research paper on high school dropouts pdf

Student Engagement and School Dropout: Theories, Evidence, and Future Directions

• First Online: 20 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Isabelle Archambault 3 ,
• Michel Janosz 3 ,
• Elizabeth Olivier 3 &
• Véronique Dupéré 3  

3644 Accesses

14 Citations

School dropout is a major preoccupation in all countries. Several factors contribute to this outcome, but research suggests that dropouts mostly have gone through a process of disengaging from school. This chapter aims to present a synthesis of this process according to the major theories in the field and review empirical research linking student disengagement and school dropout. This chapter also presents the common risk and protective factors associated with these two issues, the profiles of students who drop out as well as the disengagement trajectories they follow and leading to their decision to quit school. Finally, it highlights the main challenges as well as the future directions that research should prioritize in the study of student engagement and school dropout.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Afia, K., Dion, E., Dupéré, V., Archambault, I., & Toste, J. (2019). Parenting practices during middle adolescence and high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 76 , 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.08.012

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agirdag, O., Van Houtte, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2013). School segregation and self-fulfilling prophecies as determinants of academic achievement in Flanders. In S. De Groof & M. Elchardus (Eds.), Early school leaving and youth unemployment (pp. 46e74) . Amsterdam University Press.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103 (5), 760–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00134

Article   Google Scholar  

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2013). Saving futures, saving dollars: The impact of education on crime reduction and earnings . Retrived from https://mk0all4edorgjxiy8xf9.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SavingFutures.pdf .

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44 (5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Archambault, I., Pascal, S., Tardif-Grenier, K., Dupéré, V., Janosz, M., Parent, S., & Pagani, L. (2021). The contribution of teacher structure, involvement, and autonomy support on student engagement in low-income elementary schools. Teachers and Teaching, 26 (5–6), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1863208

Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110 (2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Dupéré, V., Brault, M.-C., & Andrew, M. M. (2017). Individual, social, and family factors associated with high school dropout among low- SES youth: Differential effects as a function of immigrant status. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 456–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12159

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J.-S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009a). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32 (3), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009b). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79 (9), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x

Basharpoor, S., Issazadegan, A., Zahed, A., & Ahmadian, L. (2013). Comparing academic self-concept and engagement to school between students with learning disabilities and normal. The Journal of Education and Learning Studies, 5 , 47–64.

Bingham, G. E., & Okagaki, L. (2012). Ethnicity and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 65–95). Springer Science + Business Media). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Björklund, A., & Salvanes, K. G. (2011). Education and family background: Mechanisms and policies. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook in economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 201–247). Elsevier.

Blondal, K. S., & Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2014). Parenting in relation to school dropout through student engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76 (4), 778–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12125

Bowers, A. J., & Sprott, R. (2012). Why tenth graders fail to finish high school: A dropout typology latent class analysis. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17 (3), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2012.692071

Brault, M.-C., Janosz, M., & Archambault, I. (2014). Effects of school composition and school climate on teacher expectations of students: A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44 , 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.008

Brière, F. N., Pascal, S., Dupéré, V., Castellanos-Ryan, N., Allard, F., Yale-Soulière, G., & Janosz, M. (2017). Depressive and anxious symptoms and the risk of secondary school non-completion. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 211 , 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.117.201418

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children: Children and Poverty, 7 (2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387

Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A., & Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, gender, and engagement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (7), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.291

Buhs, E. S., Koziol, N. A., Rudasill, K. M., & Crockett, L. J. (2018). Early temperament and middle school engagement: School social relationships as mediating processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (3), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000224

Buhs, E. S. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept and classroom engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.001

Cappella, E., Kim, H. Y., Neal, J. W., & Jackson, D. R. (2013). Classroom peer relationships and behavioral engagement in elementary school: The role of social network equity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52 (3–4), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9603-5

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Caraway, K., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal orientation and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40 (4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10092

Carmona-Halty, M., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2019). Linking positive emotions and academic performance: The mediated role of academic psychological capital and academic engagement. Current Psychology , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00227-8

Chen, J., Huebner, E., & Tian, L. (2020). Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learning and Individual Differences, 78 , 101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824

Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8 , 597–600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007318

Chiefs Assembly on Education. (2012). A portrait of first nations and education. Retrived from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/events/fact_sheet-ccoe-3.pdf

Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301010.x

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, M. (2007). School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28 (6), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280060201

Cleary, T. J., et al. (2021). Linking student self-regulated learning profiles to achievement and engagement in mathematics. Psychology in the Schools, 58 (3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22456

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030416

Crosnoe, R., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Research on adolescence in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 37 , 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150008

Crosnoe, R., & Turley, R. N. (2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The Future of Children, 21 (1), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0008

Crowder, K. D., & South, S. J. (2003). Neighborhood distress and school dropout: The variable significance of community context. Social Science Research, 32 , 659–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00035-8

Crul, M., & Mollenkopf, J. (2012). The changing face of world cities: Young adult children of immigrants in Europe and the United States (pp. 3–25). Russell Sage Foundation. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610447911

Curhan, A. L., Rabinowitz, J. A., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Informant discrepancies in internalizing and externalizing symptoms in an at-risk sample: The role of parenting and school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 (1), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01107-x

Danneel, S., Colpin, H., Goossens, L., Engels, M., Van Leeuwen, K., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Verschueren, K. (2019). Emotional school engagement and global self-esteem in adolescents: Genetic susceptibility to peer acceptance and rejection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 65 (2), 158–182. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.65.2.0158

Datu, J. A. D., & King, R. B. (2018). Subjective Well-being is reciprocally associated with academic engagement: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 69 , 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.05.007

DePaoli, J. L., Hornig Fox, J., Ingram, E. S., Maushard, M., Bridgeland, J. M., & Balfanz, R. (2015). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic.

De Witte, K., Cabus, S., Thyssen, G., Groot, W., & van Den Brink, H. M. (2013). A critical review of the literature on school dropout. Educational Research Review, 10 , 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.002

Dierendonck, C., Milmeister, P., Kerger, S., & Poncelet, D. (2020). Examining the measure of student engagement in the classroom using the bifactor model: Increased validity when predicting misconduct at school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44 (3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419876360

Dupéré, V., Dion, E., Cantin, S., Archambault, I., & Lacourse, E. (2020). Social contagion and high school dropout: The role of friends, romantic partners, and siblings. Journal of Education Psychology, 113 (3), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000484

Dupéré, V., Dion, E., Leventhal, T., Crosnoe, R., Archambault, A., & Goulet, M. (2019). Circumstances preceding dropout among rural high schoolers: A comparison with urban peers. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 35 , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000484

Dupéré, V., Dion, E., Leventhal, T., Archambault, I., Crosnoe, R., & Janosz, M. (2018). High school dropout in proximal context: The triggering role of stressful life events. Child Development, 89 (2), e107–e122. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12792

Dupéré, V., Leventhal, T., Dion, E., Crosnoe, R., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2015). Stressors and turning points in high school and dropout: A stress process, life course framework. Review of Educational Research, 859 (4), 591–629. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314559845

Duchesne, S., Larose, S., & Feng, B. (2019). Achievement goals and engagement with academic work in early high school: Does seeking help from teachers matter? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39 (2), 222–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431617737626

Duckworth, A. (2015). OECD report of skills for social progress: The power of social emotional skills (Peer Commentary on IECD report). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/seminarandlaunchofthereportskillsforsocialprogressthepowerofsocialandemotionalskills.htm

Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances . Russel Sage Foundation.

Eurostats. (2017). Decrease in “early school leavers” in the EU. Retrived from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20170908-1 .

Fan, W., & Wolters, C. A. (2014). School motivation and high school dropout: The mediating role of educational expectations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12002

Farrell, E. (1990). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk students . Teachers College Press.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer.

Fortin, L., Royer, É., Potvin, P., Marcotte, D., & Yergeau, É. (2004). La prediction du risque de decrochage scolaire au secondaire : Facteurs personnels, familiaux et scolaires [Prediction of risk for secondary school dropout: Personal, family and school factors]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36 (3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087232

Fraysier, K., Reschly, A., & Appleton, J. (2020). Predicting postsecondary enrollment with secondary student engagement data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38 (7), 882–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920903168

Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M.-T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (2), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21419

Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Wang, M., & Brauer, S. (2019). Profiles of school disengagement: Not all disengaged students are alike. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions (pp. 31–43). Academic Press.

Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M., Schall, J., Hokfkens, T., Snug, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.009

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 (3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00011

García Coll, C. G., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? American Psychological Association.

Garrett-Peters, P. T., Mokrova, I. L., Carr, R. C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2019). Early student (dis)engagement: Contributions of household chaos, parenting, and self-regulatory skills. Developmental Psychology, 55 (7), 1480–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000720

Georgiades, K., Boyle, M. H., & Duku, E. (2007). Contextual influences on children’s mental health and school performance: The moderating effects of family immigrant status. Child Development, 78 (5), 1572–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01084.x

Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L. E., & Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long-term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Prevention Science, 15 (6), 929–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0454-y

Goulet, M., Clément, M.-E., Helie, S., & Villatte, A. (2020). Longitudinal associations between risk profiles, school dropout risk, and substance abuse in adolescence. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49 , 687–706.

Gubbels, J., van der Put, C. E., & Assink, M. (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and dropout: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 (9), 1637–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01072-5

Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 41 (2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3 .

Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority children development (pp. 285–313). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holen, S., Waaktaar, T., & Sagatun, Å. (2018). A chance lost in the prevention of school dropout? Teacher-student relationships mediate the effect of mental health problems on noncompletion of upper-secondary school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62 (5), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306801

Hong, W., Zhen, R., Liu, R.-D., Wang, M.-T., Ding, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). The longitudinal linkages among Chinese children’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement within a mathematics context. Educational Psychology, 40 (6), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1719981

Hosan, N. E., & Hoglund, W. (2017). Do teacher–child relationship and friendship quality matter for children’s school engagement and academic skills? School Psychology Review, 46 (2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0043.V46-2

Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001

Hunt, J., Eisenberg, D., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2010). Consequences of receipt of a psychiatric diagnosis for completion of college. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 61 (4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2010.61.4.399

Hymel, S., Comfort, C., Schonert-Reichl, K., & McDougall, P. (1996). Academic failure and school dropout: The influence of peers. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 313–345). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571190.015

Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089

Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008a). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64 (1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x

Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., Pascal, S., Morin, A. J., & Bowen, F. (2008b). Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adolescence? The Journal of Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 43 (6), 600–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.011

Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Predicting different types of school dropouts: A typological approach with two longitudinal samples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.171

Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Disentangling the weight of school dropout predictors: A test on two longitudinal samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26 (6), 733–762. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022300826371

Jiang, S., & Dong, L. (2020). The effects of teacher discrimination on depression among migrant adolescents: Mediated by school engagement and moderated by poverty status. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275 , 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.029

Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Towards an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8 , 7e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00051-0

Jimerson, S. R., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (6), 525–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00051-0

Jordan, W. J., McPartland, J. M., & Lara, J. (1999). Rethinking the causes of high school dropout. The Prevention Researcher, 6 , 1–4.

Krauss, S. E., Kornbluh, M., & Zeldin, S. (2017). Community predictors of school engagement: The role of families and youth-adult partnership in Malaysia. Children and Youth Services Review, 73 , 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.009

Korhonen, J., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2014). Learning difficulties, academic well-being and educational dropout: A person-centered approach. Learning & Individual Differences, 31 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.011

Kurdi, V., & Archambault, I. (2020). Self-perceptions and engagement in low socio-economic elementary school students: The moderating effects of immigration status and anxiety. School Mental Health, 12 , 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09360-3

Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013153

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68 (6), 1181–1197. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1132300

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36 (2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864

Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2016). A public health perspective on school dropout and adult outcomes: A prospective study of risk and protective factors from age 5 to 27 years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58 (6), 652–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/2Fj.jadohealth.2016.01.014

Lavoie, L., Dupéré, V., Dion, E., Crosnoe, R., Lacourse, É., & Archambault, I. (2019). Gender differences in adolescents’ exposure to stressful life events and differential links to impaired school functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47 (6), 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-00511-4

Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891

Leventhal, T., & Dupéré, V. (2019). Neighborhood effects on youth development in experimental and nonexperimental research. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1 , 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-085221

Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Malone, P. S., & Valois, R. F. (2011). Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40 (3), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9517-6

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9857-5

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence:Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47 (1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307

Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Personal and ecological assets and academic competence in early adolescence: The mediating role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39 , 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9535-4

Liu, R.-D., Zhen, R., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Jiang, R., & Xu, L. (2018). Teacher support and math engagement: Roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions. Educational Psychology, 38 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1359238

Lovelace, M. D., Reschly, M. L., & Appleton, J. J. (2018). Beyond school records: The value of cognitive and affective engagement in predicting dropout and on-time graduation. Professional School Counseling, 21 (1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.70

Luo, W., Hughes, J. N., Liew, J., & Kwok, O. (2009). Classifying academically at-risk first graders into engagement types: Association with long-term achievement trajectories. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (4), 380–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/593939

Mahuteau, S., Karmel, T., Mavromaras, K., & Zhu, R. (2015). Educational outcomes of young Indigenous Australians . National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, Bentley, viewed 7 February 2017. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/educationaloutcomes-of-young-indigenous-australians/

Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2005). Consequences of employment during high school: Character building, subversion of academic goals, or a threshold? American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 331–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002331

Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 , 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X118036

McDermott, E. R., Donlan, A. E., & Zaff, J. F. (2019). Why do students drop out? Turning points and long-term experiences. The Journal of Educational Research, 112 , 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1517296

McDermott, E. R., Anderson, S., & Zaff, J. (2017). Dropout typologies: Relating profiles of risk and support to later educational re-engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 22 , 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1270764

Melkevik, O., Nilsen, W., Evensen, M., Reneflot, A., & Mykletun, A. (2016). Internalizing disorders as risk factors for early school leaving: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1 (3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-016-0024-1

Mojtabai, R., Stuart, E. A., Hwang, I., Eaton, W. W., Sampson, N., & Kessler, R. C. (2015). Long-term effects of mental disorders on educational attainment in the National Comorbidity Survey ten-year follow-up. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50 (10), 1577–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1083-5

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility . PISA, OECD.

Olivier, E., Galand, B., Morin, A. J. S., & Hospel, V. (2020a). Need-supportive teaching and student engagement : Comparing the additive, synergistic, and balanced contributions. Learning and Instruction, 71 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101389

Olivier, E., Morin, A. J. S., Langlois, J., Tardif-Grenier, K., & Archambault, I. (2020b). Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and student engagement in elementary and secondary school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 , 2327–2346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01295-x

Olivier, E., Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2018). Boys’ and girls’ latent profiles of behavior and social adjustment in school: Longitudinal links with later student behavioral engagement and academic achievement? Journal of School Psychology, 69 , 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.05.006

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Helping immigrant students to succeed at school – and beyond . OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/Helping-immigrant-students-to-succeed-at-school-and-beyond.pdf

Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., & Parent, S. (2012). Relating kindergarten attention to subsequent developmental pathways of classroom engagement in elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40 (5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9605-4

Perry, J. C. (2008). School engagement among urban youth of color: Criterion pattern effects of vocational exploration and racial identity. Journal of Career Development, 34 (4), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845308316293

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Psychological Bulletin, 16 , 385–407.

Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990

Réseau Eurydice. (2010). Différences entre les genres en matière de réussite scolaire: étude sur les mesures prises et la situation actuelle en Europe.

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer Science + Business Media). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006a). Promoting school completion. In G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Understanding and addressing the developmental needs of children . Bethesda.

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006b). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: A case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050301

Rocque, M., & Snellings, Q. (2018). The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59 , 3–11.

Rosenthal, B. S. (1998). Non-school correlates of dropout: An integrative review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 20 (5), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(98)00015-2

Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it . Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674063167

Book   Google Scholar  

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education, 107 (1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/444201

Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57 (2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057002101

Samuel, R., & Burger, K. (2020). Negative life events, self-efficacy, and social support: Risk and protective factors for school dropout intentions and dropout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (5), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000406

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer Science + Business Media). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

Staffs, J., & Kreager, D. A. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status and high school dropout. Social Forces, 87 (1), 445–471. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0068

Statistics Canada (2017). Insights on Canadian society young men and women without a high school diploma. Retrived from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2017001/article/14824-fra.htm

Suárez-Orozco, C., Rhodes, J., & Milburn, M. (2009). Unraveling the immigrant paradox: Academic engagement and disengagement among recently arrived immigrant youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6 , 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09333647

Strand, S. (2014). School effects and ethnic, gender and socio-economic gaps in educational achievement at age 11. Oxford Review of Education, 40 (2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.891980

Taylor, G., Lekes, N., Gagnon, H., Kwan, L., & Koestner, R. (2012). Need satisfaction, work-school interference and school dropout: An application of self-determination theory. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 622–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02050.x

Teese, R., Lamb, S., & Duru-Bellat, M. (2007). International studies in education inequality, theory and policy . Springer.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170024

Tuominen-Soini, H., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50 (3), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033898

Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0019

UNESCO. (2020). World inequality database on education . UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2017). Census bureau, current population survey (CPS), selected years, October 1977 through 2017 . Table 2.5. Retrived from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/ind_02.asp .

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 219.70. Retrived from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdf

Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in pre-vocational and vocational education: a learning history. Teachers and Teaching, 22 (8), 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1200545

Véronneau, M.-H., Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Do peers contribute to the likelihood of secondary school graduation among disadvantaged boys? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.429

Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., & Linn, J. S. (2019). Conceptualization and assessment of adolescents’ engagement and disengagement in school. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35 (4), 592–606. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000431

Wang, M.-T., Kiuru, N., Degol, J. L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2018). Friends, academic achievement, and school engagement during adolescence: A social network approach to peer influence and selection effects. Learning and Instruction, 58 , 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.003

Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43 , 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33 , 304e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001

Wang, M.-T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85 (2), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/2Fcdev.12138

Wang, M. T., & Peck, S. C. (2013). Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles. Developmental Psychology, 49 (7), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030028

Wang, M.-T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001

Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22 (1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support . The Falmer Press.

Wentzel, K. R., Jablansky, S., & Scalise, N. R. (2020). Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000468

Zhou, Q., Main, A., & Wang, Y. (2010). The relations of temperamental effortful control and anger/frustration to Chinese children’s academic achievement and social adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001590

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Isabelle Archambault, Michel Janosz, Elizabeth Olivier & Véronique Dupéré

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Archambault .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Amy L. Reschly

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Sandra L. Christenson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Olivier, E., Dupéré, V. (2022). Student Engagement and School Dropout: Theories, Evidence, and Future Directions. In: Reschly, A.L., Christenson, S.L. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_16

Published : 20 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-07852-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-07853-8

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence

1987, Review of educational research

Related Papers

Aaron Pallas

Steven Meeker , Stacey Edmonson

This study attempts to answer the following research question: What are the factors that prevent students from completing high school? The participants in this study included 228 current and recent students from General Educational Development (GED) programs across the state of Texas. In an effort to gain a clearer picture of circumstances faced by current high school students, only responses from participants in their teens or twenties were considered for the research concerning dropout factors. There were 158 respondents in this category. Data for this qualitative study were collected by means of surveys containing open-ended questions, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews. The significant findings of this study are as follows: (1) More than a quarter of the 158 participants in this study reported that pregnancy and parenting prevented them from graduating high school; (2) More than one-sixth reported that conflicts with school personnel as well as overall school dysfuncti...

Rodi Satriawan

Todd Fennimore

Youth & Society

Elizabeth Stearns

National Center for Education Statistics

Elizabeth Glennie

This report presents information about selected characteristics and experiences of high school sophomores in 2002 who subsequently dropped out of school. It also presents comparative data about late high school dropouts in the years 1982, 1992, and 2004. Three data sources ...

Dean Ramser, Ed.D.

Where and when does progress begin with our high school dropout problem? Is it simply bringing new technology to the class room as Morrell (2009) and Mahiri (2011) suggest? Is it tracking and detecting the potential dropout, and implementing intervention strategies as Heppen & Bowles (2008) suggest? If the ERO (20100 study was correct, and if 0.09% improvement is what can be hoped through Enhanced Reading Opportunities, what can be done with greater improvement? The Governor’s Report (2010) suggest that high school dropout behavior is predictable, why isn’t an intervention program in place now? Berliner (2008) saw an increase in high school graduation from those who reenrolled, so is that the strategy? Push to reenroll? Princotta & Harris (2009) suggest extended hours and extended days. Will that work, and if so, why is it not in place now? Hammond (2009) looks at teacher training institutions as the solution, yet it leans on Apple’s (2002; 2009; 2010) contention that the social structure of a hegemonic society is the obstacle to open discussions. Deli-Amen (2011) and Durkheim (1951) emphasize academic integration and social integration as effective models at addressing the achievement gap, and so does Rumberger (2011). As salient as it may be, the fissure of perceived inequality based on racial differences, will not be resolved through hierarchical mediation. That strategy reinforces the Hammond model of employing teaching graduates from the privileged institutions, and thereby purveyors of the pedagogical ideology of those institutions, which may not reflect the student population, like that of Paulo Freire’s conscientização. If the objective of learning is to develop higher level critical thinking skills (Dewey), then focusing on achieving an in-depth understanding of the world, allowing for the perception and exposure of perceived social and political contradictions, including the inequalities in the social stratification of ethnicities in our schools, will naturally lead to a form of critical consciousness that necessitates taking action against the oppressive elements in one's life that are illuminated by that understanding. The solution may rest in the uncharted territory of historical consciousness of the collective achievement gap carved out of our humanity, with a bit of 21st century technology to articulate the lighted path in the abyss between those two eternities of darkness.

Kate Sirota

Cynthia Kelly

RELATED PAPERS

Ismar Carvalho

Psychological Reports

Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy

Yamina Bouchamma

Praxis Filosófica

Raúl Gutiérrez

Tempat Magang Yang Cocok Untuk Jurusan Manajemen Di Medan

WA 0852 7019 0835 T E M P A T P K L S M K Medan

Reinaldo Guerreiro

Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler dergisi

Serpil EROL

ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., X-1/W1-2023, 649–655,

Mehad Haggag

Lviv Philological Journal

Alla Krasulia

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP

ROSANA RODRIGUES FIGUEIRA FOGLIANO

Integrative Cancer Therapies

Xiaoshu Zhu

Journal of Clinical Neurology

Jacek Stępniewski

Nazila Shahmansouri

m amin Sunarhadi

Germaine Warkentin

Acta Pharmacologica Sinica

Marcio Augusto

University Press of Florida eBooks

Phyllis Messenger

Dandina N. Rao

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Determinants of School dropouts among adolescents: Evidence from a longitudinal study in India

Pradeep kumar.

1 Research & Data Analysis, Population Council, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

Sangram Kishor Patel

2 Population Council, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

Solomon Debbarma

3 Magic Bus India Foundation, Hill Side Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl, Mizoram

Niranjan Saggurti

Associated data.

Data were collected as part of Population Council’s UDAYA study which is publicly available on the site of Harvard Dataverse (DOI: 10.7910/DVN/RRXQNT ).

Introduction

India has the largest adolescent population in the world. However, many unprivileged Indian adolescents are still unable to complete schooling. Hence, there is a need to understand the reasons for school dropout among this population. The present study is an attempt to understand the determinants of school dropout among adolescents and identify the factors and reasons that contribute to it.

Material and methods

Longitudinal survey data- Understanding Adults and Young Adolescents (UDAYA) for Bihar and Uttar Pradesh has been used to identify the determinants of school dropout among adolescents aged 10–19. The first wave of the survey was conducted in 2015–2016, and the follow-up survey in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics along with bivariate and multivariate analysis was used to observe school dropout rates and factors associated with it among adolescents.

Results show that the school dropout rate was highest among married girls aged 15–19 years (84%), followed by unmarried girls (46%), and boys (38%) of the same age group. The odds of school dropout among adolescents decreased with an increase in household wealth status. School dropout was significantly less likely among adolescents whose mothers were educated as compared to mothers who had no education. Younger boys [AOR: 6.67; CI: 4.83–9.23] and girls [AOR: 2.56; CI: 1.79–3.84] who engaged in paid work were 6.67 times and 2.56 times more likely to drop out of school than those who were not. The likelihood of school dropout was 3.14 times more likely among younger boys [AOR: 3.14; CI: 2.26–4.35], and it was 89% more likely among older boys [AOR: 1.89; CI: 1.55–2.30] who consumed any substances as compared to those who did not consume any substances. Both younger [AOR: 2.05; CI: 1.37–3.05] and older girls [AOR: 1.30; CI: 1.05–1.62] who acknowledged at least one form of discriminatory practice by parents were more likely to drop out of school than their counterparts. Lack of interest in studies/education not necessary (43%) was the predominant reason among younger boys for school dropout, followed by family reasons (23%) and paid work (21%).

Conclusions

Dropout was prevalent among lower social and economic strata. Mother’s education, parental interaction, participation in sports and having role models reduce school dropout. Conversely, factors such as being engaged in paid work, substance abuse among boys, and gender discriminatory practices towards girls, are risk factors for dropout among adolescents. Lack of interest in studies and familial reasons also increase dropout. There is a need to improve the socio-economic status, delay the marital age of girls, and enhance the government incentives for education, give rightful work to girls after schooling, and provide awareness.

Education is one of the primary determining factors of development for any country [ 1 , 2 ]. It plays a significant role in enriching people’s understanding of themselves and the world. Also, education plays a crucial role in securing economic and social progress and improving income distribution [ 1 ]. No country in the world can achieve sustainable economic development without substantial investment in human capital [ 2 ]. So, considering the need and importance of the education, targets was set at the global level; in Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) framework, which talks about quality of education, and one of the targets of this goal is to ensure that all the girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education [ 3 ]. Therefore, it is essential to understand how this goal can be achieved and what progress has already been made in this regard. So, pertaining to this; the scenario at the national level as per National Education Policy (NEP) report indicates that the gross enrolment ratio (GER) for grades 6–8 was 91%, while for grades 9–10 and 11–12, it was 79% and 57%, respectively [ 4 ]. Clearly, efforts to bring children within the formal education system through primary schooling have been successful. However, the increasing dropout rates among Indian children, especially after 8th grade, has put the long-term benefits of such gross enrolment into question [ 5 ].

A longitudinal study in the US has shown that adolescent employment and school dropouts are strongly associated after adjusting for the individual- and labor-market-level factors [ 6 ]. Previous literature has also demonstrated that intensively employed students tend to be less academically successful, less engaged in school, and more likely to drop out [ 7 , 8 ]. Moreover, research in north Karnataka revealed that economic factors (household poverty; girls’ work-related migration) were associated with school dropout among adolescent girls [ 9 ]. Another author also substantiates financial obstacles as one of the reasons behind dropout [ 10 ].

Poor learning environment and bullying/harassment at school was found associated with an increased odds of school dropout among adolescent girls [ 9 ]. While, others factors like distance to school, lack of basic facilities, poor quality of education, inadequate school environment and building, overloaded classrooms, improper languages of teaching, carelessness of teachers, and security problems in girls’ schools are major causes of student dropout in different countries [ 10 ]. A cross-sectional community-based study in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, found 11% scholastic dropouts among adolescents [ 11 ]. While, poor academic performance is another determining factor [ 11 ].

Social norms and practices (child marriage; the value of girls’ education) [ 9 ], parents’ unwillingness [ 10 ], socioeconomic status, mother’s education, family violence [ 11 ] and household’s income have significant association with school dropouts [ 12 ]. In one prospective study, it was found that social relations were strongly related to the non-completion of secondary education. For example, 18-year-old girls who found family conflicts difficult to handle had a 2.6-fold increased risk of not completing secondary education. Moreover, young people from low-income families were almost three times more likely to not complete secondary education than those from high-income families [ 13 ].

Earlier literature has established a link between adolescents engaging in non-academic risky behaviors (e.g. delinquency, drug, alcohol, or cigarette use; sexual involvement, and unintended pregnancies) [ 14 – 17 ], substance abuse [ 11 ] and subsequently dropping out of high school [ 15 ]. A panel data analysis shows that children whose parents did not participate in Parent-teacher Association (PTA) meetings, discuss academic progress with school teachers, and supervise their children’s homework in the first round had a higher risk of dropout in their adolescence (round II) [ 5 ]. Poor relations with teachers and classmates at age 18 explained a substantial part of the association between income and dropouts among both girls and boys [ 13 ]. A longitudinal study found that students’ academic and behavioral engagement and achievement in 10 th grade were associated with a decreased likelihood of dropping out of school in 12 th grade [ 18 ].

Dropout can lead to several consequences as mentioned in the various studies. One of the studies mentioned that dropout from school is an issue that affects not only students who make this decision but also affects their family, the community, and society as a whole [ 19 ]. Dropping out of school also leads to under-employment and a lower quality of life for young people [ 15 , 20 ]. Globally, a large number of students drop out of school every year [ 21 , 22 ]. While, a significant number of them are found living in poverty or receiving public assistance, imprisoned, unhealthy, divorced, or single parents of children who are likely to repeat the cycle themselves [ 21 , 23 , 24 ]. Dropouts are also at a greater risk of experiencing mental health problems [ 25 ] and delinquency [ 26 ]. However, it is not clear that risky behavior negatively affects educational achievement and increases the risk of school dropout [ 27 , 28 ]. One interesting finding from earlier studies reveals that boys who dropped out of school generally worked on family farms, entered the labor market, or undertook vocational training, whereas girls tended to marry [ 29 , 30 ].

A few decades ago there was a global call to ensure ‘education for all’ under Millennium Development Goal 2, and now under SDG 4 emphasis is on quality of education; but school dropouts continue to increase in low- and middle-income countries [ 31 ]. School dropout is very common in rural India due to various underlying factors. On the other hand, India has the largest adolescent population in the world [ 32 ]. This population can benefit the country socially, politically and economically, if they are healthy, safe, educated and skillful. However, many unprivileged Indian adolescents, particularly girls, are still unable to complete schooling. Hence, there is a need to understand the reasons for school dropout among this population. There are a good number of research papers on school dropout in India, but very few focus on the adolescent population. Problems like school dropout can be a major factor in determining adolescents’ future perspectives regarding personal and social achievements. The present study is an attempt to understand the determinants of school dropout among adolescents and identify the factors and reasons that contribute to it.

Data and methods

This study utilized data from the unique longitudinal survey of adolescents aged 10–19 (Understanding the lives of adolescent and young adults study—hereafter referred to as UDAYA study/survey) in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The first wave of the survey was conducted in 2015–2016, and the follow-up survey in 2018–2019. A state-representative sample of unmarried boys and girls aged 10–19 and married girls aged 15–19 was collected in the 2015–16 survey. The study used a multi-stage stratified sampling design to draw sample areas for rural and urban areas separately. In each state, 150 primary sampling units (PSUs)—villages in rural areas and census wards in urban areas—were chosen as the sampling frame, based on the 2011 census list of villages and wards. Households to be interviewed were chosen by systematic sampling in each primary sampling unit (PSU). Each PSU was subjected to a comprehensive mapping and household listing operation (or in selected segments or linked villages as appropriate). The PSU was divided into two nearly equal segments based on the list; one segment was randomly chosen for conducting interviews of females, and the other for interviews of males (married girls were interviewed from both male and female segments). Detailed information about data collection, sampling design of the study has been published elsewhere [ 33 ]. The field investigators interviewed 20,594 adolescents using a structured questionnaire; the response rate for the survey was 92 percent, and 1% of selected respondents refused to participate.

In 2018–19, the study re-interviewed those who were successfully interviewed in 2015–16, and who gave consent. The UDAYA study re-interviewed 4,567 boys, and 12,251 girls out of the 20,594 respondents who were eligible. The final follow-up sample consisted of 4,428 boys and 11,864 girls, resulting in an effective follow-up rate of 74% for boys and 81% for girls. The study excluded three percent of respondents who gave inconsistent responses to questions related to age and education during the follow-up survey. The main reasons for loss-to-follow-up were that the participant had migrated (10% for boys and 6% for girls), and the participant or his/her parent or guardian refused (7% for boys and 6% for girls). We note that the characteristics of those who were re-interviewed and those who could not be re-interviewed differed significantly in terms of age, education, place of residence, caste, and religion (see Table 1 in S1 Appendix for attrition bias). The analysis presented in this paper drew on data from the subset of adolescents. The present study considered the sample of adolescents who were enrolled in school at wave 1. The sample size for boys was 3676 and 6178 for girls.

Outcome variable

School dropout was the outcome variable of this study. It was defined as a binary variable (yes/no)—whether adolescents dropped out of school between wave-1 and 2. Data pertaining to school dropout was obtained from binary indicators of the school enrolment status collected during both waves of UDAYA. The study included only those adolescents who were enrolled/correspondence in a school during wave 1 [ 5 ]. Adolescents who were enrolled in school during wave-1 but not during wave-2 were classified as “yes” (school dropout), while those who were enrolled in both waves were classified as “no” [ 5 ].

Exposure variables

The explanatory variables included in this study were: place of residence, caste, religion, wealth index, mother’s education, engaged in paid work, substance use, state, role model, parental interaction, participation in sports activities, and gender discriminatory practices at home. Place of residence was classified as urban and rural. Caste was categorized as scheduled caste/tribe, other backward class, and others. Religion was grouped into two categories: Hindu and non-Hindu. Household wealth index was constructed based on selected durable goods and amenities with possible scores ranging from 0–57; households were then divided into quintiles, with the first quintile representing households of the poorest wealth status and the fifth quintile representing households with the wealthiest status [ 34 ]. Mother’s education was coded as ‘no education’ and ‘educated’. Work status (paid work in last one year) was coded as no and yes. Substance use included consumption of tobacco products, alcohol, and drugs; if the respondent consumed any one of the products, it was coded as “yes”, otherwise “no”. The survey was conducted in two states—“Uttar Pradesh” and “Bihar”. Adolescents reported having a role model (Yes/No). The role models reported were categorized as family members/relatives, teachers, professionals, friends, army/police, sports personalities, friends, actors, politicians and others. Adolescents were considered to have parental interaction (yes/no) if they discussed any of the following topics with their mother or father in the year preceding the interview—school performance, friendship, experience of bullying, physical changes during adolescence, or how pregnancy occurs. Participation in sports activities was coded as ‘yes’ and ‘no’. The respondent was asked—“Do you play any sports or games or engage in physical activities like walking, skipping, running, yoga, etc.?” Respondents were also asked if they experienced any gender discriminatory practices at home where parents favored sons over daughters in any of the following situations—the quantity or quality of food items given, the amount of pocket money given, the type of school in which they were enrolled, and parental aspirations for the respondent’s education [ 34 ].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to observe the school dropout rates among adolescents. Moreover, bivariate analysis was done to find the factors associated with school dropout. A chi-square test was performed to test the significance of the association between outcome variable and predictors of school dropout. Finally, a binary logistic regression analysis was used to observe the relationship between school dropout and other explanatory variables.

The equation for logistic distribution

Where, β 0 ,….., β n , are regression coefficients indicating the relative effect of a particular explanatory variable on the outcome variable. These coefficients change as per the context in the analysis in the study.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Population Council. We took several measures to ensure that research ethics were strictly followed. Interviews of boys and girls were undertaken in separate segments of each primary sampling unit to avoid any risk of teasing, harassment and harm to girls’ reputation if interviews of boys and girls were conducted in the same geographical segments. Interviews were conducted separately but simultaneously in cases more than one respondent was selected from a household. In order to minimise discomfort during questioning, the scenarios and terminologies described by adolescents were adapted for use in our questionnaire on sensitive topics. Based on our earlier experiences of working with young adolescents, we made the survey questions age-appropriate—for example, we did not ask about sexual and reproductive health matters with young adolescents. Interviewers underwent extensive training in ethical issues, and teams were instructed to apprise community leaders about the study and seek their support for its implementation in the community. Consent was sought from each individual to be interviewed, and for unmarried adolescents aged 10–17, consent was also sought from a parent or guardian. Names were never recorded in the computer form in which data were collected. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the respondent or the parent/guardian, signing the consent form was optional; however, the interviewer was required to sign a statement that she or he had explained the content of the consent form to the respondent or parent. Interviewers were instructed to skip to relatively non-sensitive sections in case the interview was observed by parents or other family members, call upon a fellow interviewer to conduct parallel discussion sessions with bystander, conduct interviews in locations that offered privacy for the interview and terminate interviews if privacy could not be ensured. Finally, the study team approached NGOs that conduct youth or health-related activities at the district level, help lines that work at national or sub-national levels and public health authorities and referred study participants in need of information or services.

Sample distribution of the study population ( Table 1 )

Note: Wave 1 refers to 2015–16

A higher proportion of adolescents lived in rural areas (81–88%), belonged to Hindu religion (82–96%), and more than half of the adolescents belonged to other backward classes (53–67%). About one-third of the adolescents’ mothers were educated (30–40%). A higher percentage of older adolescents engaged in paid work irrespective of their gender. About half of the older adolescents had a role model. A high percentage of adolescents had parental interaction and participated in sports activities.

Fig 1 shows that the overall school dropout rate was highest among married girls aged 15–19 years (84%), followed by unmarried girls (46%), and boys (38%) of the same age group.

*overall dropouts: those who were in schooling/correspondence at wave 1 and discontinued at wave 2.

Table 2 presents bivariate association of school dropout among adolescents (different age groups and gender) and their background characteristics. Results showed that school dropout was significantly higher among older boys (39%) and girls (49%) who lived in rural areas compared to those who lived in urban areas. Caste has a significant association with adolescents’ school dropout. For instance, dropout was more prevalent among adolescents who belonged to SC/ST caste than other castes irrespective of their age and gender. Household wealth has a negative relationship with school dropout among adolescent boys and girls; the dropout was significantly higher among both adolescent boys and girls who belonged to the poorest wealth quintile and it decreases with increase of wealth status of the households. Mother’s education also has a significant association with school dropout among adolescents—it was more prevalent among both adolescent (younger and older) boys and girls whose mother had no education. Adolescents who engaged in paid work experienced higher school dropout than those who were not. The most significant difference (paid work and not in paid work) was observed among older boys (59% vs. 33%) and girls aged 15–19 years (42% vs. 21%). Similarly, both younger (41%) and older boys (51%) who consumed any substance had a significantly higher likelihood of school dropout than those who did not. Dropout among younger boys was significantly higher in Bihar (20%), however, it was higher in Uttar Pradesh among married girls (90%). Dropout was lower among adolescents who had any role model irrespective of their age and gender. Parental interaction and participation in sports among unmarried adolescents were significantly associated with school dropout–those who played sports and interacted with parents were less likely to drop out of school.

Note: p-values are based on chi-square test; N/A: Not applicable

Estimates from logistic regression analysis for school dropouts among adolescent boys and girls ( Table 3 )

@: reference category

***p<0.0001

**p<0.05

*p<0.10; AOR: adjusted odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; N/A: Not applicable

The likelihood of school dropout was significantly higher among older girls who lived in rural areas as compared to their urban counterparts [AOR: 1.30; CI: 1.12–1.50]. Moreover, the odds of school dropout were significantly higher among both boys (younger-AOR: 1.77; CI: 1.16–2.69; older-AOR: 1.54; CI: 1.16–2.05) and girls (younger-AOR: 1.78; CI: 1.20–2.64; older-AOR: 1.38; CI: 1.16–1.63) who belonged to a non-Hindu religion as compared to those who belonged to Hindu religion. The likelihood of school dropout among adolescents decreased with an increase in household wealth status. Mother’s education plays a significant role in reducing school dropout among adolescent boys and girls and married girls. School dropout was significantly less likely among adolescents whose mothers were educated as compared to mothers who had no education. Younger boys [AOR: 6.67; CI: 4.83–9.23] and girls [AOR: 2.56; CI: 1.79–3.84] who engaged in paid work were 6.67 times and 2.56 times more likely to drop out of school than those who were not. Similarly, the risk of school dropout was significantly more likely among older boys who engaged in paid work than those who were not engaged in paid work [AOR: 2.86; CI: 2.35–3.49]. The likelihood of school dropout was 3.14 times more likely among younger boys [AOR: 3.14; CI: 2.26–4.35], and it was 89% more likely among older boys [AOR: 1.89; CI: 1.55–2.30] who consumed any substances as compared to those who did not consume any substances. The odds of school dropout were 65% higher among younger boys who belonged to Bihar [AOR: 1.65; CI: 1.21–2.27]. The risk of school dropout was 22% and 13% less likely among older boys and girls, respectively, who had a role model than those who did not have. Moreover, parental interaction and participation in sports activities were significant predictors of dropout among adolescents. Both younger [AOR: 2.05; CI: 1.37–3.05] and older girls [AOR: 1.30; CI: 1.05–1.62] who acknowledged at least one form of discriminatory practice by parents were more likely to drop out of school than their counterparts.

Reasons for school dropouts among adolescent boys and girls, and married girls ( Table 4 )

ⴕ included got job and work for payment in cash or kind

¥ included household work, work on form/family business, care of siblings, and illness or death of a family member

£ included school too far away, no proper school facilities for boys and girls, transport not available, costs too much, not safe to send girls/boys and poor quality of teaching/education

€ included illness and not consider education/further education is necessary

₭ included, pregnancy related reason for girls and others; @: frequency less than 25; N/A: not applicable.

Lack of interest in studies/education is not necessary (43%) was the predominant reason among younger boys for school dropout, followed by family reasons (23%) and paid work (21%). Among older boys, paid work (32%) was the primary reason for school dropout, followed by lack of interest in studies/ education not necessary (29%). Among younger girls, family reasons (31%) were the main factor for school dropout, followed by school-related reasons (31%) and lack of interest in studies/ education is not necessary (26%). In contrast, school-related reasons (32%) played a significant role in school dropout among older girls, followed by family-related reasons (26%) and failures (23%). Among married girls, getting married/engaged (38%) was the major reason for school dropout, followed by failures (25%) and family-related reasons (23%).

Adolescents who lived in rural areas, belonged to SC/ST caste group, belonged to the poorest wealth quintile, and whose mother was not educated, reported more family-related reasons for school dropout compared to their counterparts irrespective of their gender and marital status. Similarly, personal reasons for school dropout were reported more by unmarried adolescents who lived in rural areas, belonged to a lower caste group, and whose mother was not educated ( Table 5 ). Moreover, paid work as a reason for school dropout was more reported by boys who lived in rural areas, who belonged to non-Hindu religions, and whose mother was uneducated compared to their counterparts ( Table 6 ).

This study examines the determinants of school dropout among adolescents in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, based on data from the longitudinal UDAYA (Understanding the lives of adolescents and young adults) study. School dropout cannot be justified by one single reason; rather, it has several contributing factors. The main finding of this study highlights that dropout was high among married girls, and in rural areas, it was high for both boys and girls. Higher the social (Caste) and economic (Wealth quintile) strata lower the dropout rate and children from other religious background (other than Hindu) were found to have higher dropout rates in the study area. Dropout was also high among those who were engaged in paid work. Mother’s education and parental interaction were found to reduce dropout rates and the same is true with the participation in sports activities. The main reasons for dropout are ‘not interested’ in studies, family reasons, paid work and personal reasons.

At the global level, sustainable development goals have identified girl’s education as a priority, but the present study among adolescents found that school dropout rate was higher among married girls, followed by unmarried girls and younger boys. There are several possible reasons for this–an earlier study found that in Bihar, girls are married at an early age (Paul, 2021). This is further qualified with the finding that risk of dropout among girls was associated with marriage [ 35 ]. Moreover, it was found that Indian households invest equally in boys and girls at primary school level, but at secondary level of education sons are given priority above girls to study further [ 36 ]. Costs of education at secondary level are higher, which may be the factor for girls to discontinue [ 37 ].

For many health indicators, the reason for rural-urban differential is mainly due to socio-economic status of the household and parent’s education [ 38 , 39 ]. Similarly, we may attribute the higher dropout of older boys and girls in rural areas as compared to their urban counterparts to the low socio-economic status and parental education. A majority of families in rural areas are economically poor and may have food insecurity, which results in children engaging in farming and household work, thus leading to dropout [ 40 – 44 ].

Caste had a significant association with adolescent school dropout and it was prevalent more among lower social strata. This result may be substantiated by findings of UNICEF & UNESCO 2014, Prakash, Bhattacharjee, Thalinja, & Isac, 2017, wherein higher dropout rates were seen among adolescent girls of low income families living in rural areas, and belonging to a lower caste [ 9 , 45 ]. Children from different caste groups do not attend classes together, and that can lead to dropout of lower caste groups [ 46 ]. Moreover, children of scheduled caste have intrinsic disadvantages that result in less chance of going to school, even after controlling factors like wealth, parental education and motivation, and school quality, etc. [ 47 ].

Dropout was higher among adolescent boys and girls who belonged to the poorest wealth quintile—similar results have been found in other studies [ 10 , 37 , 48 ]. Furthermore, poverty interacts with other social disadvantages and pressures vulnerable children to dropout [ 49 ]. Mother’s education has a significant impact on school dropout. As found in an earlier study, children of educated parents are likely to continue schooling for longer [ 49 ]. While a mother’s educational level influences length of the girls schooling, it has also been found that illiterate parents are unable to guide their children and that results in low performance and school dropout [ 42 ].

This study found that dropout was higher among those who were engaged in paid work rather than unpaid work. As found by Agarwal, many Indian households engage in different kinds of work from an early age to support their families—girls often work as wage laborers and help their mothers in household work, and girls who engage in work frequently remain absent [ 50 ]. Time spent on paid or domestic work may leave children with less time for school and learning—as a result, paid work or domestic work leads to school dropout as found in earlier research [ 51 ].

The study found that parental interaction among unmarried adolescents plays a significant role in reducing school dropout. Parent-child interaction can help to encourage schooling and to work hard, especially among low social and economically disadvantaged families who otherwise suffer from lack of motivation and low self-esteem. Another significant finding of this study is that participation in sports activities reduced the school dropout among adolescents. This is consistent with the results of the previous literature [ 52 , 53 ]. Schools/colleges provide the platform to students for sports activities and this might be the reason for fewer dropouts among adolescents who participated in sports activities. Moreover, the present study revealed that both younger and older girls who acknowledged at least one form of favorable discriminatory practices towards boys by parents had higher chances of school dropout. Previous research also shows that gender discrimination is a major reason for school dropout along with poverty and domestic or household responsibilities [ 54 ]. The states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have a patriarchal value system and an earlier study shows that socio-cultural issues pertinent to gender imbalance, a patriarchal value system, and educational issues disfavored female students [ 55 ].

The present study found that engagement in paid work among adolescent boys was the major reason for school dropout. However, among girls, family-related reasons are predominant. Lack of interest in studies was another reason for dropout among adolescents. These findings are consistent with previous literature wherein multiple household duties for girls, early marriage, and poverty were the main reasons for school dropout [ 56 – 59 ]. Conversely, other studies cited financial difficulties as a reason for dropping out for both girls and boys [ 56 , 58 , 60 ].

The study has a few limitations and strengths. This study is based on two Indian states (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), limiting the generalizability of the findings. The dropout rate may be an overestimate because of the short interval of the survey. Unmeasured factors may have biased the results. For example, information on the educational attainment of adolescents’ fathers and their occupations were not available in the study. The variable—‘parental interaction’ was constructed based on the discussion of following topics—school performance, friendship, experience of bullying, physical changes during adolescence, or how pregnancy occurs—with either the mother or father in the year preceding the interview. There is no direct question related to parental interaction on education matters or their involvement in school activities. Finally, more research is needed to understand the socioeconomic, familial, and other school-related characteristics of adolescents. Despite these limitations, this study has the strengths of a prospective design, the longitudinal nature of data, and large sample size which allows examination of a detailed picture of school dropout, and the use of multiple covariate adjustments.

In conclusion, it is found that substance use, engagement in paid work, and gender discrimination in families are the risk factors for school dropout. Conversely, factors such as higher economic status, mother’s education, having a role model, parental interaction, and participation in sports activities, are protective factors that reduce dropout among adolescent boys and girls. Girl’s schooling is a serious concern and there is a need for immediate action. This study found higher dropout rates in rural areas, specifically among girls. From this finding, one could estimate some of the underlying factors of dropout as follows—in rural areas parents are mostly illiterate and unaware about the importance of education, which results in a lack of parent-child interaction. Further, in rural areas, most households are economically poor and socially backward, so this may lead to early child marriage and pressure to engage in paid work. For boys, substance abuse is a major contributing factor towards dropout. Hence, all of these factors directly or indirectly affect dropout, and this study confirms these factors by citing existing literature.

Lastly, to reduce dropout of girls in particular, it is essential to stop child marriages and give awareness to the parents and improve socio-economic status. This can be achieved by giving rightful work to girls after their education, so that both the children and the parents will be motivated. There is also a need for gender sensitivity. The government should give proper awareness and improve girls’ incentives for education and introduce some programs that focus on the return of married girls to school.

Supporting information

S1 appendix, acknowledgments.

The authors are grateful to Sanjay Patnaik for his editorial support on the earlier version of this paper. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of other members of the UDAYA study team at the Population Council.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2023; 18(3): e0282468.

Decision Letter 0

21 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-13862Transitional School Dropouts among Adolescents: Evidence from a Longitudinal StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chandan Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper uses a unique longitudinal data set to explore factors underlying school discontinuation in two states of India. Data are state representative and the two waves of the survey were conducted in 2015-16 and 2018-19. Explanatory factors are a range of socioeconomic characteristics, as well as individual characteristics reported in Wave 1, and discontinuation in the intervening period is assessed from Wave 2 data. Findings suggest that substance use, paid work participation, and gendered socialisation place adolescents at elevated risk of discontinuation, while household economic status, maternal education, as well as individual factors such as having a role model, interaction with parents, participation in sports activities have a protective effect.

While this is an interesting topic, my main concern is that currently, the paper is somewhat superficial, hypothesis are not well articulated, and findings not interpreted in sufficient depth. Evidence on five groups of adolescents (10-14, 15-19, unmarried boys and girls, married girls) is provided, but aside from pointing out that married girls are an outlier, gender and age differences suggested by determinants are hardly discussed, and the discussion disappointingly does not offer hypotheses for similarities/differences. Socioeconomic background factors (rural-urban residence, economic status, religion, caste etc are well known factors influencing schooling. But while confirming the relationship using longitudinal data is no doubt interesting, what is new and exciting about these findings is that parent-child indicators (interaction, socialisation, perhaps even mother’s education as a proxy for education) and even individual behavioural factors (substance use, having a role model, engaging in sports) are key factors influencing school discontinuation, even after confounding background factors are controlled. I would strongly recommend that the paper is recast to highlight the importance of these factors in explaining school dropout, if the same relationship emerges when other concerns described below are taken into consideration. These concerns are:

1. I found the title baffling. What is meant by “transitional” school dropouts? The paper does not explain, and I would recommend a clear title, perhaps just “Determinants of school dropout…”

2. The literature review is somewhat disjointed, it needs to be reorganised so as to synthesise what the leading correlates/determinants are, rather than just describe various articles and their conclusions.

3. The dropout indicator needs to be clearer:

a. In Table 2, the three indicators of drop out shown need to be better explained. Is an older adolescent who has completed Class 10 or Class 12 and has discontinued his/her education considered a dropout, and if so, why? Surely a cutoff of Class 10 (or 12) should not denote dropout. Perhaps this is already done, but if so, it is not described. If not done, authors need to redo their analysis, or at most, justify their use of this broad indicator.

b. Table 2 shows three measures of discontinuation – its not clear to me why overall dropout is so much greater than the other two indicators for older adolescents?

c. How is “dropout” operationalised in the multivariate analyses? Three different indicators are provided in Table 2, some clarity needed. If we assume that the minimum required level of education is Class 10 in order for adolescents to make a successful transition to adulthood, then this, or the more stringent dropout before Class 12, should be used.

4. Findings are interesting, showing that even after place of residence, religion/caste and household economic status are controlled, several reflecting parent-child relations (interaction, gendered socialisation) and individual (substance use, engaging in sports, having a role model), and confirming that both domains are important determinants of school discontinuation. However, some refinement would be helpful among the explanatory variables:

a. Parental interaction and gendered socialisation are described as dichotomous indicators, but each comprises a number of areas of interaction or gendered socialisation. Authors need to be clear – does the indicator reflect at least one of these, or does it refer to interaction on all activities probed, or gendered socialisation on all the situations discussed. Table 1 suggests that parental interaction (>80% report interaction) in particular may well be scaled or at least modified to reflect interaction on all/some items.

b. Maternal education is an important determinant of child outcomes, and it would be good, if a sufficient number of better educated women is available, to show at least three categories of education.

c. Just 1-3% of all groups aside from older boys used substances in the first survey. Does it make sense to include this indicator in the study? And what does substance mean – alcohol? Drugs? Tobacco?

5. Could authors include in the analysis any variable(s) that reflect school related obstacles to continuation, as measured in the first survey?

6. Reasons for dropout are interesting, but would authors like to reconsider the reasons clubbed under various headings. For example, “other” represents a huge chunk (19-31%), but the items shown appear to be school related reasons (no transport, cost, not safe…), why not include these as school related reasons? Likewise, education not considered necessary is quite different from illness, and should be separated.

Overall, this is an interesting paper, with new and exciting findings derived from a unique dataset. It has the potential to contribute to what is known about factors influencing premature school discontinuation in India using a far more relevant set of explanatory indicators than are typically available. However, a clear hypothesis needs to be articulated, and interpretation of findings, including gender and age similarities and differences, needs to be more thoughtful. Author may want to clarify some of the comments noted above.

Reviewer #2: The paper examines drop out decisions in India with a focus on Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, two most educationally backward states of India. To their credit, the authors also use longitudinal data. According to the manuscript, between round 1 and round 2 (or 2018-19 vs 2015–16), the UDAYA study had an effective follow-up rate of 74% for boys and 81% for girls.

So those who dropped out from school b/c of out-migration are mostly absent from the very sample that the authors used to model drop out decisions. Therefore, it is important to discuss the implications of lost to follow up from different characteristics on the drop out from school and the study findings.

Further, authors may highlight the key findings in the conclusion section for better understanding of the manuscript results. N/A need to define in the footnote of the tables.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Reviewer #1: This paper uses a unique longitudinal data set to explore factors underlying school discontinuation in two states of India. Data are state representative and the two waves of the survey were conducted in 2015-16 and 2018-19. Explanatory factors are a range of socioeconomic characteristics, as well as individual characteristics reported in Wave 1, and discontinuation in the intervening period is assessed from Wave 2 data. Findings suggest that substance use, paid work participation, and gendered socialisation place adolescents at elevated risk of discontinuation, while household economic status, maternal education, as well as individual factors such as having a role model, interaction with parents, participation in sports activities have a protective effect.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. Amendment has been done.

Response: Modification has been made as per the suggestion in revised manuscript.

Response: Here in this study, School dropout was defined as whether adolescents dropped out of school between wave-1 and 2. Adolescents who were enrolled in school during wave-1 but not during wave-2 were classified as school dropout, while those who were enrolled in both waves were classified as not dropouts. We have removed other dropouts (10 or 12) for a better understanding of the reader.

Response: We have removed other two measures of school dropouts in the revised manuscript.

Response: Authors are agree with your suggestion, however, if we take class 10 as minimum required level of successful transition then we will lose the sample of 10-14 years adolescent as they are not eligible for 10th standard. Keeping this in mind, authors defined dropouts, who were enrolled in school during wave-1 but not during wave-2.

Response: The parental interaction reflects at least one of these (interaction). The number of interactions on all the activities was very less; therefore, we chose at least one interaction on the items. Similarly, for gendered socialization, we took at least one item for the selection.

Response: The sample was not enough to make three categories of mothers’ education with five-age cohort of the adolescent therefore authors made it into two group.

Response: Substance use is important indicator or one of the reason for school dropouts. Therefore, we took it as a predictor and results show that adolescent who consumed substances had higher likelihood of school dropout. Substance use included consumption of tobacco products, alcohol, and drugs. It is mentioned in the variable description as well.

Response: Authors tried to include all possible available factors in the survey, which affect school dropout/continuation.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. Amendment has been done in the revised manuscript.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. This study already articulated the important findings coming from this longitudinal data. However, we again look at the findings through the gender and age differences along with covariates lenses and revised further. The hypothesis is clear to us and stated already in paper that there is differences in school drop outs by gender, age and socio-economic and behavioural characteristics. The findings are also very clearly highlighted those in the manuscript. Add further to it, these findings are also linked to the global call to ensure ‘education for all’ under millennium development goal 2, and now under SDG 4 emphasis is on quality of education. These young population can benefit the country socially, politically and economically, if they are healthy, safe, educated and skilful. However, many unprivileged Indian adolescents, particularly girls, are still unable to complete schooling. Hence, there is a need to understand the reasons for school dropout among this population. There are a good number of research papers on school dropout in India, but very few focuses on adolescent population using longitudinal data. Problems like school dropout can be a major factor in determining adolescents' future perspectives regarding personal and social achievements. The present study is an attempt to understand the determinants of school dropout among adolescents and to identify the factors and reasons that contribute to it.

Reviewer #2: The paper examines drop out decisions in India with a focus on Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, two most educationally backward states of India. To their credit, the authors also use longitudinal data. According to the manuscript, between round 1 and round 2 (or 2018-19 vs 2015–16), the UDAYA study had an effective follow-up rate of 74% for boys and 81% for girls.

Response: In UDAYA longitudinal study, in 2018-19, we interviewed again those who were successfully interviewed in 2015-16, and who consented to be re-interviewed. Of the 20,594 who were eligible for re-interview, we re-interviewed 4,567 boys and 12,251 girls. We excluded respondents (3%) who gave inconsistent response to questions related to age and education at the follow-up survey; therefore, the final follow-up sample comprised 4,428 boys and 11,864 girls, thus resulting in an effective follow-up rate of 74% for boys and 81% for girls. The main reasons for loss-to-follow-up were that the participant had migrated (10% for boys and 6% for girls), and the participant or his/her parent or guardian refused (7% for boys and 6% for girls). We note that the characteristics of those who were re-interviewed and those who could not be re-interviewed differed significantly in terms of age, education, place of residence, caste, and religion (see Appendix Table 1 for attrition bias). The analysis presented in this paper drew on data from the subset adolescents.

Appendix Table 1. The characteristics at wave 1 of adolescents who were re-interviewed and who were not

Baseline Variable Respondents lost to follow up Respondents interviewed in the follow-up sample Mean difference

Years of education (mean) 7.33 7.37 0.04

Completed 8 or more years of education (%) 58.70 58.60 0.10

Currently in School (%) 57.00 64.80 7.8***

Mothers level of education (mean) 2.91 2.51 0.40***

Place of residence (%) 45.20 57.50 12.3***

Social group (% SC\\ST) 21.60 24.30 2.7***

Religion (% Hindu) 73.70 80.00 6.3***

HH wealth Score (mean) 22.57 21.51 1.06***

Total number of respondents 4302 16292

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

16 Feb 2023

Determinants of School Dropouts among Adolescents: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study in India

PONE-D-22-13862R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

20 Feb 2023

Dear Dr. Kumar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chandan Kumar