Social exclusion in education: a study of primary school dropouts in Nepal.
Education is the key to human development and primary education is the foundation of learning. Primary education is a catalyst of social change and empowerment. It helps to overcome the traditional inequalities based on gender, caste and class. The removal of these inequalities contributes to the sustainable development of education. Education is widely perceived by the members of socially or economically disadvantaged groups as the most promising chance of upward mobility for their children. For many children, primary schooling is the only opportunity of formal education, as most of them who complete it may not continue further schooling. Therefore, a firm commitment to the widespread and equitable provision of the primary education is the first requirement for eradicating social and economic deprivation. Hence, a study on Primary School Dropouts in Tarai and Hill Districts of Nepal was carried out with the overall purpose of making an inquiry into the status and causes of social exclusion, which is by and large a contributing factor to dropout in education in Nepal. Department of Education (DOE)/Ministry of Education (MOES) (2003) states in their statistical report that the students who leave the system without completing a grade or level are called dropouts. Primary school dropout rate is the percentage of pupils enrolled in given grade or cycle or level of education in a given school year who are not enrolled in any grade in the following school year.
Social Exclusion: Meaning and Evolution
The concept of 'social exclusion' was first formally stated in French social policy in the 1970's and early 1980's (Pierson, 2002). It is generally accepted that the term social exclusion was first used to describe various categories of people who were excluded from the employment based social security system. They included the mentally retarded and physically disable, the aged, abused children, single parents, marginal, asocial persons, 'misfits' and so on, who comprised 10 percent of the French population (Pradhan, 2002). In the beginning, the main concern was to find out ways to bring mentally and physically handicapped, abused children and drug addicts into the mainstream. Later, it also included other classes of people such as unemployed, immigrants, educationally deprived, and those suffering from weaker position in social network and relation of the society. Thus, the term was continually redefined in the 1980s to refer to unskilled workers, unemployed population, and immigrants (especially Muslims). Mary Daly and Chiara Saracen (2002) show how the concerns of social exclusion extended beyond France and entered both the European community and EU policy discourses; by 1994. According to them social exclusion became so important that it was to replace poverty in the nomenclature of the EU programme that was targeted to the most disadvantaged population (Daly and Saraceno, 2002).
The concern of social exclusion enhanced reflection in examination of and response to social consequences of economic change and educational development in international development debates. The notion of social exclusion is largely contingent on the notion of society. Causes of social exclusion are attributed to varying forms of social disadvantage--cultural, political, economic, and social. Social exclusion breaks social ties between the individuals and society, and then institutions fail to solidify these social ties. According to Daly (1999) the concern of social exclusion emphasizes participation, involvement and customary way of life as against average income or basic needs/baskets of goods. It is a concept of overall well-being of the disadvantaged people.
According to de Haan (1998), social exclusion is a multi-dimensional concept. It refers to exclusion (deprivation) in the economic, social and political sphere. Social exclusion can refer to a state or situation, but it often refers to processes, to the mechanisms by which people are excluded. The focus is on the institutions that enable and constrain human interaction. Sen (2000) explains exclusion in terms of constitutive relevance (or intrinsic importance) and instrumental importance or consequence as two ways in which social exclusion can lead to capability deprivation.
The issue of social exclusion/inclusion in Nepal was first raised during the Maoist insurgency after 2000. It is to be noted that among the 40-point Maoist demands, 11 were related to social inclusion (Gurung, 2005) but the Nation addressed this issue formally in the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007.
Framework for Analyzing Social Exclusion
Eurostat Meyer (2000) presented a framework for analyzing social exclusion in the report on Social Exclusion is as follows:
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
It may be observed from the figure above that level of educational attainment of people is one of the indicators of social exclusion/inclusion. The level of educational attainment contains three aspects of schooling, namely enrolment of students, school avoidance (never attending school), and dropout from school.
Social Exclusion and Education
United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) has asserted that, "everyone has a right to education". Social exclusion captures an important reality of the disadvantaged groups. One of the most crucial indicators of social exclusion in the country is the magnitude of large number of illiterate population who mostly belong to the historically, socially and economically discriminated groups such as scheduled castes, schedule tribes and women (Salam, 2004). Literacy is a basic tool of social transformation in society. Therefore, in the present context, education is perhaps the most important way available for the excluded to improve their personnel endowment and prepare themselves to ensure their inclusion in the competitive society. In this context socially and economically deprived groups of society in Nepal like Dalit, Janjati, Madhesi, indigenous people and girls are found more deprived from basic education as an educational right. Therefore, basic education is the key factor to generate social exclusion and inclusion in the society.
The root of educational deprivation of the excluded community is primarily related to their exclusion from the larger socio-economic, political and cultural processes. It is the discriminatory system that has its own repressions on the education of these communities. Education, as one of the most socially valued attributes, was historically unequal and hierarchicized. Therefore, there is a great need for the country to adopt new policy measures to give equal opportunity of education for all caste, class and region.
This paper is based on the survey of 430 households and 72 schools in Doti, a Hill district, and Rautahat, a Tarai district of Nepal. A total of 430 households, randomly selected, were visited and surveyed, including 144 households in Doti and 286 households in Rautahat districts. Likewise, this study covered a total of 72 schools offering primary grades--46 schools from Doti district and 26 schools from Rautahat district. This includes 36 rural and 36 urban schools. Both of the sample districts have only one municipality each and there was no question of selection. Dipayal-Silgadhi Municipality of Doti district and Gaur Municipality of Rautahat district were automatically selected. The number of VDCs covered in each district was based on the sampling of schools. The required numbers of rural schools were randomly selected through lottery in both districts. The selected schools covered seven VDCs in Doti, namely Banlek, Kalena, Kapalleki, Khatiwada, Ladagada, Mudhegaun and Ranagaun. Likewise, the selected schools covered eight VDCs in Rautahat, namely Badaharwa, Dharhari, Dipahi, Garuda Beria, Hazminia, Jaynagar, Mahmadpur and Pothiyahi. The sample was drawn at the different stage/procedure such as Districts, VDCs and Municipalities, Schools, Dropout Children, and Households/Parents.
The overall design of the study was a combination of survey and ethnographic research. It was done at the micro and macro levels. The study was primarily focused on quantitative data although qualitative data were substantively used and analyzed. The structured and semi-structured interviews were the tools for generating primary data and information, while document analysis and Focused Group Discussion (FGD) were also appropriately used for verification and validation of the findings and conclusions. Primary data had been gathered from various socio-economic strata of Nepalese population, viz., age, occupation, gender and caste/ ethnicity.
Discussion and Analysis
In this part we attempt to discuss and analyze the social and economic parameters of dropout in primary education in Nepal. For this purpose, the key social and economic characteristics of households of the dropout children have been analyzed.
Caste anal Ethnicity of Dropout Children
The people of Nepal constitute a mix of a large number of ethnic and caste groups. As reported by the 2001 Population Census, Nepal is inhabited by one hundred identified ethnic and caste groups. Among them, fifty-nine ethnic groups are identified as distinct cultural groups clustered as Janajati and 28 cultural groups clustered as Dalits (CBS, 2003). Caste/ethnicity is considered as ala important factor in the analysis of status of primary education in Nepal.
The caste and ethnic composition of dropout children is reported in a percentage in Table 1 and in a number in Annex 1.
A total of 574 cases of primary school dropout children including 286 boys and 288 girls were identified in 46 primary schools surveyed in Doti district (see Annex-1). They belonged to 17 different caste and ethnic groups. However, about 46 percent of them belonged to one single caste group called Chhetri. Five backward caste groups namely Damai, Kami, Bhool, Parki and Chamar lumped together constitute 41 percent of the total dropout children. Other caste and ethnic groups are Brahmin, Kumhar, Sonar, Koli, Kunjeda, Gurung and others including Malsi, Newar, Tharu, Chunara and Safari.
In the case of Rautahat district, the number of primary school dropout children in 26 school surveyed totaled 1139 including 596 boys and 543 girls (see Annex-1). They belonged to 29 caste and ethnic groups. The group commonly called Sah includes Teli, Sudi, Kanu, Kalwar, and Bania and constitutes more than one fourth (28.7%) of the total dropout children. Six socially backward caste groups namely Paswan, Chamar, Tatma, Dhobi, Dom/Halkhor and Khatbe grouped together accounts for 28.7 percent of the total dropout children. Muslims account for a substantial portion--18.2 percent of the dropout children in this district. Yadav, which is a major caste group in the tarai population, constitutes 11.2 percent of the total dropout children. Other caste and ethnic groups are Mallah (4.1%), Kurmi (3.8%), Chhetri (1.8%), Chanau (1.8%) Brahmin (1.6%), Hajam (1.3%) Lohar 0.3%), Giri/Puri/ Sanyasi (1.1), Nunia (1.1%), Kumhar (1.0%), Dom/Halkhor (1.0%), Dhanuk (0.9%) and others including Sonar, Kahar, Bhumihar, Mali, Kayastha, Newar, Chaurasia, Tharu, Gurung/Tamang.
It may be observed from the table above (Table1) that the caste and ethnic composition of the dropout children in the two districts under study markedly differs from each other. In Doti district about 46 percent of the identified dropout cases belonged to the Chhetri community alone, and the remaining 54 percent of them are distributed across different castes and ethnic groups. The cases of dropout belonging to Damai, Bhool, Kami and Parki, who are classified as socially and economically backward community, were found to be 14.5 percent, 9.8 percent, 7.3 percent and 6.8 percent respectively. In the case of Rautahat district, the number of primary school dropout children belonged to 29 caste and ethnic groups. The group commonly called Sah, which includes Teli, Sudi, Kanu, Kalwar and Bania, constitutes more than one fourth (28.7 %) of the total dropout children. Six socially backward caste groups namely Paswan, Chamar, Tatma, Dhobi, Dom/Halkhor and Khatbe grouped together account for 29 percent of the total dropout children. Muslims account for a substantial portion--18.2 percent of the dropout children in this district. Yadav, which is a major caste group in the Tarai population, constitutes 11.2 percent of the total dropout children. Other caste and ethnic groups of the dropout children are Mallah, Kurmi, Chhetri, Chanau, Brahmin, Hajam, Lobar, Giri/Puri/Sanyasi, Nunia, Kurnhar, Dom/Halkhor, Dhanuk and others.
The composition of dropout children in two districts has been depicted through the pie diagrams given below:
Fig. 2 Caste/Ethnicity Group of Dropout Children Doti Chhetri 16% Damai 6.80% Kami/Luhar(hill) 7.30% Bhool 9.80% Parki 14.50% Others 45.60% Rautahat Teli/Sudi/Kanu/Kalw ar 28% Muslim 6.40% Yadav 7.50% Dusadh/pasw an 11.20% Chamar/Sarki 18.20% Others 28.70% Note: Table made from pie chart.
Composition of Social Class Group of Dropout Children
In data reporting system of the Ministry of Education of the Government of Nepal, educational status and performance indicators are reported in terms of three broad social caste and ethnic groups of children such as Dalit children, Janjati children and children belonging to other caste groups. The intention here is to present a picture which helps to quickly assess the continuity and change in social equity regarding access to and completion of primary education. Therefore, in order to make the findings of the study fit into and comparable with the reporting framework of the Ministry of Education, the data shown in Table 2 and 3 has also been re-grouped into three broad social classes. Caste/Ethnic composition of dropout children in schools under study by social groups has been reported in Table2.
It may be observed from the table above (Table 2) that 26 percent of the total dropout children in the primary schools under study area fall under the socially and economically deprived caste groups collectively called Dalit (A total of 446 out of 1,713 dropout children). The number of dropout children belonging to janajati group was 7.5 percent of the total (A total of 129 out of 1,713 dropout children). Other caste groups which do not belong to either of the two classifications--Dalit and janajati--account for 66.5 percent of the total dropout children.
Caste/Ethnic composition of dropout children in schools under study by social groups and gender has been reported in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the magnitude of primary school dropout of Dalit children varied between the two districts covered by the study. The proportion of Dalit children in the total dropout cases is as high as 40.6 percent in Doti, a hill district, as compared to 18.7 percent in Rautahat. But it does not indicate that the tendency of dropout is less among the Dalit households of Rautahat than among the Dalits of Doti. The lower enrolment of Dalit children in study sites of Rautahat district as compared to those of Doti district is the main reason behind smaller proportion of Dalit children in the total dropout cases.
The study indirectly indicates that Dalit children have a tendency of dropout more than other caste groups. According to the 2001-Census Report, the share of the Dalits in the total population was 24 percent in Doti and 13 percent in Rautahat district (CBS, 2003). This is convincingly low as compared to their shares in dropout children in both districts. For instance, the share of Dalits in total dropout is about 41 percent in Doti and 19 percent in Rautahat. More or less similar picture was observed in urban primary schools of both districts. The share of Dalit children in the total dropout cases of Dipayal-Siulgadhi Municipality was 44 percent of the total, which was much higher than the share of the Dalits in the total population that was 21 percent of the total. Likewise, the proportion of Dalit children in the total dropout cases was about 21 percent of the total in Gaur Municipality, which was higher than the share of the Dalit in the population that was about 13 percent.
The message is clear: whether it is in the Hill or the Tarai, or in the rural or urban areas, children of Dalit households face a greater risk of being driven away from a primary school. The probability of retention in primary education is clearly weaker for the Dalit children as compared to their counterparts belonging to other caste or ethnicities.
Language Spoken by Children at Home
Nepal is a multi-ethnic nation, comprising various ethnic and religious communities. Its ethnic and religious diversity is coupled with its linguistic plurality. The 2001-Census has identified 92 languages spoken as mother tongues. The mother tongue has been defined as the language acquired first by children in their childhood from their parents and used in their households since they start speaking (Yadav, 2003).
It is said that prior familiarity with a language used as the medium of instruction in a primary school is a great advantage for a child to learn better in school. Since better learning at school not only enhances quality of education but also strengthens the chance of retention at school, the language spoken by children at home should have a logical relationship with the probability of dropout from school. Mismatch between the medium of instruction at school and language spoken by children at home is considered as an important factor in primary school dropout. Therefore, the present study has undertaken an investigation into the language spoken at the households of the dropout children (Table 4).
It may be observed from the table above that there was a clear variation in the linguistic composition of the households in the two districts. Nepali was a mother tongue in the case of about 99 percent of the dropout children in Doti district, whereas Bhojpuri, locally called Bajika, was a mother tongue in the case of about 97 percent of dropout children in Rautahat district. Newari was the mother tongue in the case of about 1 percent of the households under study in Doti. Nepali and Urdu as the mother tongue were found only in about 2 percent and 1 percent of the households respectively in Rautahat. Nepali is the medium of instruction in primary schools of both districts. It is interesting to observe that Rautahat, where only two percent households speak Nepali as the mother tongue, records a higher primary school dropout rate than in Doti district where about 99 percent households record Nepali as the mother tongue.
Nepal continued to remain a Hindu nation for a long time. According to the Census of 2001, Hindus constitute 80.6 percent of the total population in the country, followed by Buddhist (10.7%), Islam (4.2%) and Kirat (3.6%). However, very recently, Nepal has been declared as a secular state. The composition of the households under study by religion is reported in Table 5.
It may be observed from the table above that the two districts vary in their composition of religion. In Doti all the households were Hindu but in Rautahat about 77 percent were Hindu and the rest were mostly Muslim. Therefore, Muslim children evidently appeared in the scenario of primary school dropout in this district. A large number of Muslim parents still want to send their children to Madarsas or Mokttam than to a mainstream primary school.
A total of 1,713 cases of primary school dropout were recorded, including 885 boys and 828 girls in schools under study. The magnitudes of dropout in primary schools of Doti and Rautahat districts are presented below in Table 6.
It may be observed from the table above that the tendency of dropout rate was found relatively higher among the girls as compared to the boys. The incidence of dropout was highest in grade 5, followed by grade l, 2, 4 and 3. The incidence of dropout was lowest in grade 3.
The rates of dropout by rural and urban areas are shown in Table 7.
It may be observed from the table above that the overall dropout rate for all rural primary grades was 11.1 percent, whereas it was 9.7 percent for all urban primary grade. There was rural-urban disparity occurs in dropout rate. The dropout rate for rural schools exceeds that of the urban schools by 1.4 percent.
Status of Literacy
Literacy is the most generally used indicator to quickly assess the status of educational development in a household at the micro level or a country at the macro level. It is also believed that the literacy status of a household plays an important role in the enrollment of children as well as in their retention in or dropout from school. Therefore, this study has made an attempt to examine the literacy status of the households. The status of adult literacy among households is shown in Table 8.
It may be observed from the table above that 70 percent of the population aged 15 years and above was found illiterate, varying between 59.3 percent in Doti and 75.3 percent in Rautahat. More than 86 percent of the female population of this age group was illiterate as compared to 55 percent in the case of male population. In both the cases of male and female adult literacy, Doti district fares better than Rautahat.
The same has been depicted through the bar diagrams given below.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Parental Educational Status of Dropouts Children
Parental education is a great factor in the education of children. It is interlinked with the learning environment of children at home. Therefore, this study has attempted to identify the educational status of parents of dropout children. The educational status of parents of dropout children has been given in the Table 9.
It may be observed from the table above that 76 percent of the fathers were themselves illiterate--66.2 percent in Doti and 81.0 percent in Rautahat; and 16.3 percent could only read and write--29.4 percent in Doti and 9.7 percent in Rautahat. Illiteracy and educational backwardness of father is again linked with high dropout and low retention of children. For instance, Doti district which has a relatively better educational status of father than Rautahat has recorded a comparatively lower rate of dropout in primary education. It thus follows that parental literacy and education have a convincing relationship with the likelihood of children to retain in or dropout from primary school. In Doti, parental literacy despite being absolutely poor is relatively better than in Rautahat. And, Doti records a lower rate of dropout between the two districts.
Mother's attitudes towards education of children are very much influenced by their own education. As mother is primarily responsible for the upbringing of children, her education is very important from the perspective of children's education. It is believed that educated mothers are more inclined to schooling and education of their children. So, it is rightly said that educating the mother is educating a child. As Table V.29 shows that, 87.4 percent of the mothers were themselves illiterate--80.8 percent in Doti and 90.6 percent in Rautahat. Likewise, 9 percent of them were just litemte--14.6 percent in Doti and 6.4 percent in Rautahat. It follows that illiteracy or poor education of mother is a critical factor behind high dropout and low retention of children in primary education. This point is further substantiated by the higher incidence of dropout in Rautahat district than in Doti where the illiteracy of mother is relatively higher.
Incidence of Poverty and Dropout Rate
Poverty is viewed as a pronounced deprivation in well-being. It encompasses not only material deprivation but also low achievement in education and health. Describing the conditions of the poor people, the World Bank Report (2000-01) says:
Poor people live without fundamental freedoms of actions and choice that the better-off take for granted. They often lack adequate food and shelter, education and health, deprivations that keep them leading the kind of life that everyone values. They also face extreme vulnerability to ill health, economic dislocation, and natural disasters. And they are often exposed to ill treatment by institutions of the state and society and are powerless to influence key decisions affecting their lives. These are all dimensions of poverty." The same report says, "For those who live in poverty, escaping from poverty seems impossible. Bur it is not impossible.
Education is one of the ways towards poverty reduction. Bur, at the household level, poverty is seen both as a cause and an effect of educational backwardness.
In Nepal, widespread poverty remains a persistent and critical problem. The incidence of poverty is very high and the number of poor is rising. According to the latest poverty estimate, 30.8 percent of the population in Nepal subsists below the poverty line, which varies between 9.5 percent (urban areas) and 34.6 percent (rural areas) (CBS, 2005). The proportion of the population afflicted by poverty is 27.6 percent of the total population in the Tarai region vis-a-vis 32.6 percent in the Mountains and 34.6 percent in the Hills. The incidence of poverty is disproportionately higher in the rural areas, especially in less accessible regions, and among the socially backward caste groups traditionally labeled as Dalit and the ethnic minorities.
An attempt has been made in this study to depict the situation of poverty in the survey areas. For this purpose, the incidence of income poverty in the households under study has been estimated using the national poverty line income per capita as the threshold point. The latest estimate of poverty in Nepal was carried out in the year 2003/04 by the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Government of Nepal, which established NRs. 7696 at the current market prices of the year 2003/04 as the national poverty line income. Since the present household survey collected information on household income and expenditure for the year 2006/07, the said figure of the poverty line income was inflated for the year 2006/07 by using the GDP deflator adopted by the Economic Survey Report of the fiscal year 2006/07. Thus, the national level poverty line income per capita of N Rs. 8363 was derived and used as the threshold to analyse the incidence of poverty inthe households under study.
The incidence of poverty in the households under study is reported in Table 10.
It may be observed from the table above that on the whole, 306 out of 430 households are found to subsist below the poverty line income, (See Annex 2) which says that the proportion of poor households is 71.2 percent of the total. The incidence of poverty among the households of the primary school dropout children was alarmingly high, which is about 2.3 times higher than the incidence of overall poverty in the country. As stated elsewhere, the proportion of population below the poverty line is 31 percent at the national level, whereas it is as high as 71 percent among the households under study.
The incidence of poverty varies in two districts under study. The proportion of poor households in Doti, a hill district, was over 77 percent of the total, which is higher than that in Rautahat, a tarai district, by about 9 percent. Likewise, the incidence of poverty in the rural households is about 10 percent higher than in the urban households; the incidence of poverty was found in about 77 percent households in Doti as compared to about 68 percent in Rautahat. Rural-urban difference in poverty is more pronounced in Doti district, where the proportion of the poor households was about 84 percent of the total in the rural areas as compared to about 65 percent in the case of urban households. Thus, in Doti, the magnitude of rural poverty was about 19 percent higher than the urban poverty. In Rautahat district, the rural poverty is higher than the urban poverty by about 4 percentage points only.
The incident of poverty of households under study area has been depicted through the pie diagrams figure number 4.
Poverty has many implications of concern in the education of children. To begin with, it compels children to be at work when they should be in school. It either results in school avoidance or in irregular attendance, poor performance, and eventually dropout from school. Poverty-afflicted parents need children more for work and income at home. Thus, poverty enhances dropout from and reduces retention at school.
The magnitude of dropout in community primary schools of the districts covered by the study--Doti and Rautahat--is alarming. The incidence of dropout is spectacularly high among the poor and disadvantaged children. If the current rate of dropout is not checked, the attainment of the goal of Universal Primary Education and Education for Ali would not be anything more than a 'wishful thinking'.
There exists disparity in dropout across gender, grades, and social and economic strata of dropout children. Girls and children of the poor and disadvantaged families are more victimized by the tendency of dropout. If unchecked, such a disparity will mock the philosophy of social transformation through education. This will rather speckle the prospects of socio-economic equality and harmony. It is interesting to observe that mother tongue and medium of instruction in primary school is also major factor of school dropout.
The causes of student dropout are many and diverse. There are many economic and social reasons compelling students to drop out from school. It is also observed that household poverty and economic hardships are important reasons behind the high dropout and low retention of children in primary education. The economic hardships of the families have made it difficult for them to meet expenditures associated with the schooling of children. This affects the quality of learning on the one hand and motivation of children on the other. Both of these effects lead to poor performance and irregular attendance at school and, eventually, to dropout from school. Moreover, children are more needed at home to assist their parents in income generation activities or to take over the charge of housework for freeing them to go in for earning than at school, the economic return of which, as viewed by many parents, is uncertain and, if there is any, not immediate. Survival is always the first priority; and schooling always loses in trade-off between education and work. This is evident in the existence of child labour in ah enormous scale. Many of the dropout children were also found engaged somehow or other in earning for healing the poverty of their parents.
Parents were found to admit that the first reason for dropout of a child from a primary school was parental negligence or unsupportive environment to child in the family, Illiteracy and educational backwardness of parents was linked with high dropout and low retention of children. Parental value of education makes a great impact on the schooling and dropout of their children. Illiteracy or poor education of mother is a critical factor behind high dropout and low retention of children in the households. On the basis of this study we say that poverty, illiteracy of parents especially mother, mismatch between medium of instruction in classroom and mother tongue and backward and deprived ethnic and caste groups are major factors to high dropout. These factors are also concern of social exclusion in education.
Annex: 1 Composition of Caste/Ethnicity of Dropout Children in Surveyed Schools by District Doti Caste/Ethnicity Group Boys Girls Total Chhetri 139 123 262 Damai 43 40 83 Kami/Lohar (hill) 29 27 56 Bhool 16 26 42 Parki 23 16 39 Bramin 8 15 23 Chamar/Sarki 8 5 13 Kumhar/Kumal 9 3 12 Sunar 4 8 12 Koli 1 8 9 Kunjeda 3 4 7 Gurun/Tamang 2 4 6 Others * 1 9 10 Total 286 288 574 Rautahat Caste/Ethnicity Group Boys Girls Total Sah(Teli/Sudi/Kanu/ Kalwar/Bania 162 165 327 Muslim 113 94 207 Yadav 65 62 127 Dusadh/paswan 42 43 85 Chamar/Sarki 47 26 73 Mallah/Majhi 21 26 47 Kurmi 22 21 43 Tatma 16 7 23 Chhetri 12 9 21 Chanau/Chandrabansi 7 13 20 Bramin 12 6 18 Koiri/Kuswaha 8 9 17 Hajam 9 6 15 Dhobi/Baitha 8 7 15 Lohar/Barhi (Tarai) 9 6 15 Giri/Puri/Sanyasi/Yogi 7 6 13 Nunia 8 5 13 Kumhar/Kumal 7 4 11 Dom/Halkhor 3 8 11 Dhanuk/Mandal 6 4 10 Others ** 12 16 28 Total 596 543 1139 Note: * Others include Malasi, Newar, Tharu, Chunara & safari. ** Others include Sonar, Khatwe/ Kahar, Bhumihar, Mali, Kayastha, Newar, Chaurasia, Tbaru, Gurung/Tamang. Annex: 2 Number of Survey Households Below & Above Poverty Line Income by District, 2006/07 Doti Rautahat Particulars Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Households below Poverty Line 78 33 111 95 100 195 Households above Poverty Line 15 18 33 40 51 91 Total households 93 51 144 135 151 286 Doti & Rautahat Particulars Rural Urban Total Households below Poverty Line 173 133 306 Households above Poverty Line 55 69 124 Total households 228 202 430 Source: Household Survey, 2007
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). 2003. Population Monograph. Kathmandu.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). 2005. Poverty Trends in Nepal (1995-96 and 2003-04), Kathmandu.
de Haan, Aryan and Simon Maxwell (eds.). 1998. 'Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South'. IDS Bulletin 29 (1).
Daly M. 1999. "The Functioning Family: Catholicism and Social Policy in Germany and Ireland" in Comparative Social Research, vol 18, pp. 105-133.
Daly, M. and Saraccno. 2002. "Social Exclusion and Gender related" in Barbara Hobson Jone Lewis and Birte Siim (eds). Contested Concepts in Gender and Social Politics, Cheltenham; Edward Elgar.
Department of Education (DOE)/MOES. 2003. School Level Educational Statistics of Nepa1 2002. Bhaktapur.
Gurung, Harka. 2005. "Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal" in From Exclusion to Inclusion: Social-political agenda for Nepal. Kathmandu: Social inclusion Research Fund.
Meyer, U 2000. "Social exclusion in the EU Member States" in Statistics in focus, Theme three.
Pierson, J. 2002. Tackling Social Exclusion. London: Routledge
Pradhan, R. 2002. Understanding Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion in the Nepalese Context: Some Preliminary Remarks. Kathmandu: SIRF
Salam, Jeebanlata. 2004. Social Exclusion and Education. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.
Sattar, Ellen. 1984. "Dropout in Primary Education: A Regional Overview" in Towards Universalization of Primary Education in Asia and the Pacific; The Drop-out Problem in Primary Education: Some Case Studies. Bangkok: UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Manila: Asian Development Bank. (Social Development Papers No. 1).
Yadav, Y.P. 2003. "Language" in Population Monograph Vol.I. Kathrnandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Table 1 Composition of Caste/Ethnicity of Dropout Children in Schools (I-V) of the two Districts (In %) Doti Caste/Ethnicity Group Boys Girls Total Chhetri 48.6 42.7 45.6 Damai 15.0 13.9 14.5 Kami/Lohar (hill) 10.1 9.4 9.8 Bhool 5.6 9.0 7.3 Parki 8.0 5.6 6.8 Brahmin 2.8 5.2 4.0 Chamar/Sarki 2.8 1.7 2.3 Kumhar/Kumal 3.1 1.0 2.1 Sunar 1.4 2.8 2.1 Koli 0.3 2.8 1.6 Kunjeda 1.0 1.4 1.2 Gurung/Tamang 0.7 1.4 1.0 Others * 0.3 3.1 1.7 Rautahat Caste/Ethnicity Group Boys Girls Total Teli/Sudi/Kanu/ Kalwar/Bania 27.2 30.4 28.7 Muslim 19.0 17.3 18.2 Yadav 10.9 11.4 11.2 Dusadh/paswan 7.0 7.9 7.5 Chamar/Sarki 7.9 4.8 6.4 Mallah/Majhi 3.5 4.8 4.1 Kurmi 3.7 3.9 3.8 Tatma 2.7 1.3 2.0 Chhetri 2.0 1.7 1.8 Chanau/Chandrabansi 1.2 2.4 1.8 Brahmin 2.0 1.1 1.6 Koiri/Kuswaha 1.3 1.7 1.5 Hajam 1.5 1.1 1.3 Dhobi/Baitha 1.3 1.3 1.3 Lohar/Barhi (Tarai) 1.5 1.1 1.3 Girl/Purl/Sanyasi/Yogi 1.2 1.1 1.1 Nunia 1.3 0.9 1.1 Kumhar/Kumal 1.2 0.7 1.0 Dom/Halkhor 0.5 1.5 1.0 Dhanuk/Mandal 1.0 0.7 0.9 Others * 2.0 2.9 2.5 Note: * Others include Malasi, Newar, Tharu, Chunara & safari. ** Others include Sonar, Khatwe/Kahar, Bhumihar, Mali, Kayastha, Newar, Chaurasia, Tharu, Gurung/Tamang. Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 2 Caste/Ethnic Composition of Dropout Children in Schools by Social Groups Caste/Ethnic Composition of District Dropout Dropout Children Children Dalit % Janjati % Others % n Doti 574 233 40.6 34 5.9 307 53.5 Rautahat 1139 213 18.7 95 8.3 831 73.0 Doti & Rautahat 1713 446 26.0 129 7.5 1138 66.5 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 3 Caste/Ethnic Composition of Dropout Children in Schools by Social Groups (In %) Doti Rautahat Doti & Rautahat Social Class Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Dalit 41.6 39.6 40.6 19.8 17.5 18.7 26.9 25.2 26.0 Janjati 5.2 6.6 5.9 8.1 8.5 8.3 7.1 7.8 7.5 Others 53.1 53.8 53.5 72.1 74.0 73.0 66.0 67.0 66.5 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 4 Distribution of Dropout Children according to their Language Spoken at home (In %) Language Spoken by children at home Doti Rautahat Nepali 98.6 2.1 Bhojpuri/Bajika 0.0 97.2 Others (Newari and Urdu) 1.4 0.7 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 5 Religion of Parents of Dropout Children in the two Districts (In Percentage) Religion Doti Rautahat Total Hindu 100.0 76.6 84.4 Islam 0.0 23.1 15.3 Buddhist 0.0 0.3 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 6 Magnitude of Dropouts Rate in Primary Schools under Study by sex (In percentage) Doti Rautahat Total Grade Boys Girls B&G Boys Girls B&G Boys Girls B&G Grade I 8.7 7.9 8.3 11.6 15.1 13.3 10.3 11.6 10.9 Grade II 6.4 7.2 6.8 12.2 17.5 14.5 9.5 11.8 10.6 Grade III 4.3 4.9 4.6 13.2 14.1 13.5 9.4 8.6 9.0 Grade IV 5.5 4.8 5.1 13.0 15.0 13.7 9.4 8.9 9.1 Grade V 7.8 9.3 8.5 15.1 11.2 13.8 11.9 10.1 11.2 Grade I-V 7.2 7.0 7.1 12.5 15.2 13.6 10.1 10.8 10.4 Source: Field Survey, 2007 Table 7 Magnitude of Gradewise Dropouts Rate in Primary Schools under Study by Rural and Urban Area (In percentage) Doti Rautahat Grade Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Grade I 10.2 6.0 8.3 10.5 15.9 13.3 Grade II 8.3 5.3 6.8 17.3 12.0 14.5 Grade III 4.4 4.8 4.6 13.0 14.0 13.5 Grade IV 7.0 3.5 5.1 16.7 11.2 13.7 Grade V 16.1 3.6 8.5 14.0 13.6 13.8 Grade I-V 9.1 5.1 7.1 13.2 14.1 13.6 Total Grade Rural Urban Total Grade I 10.4 11.5 10.9 Grade II 12.6 8.7 10.6 Grade III 8.7 9.4 9.0 Grade IV 11.6 7.1 9.1 Grade V 14.9 8.1 112 Grade I-V 11.1 9.7 10.4 Source: Field Survey, 2007 Table 8 Status of Adult Literacy in Households under Study by Gender (In percent) Doti Rautahat Literacy status Male Female Tota1 Male Female Tota1 Illiterate 41.7 78.1 59.3 61.8 90.2 75.3 Literate 58.3 21.9 40.7 38.2 9.8 24.7 Total Literacy status Male Female Tota1 Illiterate 55.3 86.2 70.1 Literate 44.7 13.8 29.9 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Table 9 Educational Attainment of Parents of Dropouts in Districts (In percentage) Doti Rautahat Total Educational Status Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father Illiterate 80.8 66.2 90.6 81.0 87.4 76.0 Literate only 14.6 29.4 6.4 9.7 9.1 16.3 Primary 3.8 2.2 1.5 3.0 2.3 2.7 Secondary 0.8 2.2 1.1 2.6 1.0 2.5 SLC & beyond 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.7 0.2 2.4 [Note: Fathers were contacted father in 405 out of 430 households, in 136 out of 144 households in Doti and in 269 out of 286 in Rautahat. Out of 430 households surveyed, the mothers of dropout children were traced and contacted in 396 households, which includes 130 households in Doti and 266 households in Rautahat.] Table 10 Number of Households under Study Below & Above Poverty Line Income by District, 2006/07 (In%) Doti Rautahat Particulars Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Households below Poverty line 83.9 64.7 77.1 70.4 66.2 68.2 Households above Poverty line 16.1 35.3 22.9 29.6 33.8 31.8 Total Particulars Rural Urban Total Households below Poverty line 75.9 65.8 71.2 Households above Poverty line 24.1 34.2 28.8 Source: Household Survey, 2007 Fig. 4 Incident of Poverty of Households under Study Area Doti Households below Poverty Line 23% Households above Poverty Line 77% Rautahat Households below Poverty Line 32% Households above Poverty Line 68% Doti and Rautahat Households below Poverty Line 29% Households above Poverty Line 71% Note: Table made from pie chart.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Kushiyait, Binay Kumar|
|Publication:||Contributions to Nepalese Studies|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Chayanov's economic analysis for rural Nepal: a case study of Dura community of Sindure Village.|
|Next Article:||Pangeni, Bhaveshwar, Kendriya Pustakalayaka Panch Dashak (2016-2066 V.S.) Tribhuvan Vishwavidyalaya Kendriya Pustakalaya ko Itihas.|