It is widely recognised that we have achieved excellent gross and net enrolment rates over the past 11 years, but there is a growing concern that we rely too heavily on enrolment rates to measure progress at the expense of survival [drop-out] rates.
We are giving survival rates serious attention but we need to be clear that the indicators of progression and completion cannot tell us about learning outcomes and they cannot be used to calculate the number of out-of-school youth.
Unhappily, David Macfarlane, in ”The disappearing schoolchildren”, (November 25), used the survival-rate indicator to conclude that there are many more out-of-school children than we are prepared to admit.
The flaw is that the survival-rate indicator does not account for late entry into school or repetition of grades. It is not the internationally accepted method of calculating out-of-school children. The best way is to calculate the age-specific-enrolment ratio. Once you know the total population of children between certain ages, say seven to 18, for a particular year, then you compare the numbers enrolled in the appropriate grades and the difference is the number of out-of-school children.
So, for example, in 2001, according to the age-specific ratio, we know that 13% of children aged seven to 18 (1 550 000) were out of school. In 2003 that had dropped to 6% (778 000) and in 2004 risen to 9% (1 180 000).
The difficulty with this method is that its accuracy depends on Statistics South Africa population estimates, which are revised between -censuses.
We need to ask another question: How many repeaters are there? And then: Who is repeating (girls or boys), when are they repeating (grades), where are they repeating (provinces) and why (money, pregnancy)?
The repeater rate can be calculated from our administrative data. But repeater rates are under-reported. Repeating grades is not something to talk about, and this under-reporting creates a statistical see-saw. The lower the number of repeaters, the higher the number of out-of-school children and vice versa.
But, there is a downward trend in repeating grades. This is a major achievement and is linked to the new curriculum and departmental policy to reduce the high level of repetition.
Are we forgetting anything? Yes. Gender. Once we start to ask gender questions, as Jennifer Schindler has recently in EduSource, the finding is that boys are not dropping out of the system more readily than girls, but rather that they are flowing through the system at a slower rate. In fact, she found that in 2001 one in five of boys aged 14 to 18 was still enrolled in primary school; the number of girls was one in eight.
This makes sense. ”After the age of 18, however, constraints on continuing school participation become stronger for boys, most likely because of pressure to find work or because their higher failure rate indicates that they have not managed to develop the basic cognitive skills necessary for completing secondary education. This increases the possibility of over-aged boys dropping out of school before they have completed their education.”
While repetition data gives us a better view of what is happening in schools, where do we turn for figures on the number of out-of-school children?
Household surveys allow us to examine more closely individual-level differences in educational participation. In particular, household surveys allow us to profile the attendance (and not simply the enrolment) of school-age children and those who are not participating in education.
The 2003 household survey reveals that 97% of children aged seven to 15 attend some kind of educational institution — not only public schools, but any educational institution.
In 2003, however, there were 9,1-million children in this age group, meaning that the 3% ”non–attendance” equals more than 320 000 children. But we also know there is a drop in attendance after age 15 (grade nine) and that is when the pull of -familial poverty is impossible to -withstand.
All in all, the household-survey data is incompatible with the notion, as Macfarlane reports, of 40% of the 1995 grade one cohort leaving the system by 2001.
Duncan Hindle is the Director General of the Department of Education