involvement in round-I with the dropout status of adolescents in round-II. Among 9,718 children, 2,273 had experienced school dropout during adolescence. The bivariate results prove that 29% of children whose parents did not participate in PTA meetings during circular-I had experienced school dropout in round-Two. Further, nosotros notice that parents who practice not discuss the academic progress of their children with the schoolhouse instructor and do non supervise the homework, those children had a 32% and 34% chance of schoolhouse dropout in circular-Two respectively. 36% of children who had repeated their class between two rounds experienced schoolhouse dropout in round-II. Nearly 25% of children who were boilerplate and below-average students in round-I had dropout from school in round-II. Nigh of the children (28%) who were from public schools in round-I, had discontinued their schooling in round-II. 32% and 37% of children whose female parent and father had no formal schooling in round-I, respectively, feel dropout in round-II. Interestingly, dropout was common amongst 25% of children whose fathers were working in round-I. Children belonging to Scheduled Tribes and from rural customs experienced 36% and 25% dropout in round-Two.

Tabular array ii. Bivariate and multivariate association of parental involvement and other relevant demographic and socio-economic characteristics in round-I with the school dropout status of adolescents in round-Ii.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251520.t002

Multivariable analysis

After controlling dissimilar characteristics, multivariable logistic regression in department 2 of Table 2 shows the association of lack of parental interest in round-I with the school dropout condition of adolescents in circular-II. The multivariable analysis shows that if the parents did not participate in PTA meetings during round-I then their children had 1.15 (95% CI: 1.01–i.30) times higher chances of schoolhouse dropout in circular-II. Moreover, the children whose parents did non discuss their bookish progress with the schoolteacher in circular-I had one.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.29) times college odds of school dropout in round-2. Further, we discover that non-supervision of school homework by parents during circular-I is associated with a 1.17 (95% CI: one.01–ane.34) times higher risk of school dropout amid their children in round-II. Additionally, we observe that children studying in public schools during round-I had 1.70 (95% CI: 1.44–two.01) times higher odds of school dropout during round-Ii compared to children studying in individual schools. Moreover, children of mothers who had more than ten years of schooling had 0.24 (95% CI: 0.14–0.42) times lower odds of school dropout compared to those children whose mothers had no formal schooling. Similarly, if the fathers had more than than ten years of formal education then their children had 0.36 (95% CI: 0.27–0.48) times lower odds of school dropout in circular-II respectively. Farther, children from households belonging to the poorest wealth quintile had 3.16 (95% CI: 2.41–4.15) times greater chances of dropout in comparison to the children from the richest quintile households. Furthermore, we find that children in the urban community had 1.43 (95% CI: 1.24–1.66) times college odds of school dropout compared to their rural community counterparts.

Stratified assay by gender, type of school attended and type of customs

From Tabular array 3 we observe that the rates of the lack of parental interest vary by gender, type of school attended and type of community. There is heterogeneity in the relationship between parental involvement and school dropout among adolescents. In comparing to female adolescent's, lesser dropout is experienced amid male person counterparts when their parents participate in PTA meeting during master schooling. Private school children were constitute to exist more advantageous when any class of parental involvement is seen during their primary educational activity.

Therefore, we ran separate regression models for male and female children, children attending public and private schools and children from rural and urban communities respectively and the results for the aforementioned are shown in Tabular array 4. Table iv shows the regression results for male and female children. Amid male person children, parents' non-participation in PTA meetings was associated with 1.21 (95% CI: 1.02–1.44) times greater odds of school dropout. Insufficiently, in female children lack of parental participation in the form of academic word with the teacher was positively associated with the risk of school dropout. The results for children from public and private schools are shown in Table four. Non-participation in PTA meetings and non-give-and-take of academic progress with schoolteacher during circular-I is associated with greater chances of school dropout among students of public schoolhouse in round-II. Moreover, children from private schools too had a 2.17 (95% CI: 1.42–iii.32) times greater take chances of dropout if their parents did non supervise their children in homework. Interesting results appear when we look at the clan of the lack of parental involvement with the dropout condition of children from a rural and urban community in Table 4. While non-supervision of homework by parents has a statistically meaning positive association with school dropout amid urban children, non-participation in PTA meetings and non-discussion of academic progress was associated with a greater risk of schoolhouse dropout among rural children.

Tabular array four. Adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression models showing the association between parental involvement in round-I with the school dropout and grade condition in circular-II past gender, type of school attended and type of community of the students.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0251520.t004

Discussion

The nowadays written report examined the effect of parental participation in their children's main school education on the educational outcomes of secondary school (i.east., when they reach their adolescence phase) in terms of school dropout. Based on IHDS panel data, this study provides prove that Indian children whose parents did not indulge in their principal stage learning process; were more likely to be affected by negative educational outcomes at their boyish stage. School dropout was common among those adolescents whose parents had non participated in PTA meetings, not discussed bookish progress with the teacher and not supervised their homework during primary schooling. These findings were consequent with one existing written report which showed that dropout was high among American families in which parents were less involved in the education of children [41]. Similar to our written report, another study on Icelandic youths had also shown the importance of parent-child human relationship quality for reducing the take a chance of school dropout [42]. Similar to our findings, another study had also shown that parent`s active communication with teachers and family involvement in school-related activities usually lower the chances for dropouts in lower secondary schooling [43].

The present study found that school dropout was higher among adolescents with average or below grade performance. The results were consistent with previous inquiry works where it was argued that high dropouts were a result of persistently depression performing students beingness rolled out of their school, as those students were likely to hamper downwards the overall performance statistics of their school [44]. Besides, grade repetition was i of the risk factors for higher schoolhouse dropout amid adolescents in our study. The findings were parallel with the existing findings that poor children are at risk to enter schoolhouse at later ages, repeat grades and and then more often exit school early [10]. Other reasons may be that grade retentiveness makes students overage for a course, which in plough causes them to drop out of school [45].

Dropouts were more common amid the public-schoolhouse children in this study. These results were consequent with an existing study that showed that dropout was higher in public schools due to poor performances of children and a huge shortage of teachers which creates lesser motivation amidst parents for sending their children to schools [46]. Moreover, i Indian study showed that infrastructure and schooling price significantly varies by type of ownership of schools. Children of privately run schools with ameliorate infrastructure and college schooling price outperforms the children going to publicly run schools [47]. Further, in the present study lower chance of school dropout was observed among adolescents whose parents had higher educational attainment. This bear witness was again consistent with i existing study where illiterate parents show less encouragement towards their children's teaching [48]. Moreover, similar to existing studies our study also found that loftier parental income and better socio-economic status paved the fashion for a reduction in dropout status as children coming from such groundwork were provided meliorate resources including admission to better quality schools, private tuitions and more than support for learning within the home [49–51]. Further, consequent with one study our written report besides establish that Indian children belonging to the SC and ST category show college dropout rates than those of other categories [52].

Literature from the adult and a few developing countries had consistently shown the importance of parental involvement in a child's education [53]. Yet, this report had tried to strengthen the literature in developing countries and explored such association in the context of Indian adolescents. Few studies had brought forward the office of parents in universalizing and continuation of uncomplicated instruction in India. However, with the growing rates of dropout after the eighth class in India, at that place is a need to understand how the parental factor is affecting the children at after ages. The panel nature of IHDS data helps us to sympathize such clan and strengthens our results. Moreover, extant research papers based on cross-sectional studies were unable to capture the long-term consequence of parental interest in their children's didactics, a enquiry gap that our written report fills up. To the best of the authors' noesis, this study is the get-go to present the association of parental involvement in primary schooling on the educational upshot of children in the adolescence flow in India. Furthermore, a similar relationship highlighting the detrimental affect of lack of parental involvement was observed beyond the relevant subsets (by gender, type of school, poverty status and type of community) of the whole population. This shows that the findings are not sensitive to unobserved bias. Moreover, this study takes advantage of nationally representative information, which helps united states of america to generalize our results for Indian children than those of the existing, land or region-specific studies, in the Indian context.

Yet, the written report has shortcomings besides. Firstly, there is a need to control for school-related characteristics similar proper water and sanitation facility in schools, availability of teachers and learning resources along with a meliorate surroundings, every bit these impact the dropout status of children. Secondly, the study results are united nations-weighted due to the non-availability of panel weights. Also, we were not able to capture the outcome of the Right to Pedagogy human activity entitled for under 15 years age children on their dropout status at later ages due to unavailability of data in the survey. Moreover, factors like the number of parent-instructor meetings and the duration of fourth dimension for such interest are crucial for examining the association of meaningful parental involvement with school dropout. However, the unavailability of such data in the IHDS does not permit us to include these variables. Notwithstanding, besides these limitations, the study provided crucial findings that are of utmost importance in the field of dropout status of adolescents.

Conclusion

This study provides conclusive prove of the detrimental effect of the lack of parental involvement on their children's academic progress. Policymakers from India accept generally focused on socio-economic, household and schoolhouse characteristics while making policy for children'due south teaching. However, the effects of parental involvement in their children's teaching are often overlooked. India is on way to prefer a new National Education Policy [2] to modernize the existing Indian pedagogy system. The present study highlights the importance, for policymakers, of encouraging meaningful parental involvement in the students' elementary school journey. A structured implementation of policies that would help in holding parent-teacher meets, activities for the family as a office of homework and involvement of parents during kid education are required to create a healthy surround among children-parents-teachers. This would further help in reducing incidents of school dropout amongst adolescents, which is a requirement highlighted in the National Education Policy. Too this one Indian written report had shown that 70% of total students are nowadays in government primary schools which increases the importance of reducing the gap between public and private run schools [47]. The study rightly suggested the need of strengthening the customs level participation by forming a hamlet educational activity committee and monitoring the teacher's activities forth with infrastructure planning. Stating this study every bit the foundation, the nowadays study deepens the need of inculcating different measures in public and individual schools to reduce the proportion of discontinuation from schools. Moving beyond this, the present study recommend the sensitization of parents through teachers, schools and community to make them enlightened of their ever-important office in the learning process of their children.

References

1. 1. Chudgar A. The challenge of universal uncomplicated education in rural Bharat: Can adult literacy play a role? Comparative Education Review. 2009;53: 403–433.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. MHRD. National Education Policy 2020 Government of India. 2020.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. iii. Taneja A. No Detention under the RTE Human activity: The policy options. 2018.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. IIPS and ICF I. National Family Wellness Survey (NFHS-iv), 2015–16: Republic of india. International Institute for Population Sciences; 2017.
5. five. Anderson GE, Jimerson SR, Whipple AD. Educatee ratings of stressful experiences at dwelling house and school: Loss of a parent and grade retention as superlative stressors. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 2005;21: ane–20.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Jimerson SR. Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. Schoolhouse psychology review. 2001;xxx: 420–437.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. McGrath H. To repeat, or not to repeat. Words. Western Commonwealth of australia Principal Principals' Clan; 2006. pp. 39–46.
8. viii. Beauvais F, Chavez EL, Oetting ER, Deffenbacher JL, Cornell GR. Drug use, violence, and victimization among White American, Mexican American, and American Indian dropouts, students with academic problems, and students in good academic standing. Periodical of Counseling Psychology. 1996;43: 292.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. ix. Desai U. Determinants of educational performance in Bharat: role of home and family. International review of Didactics. 1991;37: 245–265.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. UNESCO. Global pedagogy digest 2012. Opportunities lost: The impact of grade repetition and early on schoolhouse leaving. UNESCO Institute for Statistics Quebec; 2012.
11. xi. Desforges C, Abouchaar A. The touch of parental involvement, parental back up and family unit teaching on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review. DfES London; 2003. https://doi.org/ten.1083/jcb.200210117 pmid:12743106
12. 12. Islam A. Parental Interest in Didactics: Evidence from Field Experiments in Developing Countries. Monash University, Department of Economics. 2017; 2–17.
13. 13. Kreider H. The National Network of Partnerships Schools. A model for family unit-school-community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Inquiry Project. 2000.
14. 14. Mahamood SF, Tapsir R, Saat A, Ahmad South, Ab Wahab K, Boon MHA, et al. Parental attitude and involvement in children's teaching: A study on the parental aspiration among form four students in Selangor. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;42: 117–130.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Stegelin DA. Early Literacy Education: Offset Steps Toward Dropout Prevention. Effective Strategies for School Improvement and Dropout Prevention. 2002.
16. 16. Xu J. Do early adolescents want family involvement in their teaching? Hearing voices from those who matter most. School Community Journal. 2002;12: 53–53.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Sacker A, Schoon I, Bartley G. Social inequality in educational accomplishment and psychosocial aligning throughout childhood: magnitude and mechanisms. Social science & medicine. 2002;55: 863–880. pmid:12190276
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Behrman JR. The impact of health and nutrition on didactics. The World Bank Research Observer. 1996;11: 23–37.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Sabates R, Hossain A, Lewin KM. School drop out in Bangladesh: Insights using panel data. International Journal of Educational Development. 2013;33: 225–232.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Sengupta P, Guha J. Enrolment, dropout and grade completion of girl children in Due west Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly. 2002; 1621–1637.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Bhat PNM, Zavier AJF. Role of religion in fertility decline: The example of Indian Muslims. Economic and Political Weekly. 2005; 385–402.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Choudhury A. Revisiting dropouts: Old issues, fresh perspectives. Economic and Political Weekly. 2006; 5257–5263.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Pratinidhi AK, Warerkar S 5, SG G. A study of schoolhouse dropouts in an urban slum community. Census Bharat. 1992;21: 301–305.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Rao MJM. Migration of labour and school dropouts. SOCIAL WELFARE-DELHI-. 2000;47: 26–31.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Upendranath C. Educational activity of girls in India: The daunting task alee. Periodical of EducationalPlanning and Administration. 1995;9: 81–92.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Gouda Due south, Sekher T V. Factors leading to schoolhouse dropouts in India: An analysis of national family wellness survey-three information. IOSR Periodical of Research & Method in Education. 2014;4: 75–83.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Siddhu G. Who makes it to secondary schoolhouse? Determinants of transition to secondary schools in rural India. International Journal of Educational Development. 2011;31: 394–401.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Thapa R, Sarkar KK. Universal Elementary Education in India: Barriers and Persistent Challenges. Social Change. 2019;49: 257–275.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Sethi IK. Parental Aspirations and Educational Outcomes: Show from Andhra Pradesh, Republic of india. University of Oxford; 2018.
30. thirty. Desai S, Vanneman R, National Council Of Applied Economical Research NDelhi. Bharat Human Development Survey (IHDS), 2005: Version 12 [Data set]. In: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. [Cyberspace]. 2008 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. Available: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/22626
31. 31. Desai S, Vanneman R. India Human Development Survey-2 (IHDS-Ii), 2011–12: Version vi [Data set]. In: Inter-Academy Consortium for Political and Social Research [Internet]. 2015 [cited 23 Dec 2019]. Available: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/spider web/DSDR/studies/36151/versions/V6
32. 32. Desai S, Dubey A, Joshi BL, Sen One thousand, Sharif A, Vanneman R. India Human Development Survey: Design and Data Quality. University of Maryland and National Quango of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi; 2009. Available: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/DSDR/idhs-data-guide.html
33. 33. Desai S, Dubey A, Joshi BL, Sen Chiliad, Sharif A, Vanneman R. India Human Evolution Survey Users' Guide Release 03. Academy of Maryland and National Council of Applied Economic Inquiry, New Delhi; 2010. Bachelor: https://world wide web.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/DSDR/idhs-data-guide.html
34. 34. Desai S, Dubey A, Vanneman R. India Human Evolution Survey-II Users' Guide Release 01. University of Maryland and National Council of Applied Economic Inquiry, New Delhi; 2015. Bachelor: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/DSDR/idhs-II-data-guide.html
35. 35. Desai S, Vanneman R, National Council Of Practical Economic Inquiry, New Delhi. Bharat Human Development Survey (IHDS), 2005: Version 12. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Inquiry; 2008. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22626.V12
36. 36. Desai S, Vanneman R. India Human Development Survey-Ii (IHDS-2), 2011–12: Version 6. Inter-Academy Consortium for Political and Social Inquiry; 2015. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36151.V6
37. 37. Filmer D, Scott Yard. Assessing asset indices. The World Bank; 2008.
38. 38. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. In: Cambridge Academy Press [Internet]. 2005 [cited 23 Jun 2020]. Available: http://cameron.econ.ucdavis.edu/mmabook/mma.html
39. 39. Royston P, Sauerbrei West. Two techniques for investigating interactions between handling and continuous covariates in clinical trials. The Stata Journal. 2009;nine: 230–251.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. StataCorp LP. Stata thirteen. College Station: StataCorp LP. 2013.
41. 41. Cairns RB, Cairns BD, Neckerman HJ. Early on school dropout: Configurations and determinants. Child development. 1989; 1437–1452.
42. 42. Blondal KS, Adalbjarnardottir S. Parenting in relation to school dropout through educatee engagement: A longitudinal written report. Journal of Union and Family. 2014;76: 778–795.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. A. Anghel, R. Neacsa Lupu, C. Voicu. Responsibility and Parental Involvement in School Dropout Prevention. 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts. 2016. https://doi.org/ten.5593/SGEMSOCIAL2016/B13/S03.111
44. 44. Fetler M. Schoolhouse dropout rates, bookish performance, size, and poverty: Correlates of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989;11: 109–116.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Roderick Grand. Form retention and schoolhouse dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal. 1994;31: 729–759.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Kundu P. Deteriorating Quality of Educational activity in Schools: Are Teachers Responsible? | Economic and Political Weekly. Economic & Political Weekly. 2019;54.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Gouda J, Das KC, Goli Southward, Pou LMA. Government versus individual primary schools in India. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2013.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Drèze J, Kingdon GG. School participation in rural India. Review of Development Economics. 2001;5: 1–24.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Cardoso AR, Verner D. School drop-out and push button-out factors in Brazil: The office of early parenthood, child labor, and poverty. 2006.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Hunt FM. Dropping out from school: A cantankerous land review of literature. 2008.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Pong S-L, Ju D-B. The effects of change in family structure and income on dropping out of middle and high schoolhouse. Journal of family unit issues. 2000;21: 147–169.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Chauhan C. SC/ST dropout rates high. Hindustan Times. 2006. Available: https://www.hindustantimes.com/bharat/sc-st-dropout-rates-high/story-wp4DgXyvn5l8e21JlJV4HK.html
53. 53. Ricard NC, Pelletier LG. Dropping out of high schoolhouse: The part of parent and teacher self-determination support, reciprocal friendships and academic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2016;44: 32–40.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

galindobegaings.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251520

Share this post