2.6 STUDENT DROPOUT
2.6.3 R EASONS / CAUSES FOR THE STUDENT DROPOUT
2.6.3.4 Financial and socio-economic constraints
Competing viewpoints from proponents who examined whether or not financial limitations have an impact on students’ studies are sufficiently inherent in the proliferated body of research on student dropout. As an example of major dropout foundations, the financial constraint is increasingly labelled a serious concern, along with low socio-economic limitations for many students at every level of higher education. However, Valencia (1997) contested that, arguing that diversity in financial
strengths of students is not reliable ground for students’ dropouts in the school context.
In support of Valencia’s (1997) study, the University of Washington’s (2016) inquiry about variables that cause attrition and the period at which the actual attrition occurs, found that students from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds demonstrated higher probability to discontinue their studies as opposed to those who were socio- economically underprivileged (p. 3). Contrary to Valencia’s (1997) contestation, the South African higher education system has suffered operationally from violent students’ struggles, which were against exorbitant costs to study between 2015 and 2016. Such students’ protests became known throughout the entire country and world as “FeesMustFall” and wanted to reduce high costs associated with university studies, largely affecting students from poor financial and economic backgrounds. The operations of a range of the South African universities, such as the University of South Africa (Unisa), University of Limpopo (UL), University of Witwatersrand (Wits), and University of Pretoria (UP) were adversely affected because of “FeesMustFall”
struggle. In response to the problem, R4.563 billion was spent in 2016 to support students from low-income families (Qonde, 2016, p.1).
Focusing at a postgraduate level of education, Golde’s (2005, p. 669) findings became in contrary to the Valencia’s (1997) assertion, indicating that 40 % of doctoral students in America do not complete their studies because of problems relating to lack of financial support. It must be featured that deficiency in financial support for certain cohort of students in higher academic institutions has been widely identified as one of large fractions of attrition causes. Although a financial problem as a factor leading to the student dropout in global higher education terrain has been extensively investigated on, the degree to which South African students from low-income families which are leaving below the poverty datum line are deprived has, until recently, been given insufficient attention (Breier, 2010, p. 657). OECD (2008) and Tas, Selvitopu, Bora and Demirkaya (2013) are some of the exemplary studies that revealed that students’ poor socioeconomic background is one of the major factors causing student dropout in higher education landscape. Findings, which were revealed in a study (Manik, 2014) to examine variables that lead to student attrition at the University of KwaZulu-Natal uncovered that lack of finance amongst the students, pushed them out of the institution. Breier (2010, p. 657) reported that the vast majority of the financially impoverished students in the University of Western Cape in South Africa dropped out from their studies. A related research by Zewotir, North and Murray (2016) which
wanted to predict how long it will take for a student to drop out or successfully finish the degree programme at the University of KwaZulu-Natal supported assertions that regard lack of financial support as factor that may also lead to student dropout or delay degree completion (p. 134).
Student dropout may also be attributed to the demographic characteristics of students.
For instance, Murray (2014, p. 1) theorised that, in addition to students’ gender, living conditions of students, and ages, students’ financial backgrounds potentially have a causative effect on student dropout. A corresponding inference that confirms that causative effects of age demographic trait of students on dropout exists in the literature. For instance, the findings reached by Hovdhaugen et al (2013) from an inquiry into the linkages between ages and student dropout revealed that, even though older students usually have clear academic goals, economic constraints remain a threat to many of them. As indicated by Seidman (2005, p. 8), the cost of studying at a higher education level has risen and governments respond to the problem using various financial support programmes. South African examples include, inter alia, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) – loan bursary, Academic Qualification Improvement Programme (AQIP) and South African Institute of Chartered Accountants’ (SAICA) student support programmes targeted at curbing student dropout (or to promote retention) and to maximise graduations rates in the field of accounting. In the United States (U.S) a huge chunk of students from low-income families receive financial aid from the ‘Bill and Melida Gates Foundation’ to pay for their studies (Ashburn, 2010, p. 4). The ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ in the United States disburse an extensive amount of money to assist more than half of students whose families earn less than $40 000 per annum (Ashburn, 2010, p. 5). The foundation helped higher education with financial grants amounting to $178 million since 2008 and $72 million only in 2009 (p. 5), with Lumina Foundation contributing to financial aid in the sector by a total of $58 million. Competing and incompatible findings of financial constraints as a reason for student dropout are well avowed in the literature. The findings of the Sittichai’s (2012) study identified financial-related problems as one of the reasons for student dropout and reported that only one of students had a financial problem and subsequently dropped out of the university studies. However, according to this finding made by Sittichai (2012), financial problem is not reported as a major influential factor for student dropout in higher education.
These findings are in parallel to Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner’s (2007) conclusion drawn from a calculation of a lower bound on student dropout fraction that would be retained at Bera College irrespective of having financially supported students from low- income families. An investigation undertaken by Reisel and Brekke (2009) for estimating discrepancies in the feasibility of students to drop out of their studies in higher education amongst majorities and minorities in Norway with that of the United States (p. 697) revealed (p.705) that low family income and education are the reasons for dropout in U.S. The findings disputed those of Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner (2007) that financial restraints do not explicate the dropout decisions of a larger proportion of student community. Instead, they complimented the findings made by Ozdagli and Trachter (2011) which reported that financial constraints is a major problem, particularly for students from poor families which, among other characteristics, have poor socio-economic bacgrounds (p. 1). A dynamic model developed by Ozdagli and Trachter (2011) to measure the relationship between the college dropout behaviour and the family wealth reported that the cause for dropout of certain low-income students is the direct result of incompatibility between academic ability and the initial levels of the families. Other related research confirmed that poor socio-economic background contributes to student dropout in higher education institutions. For instance, the study that investigated the socio-economic gap in university dropouts (Vignoles and Powdthavee, 2009) reported that whilst three- fourths of students from lower-income backgrounds in United Kingdom (U.K) and United States (U.S) successfully complete their qualifications, one-fourth decide to drop out. Another study (2016) that explored factors that lead to attrition reported the same results and family socioeconomic background was subsumed (p. 1). Cunha, Heckman, Lochner and Masterov (2006) reported comparable findings that the dropout or inability to access higher education can be minimally attributed to family background, such as financial constraints. Based on their findings, Vignoles and Powdthavee (2009, p. 1) further predicts that students with poor financial backgrounds are more likely to drop out from university studies as compared to those who have satisfactory financial support – largely because they are usually clueless about the expenses required to complete a programme in higher education. Bennet’s (2003) study that was contextualised within the field of business studies also fortified the global standpoint that financial difficulty experienced by students is a dominant measure of dropout from a course of the degree.