Vol. 3 Nos.1 & 2 June - Dec., 2003·

(IJ ES)

ISSN: 1596-5953

Chronic school absentees opinion about child-centredfactors... 22

CHRONIC SCHOOL ABSENTEES OPINION ABOUT CIDLD-CENTRED FACTORSRESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR NON-SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BEHAVIOUR

Dr. Falaye. A. O.Department of Guidance & Counselling.

University of Ibadan. Ibadan

&

Dr. GesiDde. A. M.Federal College of Education.

Oyo'

AbstractThis study examined the opinion oj schoolchronic absentees on child-centred JactorsinfluenCing non-school attendancebehaviour. The subjects oj the study were150 chronic absentees (males = 67.Jemales = 83) purposively selected Jromthirty randomly selected secondary schoolsin Ibadan, Oyo State. A validated self­developed questionnaire was used tocoUect data from participants. Means andstandard deviation were used to analysethe data coUected. The results at X =3.00decision point indicated that theparticipants disagreed that their irregularattendance in school was due tointimidation by mates (bullying) (x=2.94;SD = 1.32); seUing ojgoods in public places(x = 2.69; SD = 1.22); social celebrationsand (x = 2.96: SD = 1.34); and valueimportance attached to school. They.however. agreed that their absences weredue to lack oj interest in school (x = 3.37;SD = 1.40); discouragement by mates (x =3.16; SD = 1.40); inability to do homework(x =3.07; SD = 1.29);Jewer subjects on thetime-table (x = 3.03; SD = 1.32); Jear ojJailure (x = 3.07; SD = 1.43); pressure ojschool work (x =3.19; SD = 1.28); absenceoj examination (x = 3.2; SD = 1.45);inability to understand lessons (x = 3.17;SD = 1.27); hatred Jor school subjects (x =3.08; SD = 1.28); excessive teaching (x =3.13; SD = 1.42); lateness (x = 3.06; SD =1.37). There were no statistically

significant ddference in the non-schoolattendance behaviour oj male and Jemaleabsentees (t=O.086 p<0.05) and amongjunior and senior secondary schoolabsentees (t=1.53. p<0.05). Implications ojfindings were discussed andrecommendations proffered.

IntroductionThe school as a place where people areeducated is bedeviled with a number ofmaladaptive behaviOurs. Some of theseinclude non-school attendance behaviour.examination malpractice. poor academicperfonnance. academic failure. schooldesertion and attrition. cultism. stealing.riots and sexual harassment. The centralfocus of this study. however. would be onnon-school attendance behaviour other­wise known as school truancy orabsenteeism.

The rate at which students absentthemselves from school is stagering.Garry (2001), for instance. reported thatabout 150.000 of 1 million studentsskipped school on a typical day in NewYork largest public school. In Nigeria.Nwana (1975); Alhassan (1990) andUgbede (1999) have repeatedly identifiedtruancy as an act of indisciplinecommonly found in Nigerian schools.However there are no aggregate nationalfigures to give accurate indicators of thestatus rate. cohort rate as well as the

,..

Palaye. A. O. and Gesinde. A. M.

secondary school completion rate ofNigetian students.

The consequences of non-schoolattendance behaviour extend beyond thefour walls of the academic environment.According to Dekalb (l999). it affects thestudents. the family and the community.Chronic school absentees are at risk ofnon-completion of school. This has farreaching consequences for stakeholders inthe educational sector. School dropoutsare at a risk of having lower income. morehealth problem; and being involved incriminal activities and antisocialbehaviour. They also depend on welfareand other related social programmes.(Rumberger. 1987& 2001).

Students who are continually absentfrom school and fall into truant status aremore likely to eventually drop out ofschool (Rumberger. 2001) The gravedanger inherent in school absenteeismmay have led scholars to isolate some ofthe factors responsible for its occurrenceeven though a singular factor has notbeen identified as prime aetiology for non­school attendance behaviour amongadolescents. Prominent identified causesof truancy are factors that are residentwithin the child. Galloway (1985)reported that psychiatrists andpsychologists viewed poor attendance inschool as a symptom of disturbance in thechild. Lansdown (1990) also observedthat to a proportion of children and theirparents formal education is simplyirrelevant. 1h1s implies that the valueorientation of parents and their childrenconcerning education has a stronginfluence on the school attendancebehaviour of children. To these children.educational preoccupations are perceivedas marginal. Lansdown. therefore. was ofthe opinion. that by definition. mostschool non-attenders perceived thatschool has little to offer them compared towhat is available elsewhere. Similarly.Oerlemans and Jenkins (1998) attributed

23

absence from school to absentees' failureto value their education highly.

Woods (1995) perceived pooracademic achievement as the strongesteducational predictor of dropping out ofschool; while conversely. indices predictthat early school success can play animportant role in helping students stay inschool (Hansen. 1994). Poor academicperformance. absenteeism and discipli­nary problems in elementary and middleschool (which within the Nigerian schoolsystem is the primary school grade); arestrong predictors of withdrawal from highschool- i.e secondary school. (Rumberger.2001; Woods 1995).

Gabb (1997) has pointed out thatchildren play truant because they are 111eqUipped to tackle normal pressure ofschool. In thiS same vein. Ararnide (1998)concurred that a substantial proportion ofyoungsters skipped school in his study ofNigerian truants because they cannotadjust to the demands of school life.When students have been made aware oftheir academic frailty. the only healthyresponse. according to child-centredtheOrists. is non-attendance in the school(Lansdown. 1990). Lotz and Lee (1999)have equally argued that forcing olderstudents to remain in school against theirwish would only increase their non­attendance in school. One can. therefore.infer that there is a tendency for schoolabsenteeism among students whosechronological age is above the class theyare in.

The complementary impact of peergroup on non-school attendancebehaviour has also received scholars'attention. Siegel and Senna (1994)affirmed that as youths move throughadolescence they gravitate towards cliquesthat provide them with support.assurance. protection. and correction.Peer group provide social and emotionalbasis for anti-social activities. In theschool setting. Hurlock (1974) concurredthat part of the unfavourable attitude

Chronic school absentees opinion about child-centredfactors ... 24

many boys and girls develop towardsschool and colleges is peer instigated.Within the Nigerian context. this assertionis supported by Aramide (1998) andUgbede (1999).

Osarenren (1996) also argued that theall-encompassing powerlul influence ofpeer groups is indissolubly linked withmany students' illegal absence in school.Cases of gang truancy. according toDenny (1974). are not in common. Heasserted that children belonging to thesame peer group may be absent fromschool because of fishing expedition orJust because it is a nice day and a boringlesson is coming up.

Wells and Bechard (1989) cited inAsche (1993) identified three majorcategories of risk factors that contributeto the characteristics of students' risk ofdropping out of school as being school­related; community-related and familyrelated factors. Some of these have beenhighlighted by Project Stay-In (1991).They include: poor self-concept. low self­esteem. low academics (particularly beingbehind in reading and mathematics);social isolation; poor interpersonal skills;lack of positive peer relationships atschool; feeling of not belonging at school.Others are feeling of lack of control overlife (Le. W no matter how hard I try I willnot succeed"). little or no extra curricularinvolvement. mental and/or emotionalinstability. childhood. depression.unidentified learning disabilities. visionand/or auditory problems that have goneundiagnosed. language barriers. poorhealth. negative peer relationships;substance abuse. fear of school (schoolphobia). teachers and/or administrations;experiences of recent traumatic events(divorce. death of a loved one); fear ofphysical protection going to or at school;teenage pregnancy and/or parenting.These factors predict the psychologicalframe of reference within which the childoperates. Other factors may not beinherent but are Significant in the

prediction of school attendance behaviOuramong adolescents. These are perceivedas child-related factors

From the foregOing. therefore. it isevident that multiVariate factors affectingschool absenteeism. truancy and schooldropout rates are important and shouldbe given adequate consideration in effortsaimed at analyZing causative factors ofnon-school attendance behaviour. It is.however. worthy of note that greaterpercentage of these factors resident in thechild is invalidated. Literature review ofstudies earlier carried out in this arearevealed that a significant percentage ofthe researchers obtained their informationon aetiological factors of non-schoolattendance from views expressed byteachers. principals. and others and notdirectly from the absentees. The use ofteachers' opinion and retrospectiveresearch strategies in this area of study.in the submission of Farrington (1980) isinappropriate and does not give inSightinto the fundamental causes of schoolabsenteeism. This investigation is anattempt to empirically ascertain thecorrectness or otherwise of most of thefactors precipitating school absenteeism.from the viewpoint of non-schoolattendees themselves.

Research QuestionIn order to achieve the above objective. asingle but multidimenSional researchquestion is posed to guide the study:(1) What are the opinions of chronic

absentees on the impact of thefollowing child-related factors on theirnon-school attendance behaviour?

o Intimidation by mates (Bullying)o absence of examination in school

(inadequate measure ofability in the school)

o fear of failureo other non -school related assignments

(such as chores and the like).o Ceremonies and other societal

obligations

Fa1.aye. A. O. Wld Gesinde. A. M.

o failure to complete assignmento values attached to schooling

("schooling is unimportant")o feeling of loneliness in school("fnends

are absent, they don't attend myschool")

o inability to understand lessonso lateness to schoolo few subjects on the timetable ( many

free or unutiltzed class periods)o no free periods on the timetable

(overloaded timetables and excessiveteaching)

o fear of teacherso selling goods in public places

(hawking before or dUring schoolhours)

o hatred for particular subjects on thetimetable.

Research Hypotheses1\vo null hypotheses were stated andtested at 0.05 level of significance.o There is no statistically significant

difference in the non-schoolattendance behaviour of male andfemale secondary school adolescentsidentified as chronic absentees.

o There is no statistically significantdifference in the non schoolattendance behaviour of junior andsenior secondary school studentsidentified as chronic absentees.

Methodology:Research DesignThe study adopted an ex-post factodeSign. This is because the factors underinvestigation in this causal-comparativestudy already existed and were notmanipulated in the course of the stUdy.

Population and SamplePurposive sampling technique was used toselect 150 chronic school absentees from30 randomly selected secondary schoolsin Ibadan. The thirty schools were drawn

25

from 2 out the 3 senatorial districts of Oyostate in southwest Nigeria. Senatorialdistricts were selected using a simpleballot system. Participating schools wererandomly selected using the table ofrandom numbers. While 67 were malesrepresenting 44.67 percent the femaleswere 83 representing 55.33 percent.Their ages range between 12-22 yearswith a mean age of 16.03 and standarddeviation of 1.89.

InstrumentationThe two instruments used in this study tocollect data from the participants were theschool attendance register and a self­developed validated questionnaire- Non­school Attendance Behaviour (Chlld­related Factors) Questionnaire (a sectionof Non School Attendance BehaviourScale)

The school attendance register isglobally recogntzed as an importantsource to be consulted in any attempt toascertain students' attendance rate in theschool. It has been found to be reliable ifnot subjected to undue manipulation. Forthe purpose of identifying chronicabsentees who participated in this studythe 2001/2002 attendance register ofJSS 1 to SS2 classes in participatingschools were consulted. Only studentswho had missed more than one-third ofthe expected attendance in the first andsecond terms participated in the study.The study was conducted in the thirdterm of the school year.

The researchers designed the NonSchool Attendance Behaviour (Chlld­related Factors) Questionnaire. Itcomprised of 15 positively worded itemsutilizing a five-points Likert rating scale(See Table 1 for items on theQuestionnaire). It also sought informationon personal background of theparticipants. A pre-test of the Non-schoolAttendance Behaviour (Child- relatedFactors) Questionnaire was carried out on50 identified school absentees in 10

Chronic school absentees opinion about child-eentredfactors... 26

schools In three local government areas ofOyo state. A split-half reliability co­efficient alpha value of 0.75 was recordedfor the reliability of the instrument.

ProcedureThe researchers fIrst identified 150students who had missed more than onethird of expected attendance in school Inthe first and second terms of 2001/2002session using the attendance register.Identified chronic absentees were thengiven the self-developed structuredquestionnaire In each school.Administration of questionnaires wasdone with the assistance of the classteachers of identified chronic absentees.Teacher's assistance was Imperativebecause of the characteristic irregularschool attendance behaviour of schoolabsentees who are the target participantsIn the present study. The questionnaire.which took between 15-20 minutes tocomplete. was collected on the same dayby the researchers and field assistants.Data collection spanned through the thirdterm of the 2001/2002 school year.

Data AnalysisData collected were analysed using thedescriptive statistics of means andstandard deviation. The decision-pointwas put at 3.0. This. therefore. Impliesthat a mean rating of less than 3.0 is"disagree", while a mean rating more than3.0 is "agree". A one-sample t-test valuewas analysed to answer themultidimensional research question, whilet-test analysis of independent means wasused to test the two research hypothesesstated in the study. The one-sample t-testvalue provided insight into the consensusopinion of chronic absentees on child­related factors influencing their negativeschool attendance behaviour as shown Intheir reactions to the items on the NonSchool Attendance Behaviour (Child­related Factors) Questionnaire.

ResultsThe results of the analyses are presentedin accordance with the research questionswhich gUided the study.

Table 1: Means and standard Deviations and t values of one sample t-test ofchronic Absentees opinion on child-related factors of Non-schoolAttendance Bahaviour.

SIN STATEMENT M SO T Of DECISION

1 Whenever I have no interest in school 3.37 1.40 2.06 148 ·Agreework I stay at home or in the hostel

2. My friends sometimes discourage me 3.16 1.40 2.97 148 ·Agreefrom comin~ to school

3. I am sometimes not in school because 3.07 1.29 2.75 148 ·AgreeI have not done my homework

4. I am not in school when I have less 3.03 1.32 3.17 148 ·Agreethan three subjects on the time-table

5. Since I am not confident that I can 3.07 1.43 3.09 148 ·Agreesucceed in school. I sometimes stayaway from coming to school

6. The pressure of some hardworking 3.19 1.28 3.73 148 ·Agreeteachers discourages me fromattending school.

FaIaye. A. O. and Gesinde, A. M. 27

7. It is only dUIing examination peIiods 3.2 1.45 3.03 148 *Agreethat I attend school re,gularly

8. Inability to understand lessons 3.17 1.27 3.07 148 *Agreetaught in class prevents me fromcomin,g to the school re,gularly.

9. I am not in school when the only 3.08 1.28 2.71 148 *Agreesubjects to be taught are the ones Ihate

10. I always avoid coming to school when 2.94 1.32 1.53 148 Disagreemy mates are making jest of me.

11. When I am not 1n school it is because 2.69 1.22 0.98 148 DisagreeI have to sell goods in public places

12. It is only when teachers are not 3.13 1.42 2.23 148 *Agreeteaching that I do not miss school

13. I sometimes stay away from school 2.96 1.34 1.71 148 Disagreebecause of ceremonies

14. My poor attendance in school is due 2.97 1.32 1.42 148 Disagreeto the fact that schooling sometimesmeans little or nothin,g to me

15. I sometimes stay at home or in the 3.06 1.37 2.86 148 *Agreehostel when I am late for school.

o Signifl.Cant at 0.05

Going by the results displayed in theabove table, chronic school absenteesagreed with all the statements exceptitems 10, 11, 13 and 14. The consensus ofopinion in this study is that factors suchas being made fun of at school. missingschool because of trading or other socio­economically related chores; missingschool for ceremonies or because schoolmeans little to them, do not bear muchSignificance on their schoo attendancebehaviour. Generally. the non-schoolattendance behaviour of absentees in thisstudy, according to them, can beattributed to child related factors such as:lack of interest in schooling (item 1). peerinfluence (item 2), not doing classhomework and aSSignments (item 3), low

self concept and self expectations (item 5).too few subjects on timetable- too manyfree periods (item 4), overwork, stIictmonitoIing by some teachers (item 6).poor teaching and students' inability tounderstand subjects taught in school(item 8). Others include missing subjectshated by the students (item 9) and whenteachers are missing classes (item 12).

To test the first research hypothesisthat sought to know if there was asignificant difference in non-schoolattendance behaviour of male and femaleschool absentees sampled in this study, at-test analysis was computed. Table 2shows the result of findings on thishypothesis.

Table 2T-test. means and standard deviation comparing non school attendance behaviour ofmale and female absentees

IVariables fF '-x---I SD I t.cal =oJ t.critical I-=p _

Chronic schooL absentees opinion about child-eentredJaciors... 28

Male I 67Fenulies I 83Not signifICant at 0.05

45.7146.9

10.759.14 0.86 1.96 NS

Table 2 showed that there is nostatistically significant difference in theschool attendance behaviour of male andfemale absentees sampled in the study.though female subjects showed a slightlyhigher mean score on their non-schoolattendance behaviour (x =46.09. SD=9.14) than male absentees (x=45.71SD=1O. 75) This indicated a slightly higher

non-school attendance behaviour amongfemale students sampled in this study.

The second research hypothesis wastested using the t-test measure for valueof difference among two independentmean scores. Table 3 shows thecomparison between the non schoolattendance behaviour of junior and seniorsecondary school students.

Table 3T-test. means and standard deviation comparing non-school attendance of junior andsenior sc;condary school absentees

Variables N X SD t.cal t.critical PJunior students 53 46.75 8.32Senior students 97 45.28 10.56 1.53 1.96 N.S

Not significant at 0.05 point oj significance.

The second null hypothesis tested inthis study was also rejected as thecalculated t-value was less than thecritical t-value of 1.96. thus confirming isthat there is no significant difference inthe non school attendance behaviour ofjunior and senior secondary schoolchronic absentees. However. the meanscores on junior absentees' schoolattendance behaviour is slightly higher (x= 46.75 SD= 8.32 ) than that of seniorsecondary school absentees (x= 45.28 SD=10.56) ,{t = 1.53 . p< 0.05).The hypothesisis therefore confirmed.

DiscussionThe study has been able to demonstratethat chronic absentees' irregularattendance in school could be traced tomultivariate factors; thus lending a strongsupport to the fact that no single reasoncan account for students dropping out ofschool. This is indicated by respondents'agreement with eleven out of fifteen likelyreasons for their irregular school

attendance behaviour. Hierarchically inthis investigation, the factors identified bychronic absentees themselves asinfluencing their school attendancebehaviour are: lack of interest in schoolwork; lack of examination (that isinadequate assessment of students'ability); overload of school work; inabilityto understand what they are taught inschool (ineffective teaching); peerinfluence discouragenlent from friends;excessive teaching (overcrowdedtimetables); hatred for particular SUbjects;inability to complete school assignments;fear of failure (indicating low self conceptand self expectations); constant latenessto school, and few subjects in the time­table (many free class periods in theschool day).

Child-related factors indicated bychronic absentees in this studycorroborate those identified in the ProjectStay In (1991) which include factors suchas: uninteresting and irrelevant curricu­lum; poor teacher-student relation ships;

Falaye. A. 0. and Gesinde. A. M,

high teacher- student ratio; lack ofparent- school communication andinvolvement and too weak or too rigidadministration. The conclusions of Adana(1987) investigation of the nature andcauses of truancy in the secondaryschools in Nigeria pointed to the fact thattruancy can be attributed mostly tofactors within the child. Such factorsinclude fear of punishment, low interest inschool subjects, laziness, idleness,inappropriate peer group influence,emotional problems, low perception of therelevance of education in relation to life.low academic performance andinadequate study habit. In the same vein,Kinder, Harland, Wilkin and Wakefield(1995) findings indicate that lack of self­esteem, poor peer relations, lack ofconcentration/self management skills aresome of the causes of truancy resident inthe child.

The outcome of the first hypothesistested in the study confirms that there isno statistically Significant difference in thenon school attendance behaviour of maleand of female chronic school absentees , afinding that lends credence to earlierreports by Geo-Opah (1992).Ananthakrishnan and Nalini ( 2002) . Thisfinding is not supported by Owodunni(1996) who reported a significant genderdifference in the non-school attendancebehaviour of some secondary schoolstudents in Ogun state of Nigeria.Furthermore. the tilt of more malesexhibiting higher tendencies of truanthabits in Owodunni's study is mildlyrefuted by the slightly higher mean scoreof female absentees' non-schoolattendance behaviour in thisinvestigation.

Though there is no significantdifference in the school attendancebehaviour of junior and senior secondaryschool students identified as choolabsentees in this study. the slightlyhigher mean score on junior studentsseem to indicate that juniors are more

29

susceptible to truant behaviours thanseniors. Earlier reports by Munn andJohnstone (1992) and Stoll (1993) confirmthat non-school attendance behaviour cutacross all age grades in the high(secondary school). The findings here notcorroborate Galloway's (1976 and 1985)perception that more senior students aremore susceptible to truancy than juniorones.

Implications of the findings forcounseling practiceA major focus in the present investigationis to elicit information from potentialschool dropouts, on factors mostlyinherent in them which precipitate theirnon-school attendance behaviOUr. Theiropinion on these factors are importantand relevant for the development ofappropriate intervention programmes forpotential dropouts in the country. The factthat the chronic absentees agree witheleven out fifteen items suggests that theabsentee child is the first and primarytarget in any attempt to prevent or designintervention programmes for non-schoolattendance behaviour. The indication isthat these and other child-centred factorsare the expreSSions of the internal locus ofcontrol of school attendance behaviour ofabsentees. These should be givenadequate attention if successful remedialand preventive programmes are to be putinto place for Nigerian school children at­risk of dropping out of school. It,therefore. seem reasonable to suggestthat counseling psychologists. educationalpsychologists. and gUidance counselorsshould give considerable attention tofactors resident in the child wheneverattempts are made to develop workableintervention strategies that would combatnon-school attendance behaviOUr.Similarly. these professionals shouldstress the contributory role of theabsentees to the incident of non-schoolattendance behaviour during groupcounseling sessions.

Chronic school absentees opinion about child-centredfactors... 30

RecommendationsIntervention . programmes to makestudents stay in school are becomingimperative if the gains of the nation'seducational investments are to besustained. Scholars submit that thelikelihood of students dropping out ofschool increases with the combination ofmultifaceted risk factors and thateventual disengagement from school is along term process beginning with earlyschool experiences (Asche 1993 andHansen 1994). Within the Nigeriancontext there is the need for tracer studiesthat will provide national records of actualrates in terms of the number ofsecondary school students who do notcomplete secondary education: the ageand class at which students chronic non­school attendance behaviour puts them atrisk of school attrition and the percentageof secondary school intakes that completethis segment of schooling. These vitalstatistics are essential if the nation wouldcurb wastage in manpower developmentin the early and formative stages ofbeneficiaries within the different stages ofeducational sectors of the country.

In conclusion, effective 'stay - inschool 'intervention programmes shouldaddress school organizational andadministrative system; the school climate;instructional materials and delivery; staffculture; as well as parental proactiveinvolvement in school dropout preventionprogrammes in Nigeria.

References

Adana, B. S. (1987). A compansm ofteachers' and pupils' views on truancy inNigerian Secondary Schools. The NigerianJournal of Guidance and CounseUing 3.1&2 17-23.

Alhassan, A B. (1990). TheManagement of disaffection in School

Educational Management and Administra­tion 18, 3. 46-52.

Aramide. F. (1998). Counsellingstrategies for handling school Relatedproblems: School phobia and truancy.Journal of Women in colleges of Education,2, 108-113

Asche. J. A (1993). Finish for thefuture: America's communities respond.Alexandria V. A: National Partners inEducation, Inc. 23 - 38

Dekalb, J. (1999). Student Truancy.ERIC Digest, Number 125.

Denny, AH. (1974) 1hlancy andschool phobia. London: Priority Press Ltd.

Farrington, D. (1980). Truancy,delinquency, the home and the school. InL. Hersov and 1. Berg (Eds.) Out of schooLColchester: John Wiley and Sons.

Gabb, S. (1997). 1hlancy: Itsmeasurement and causation: A briefreview of the literature. London: HerMajesty's Stationery Office.

Galloway, D. (1985). &hools andpersistent absentees. Oxford: PergamonPress.

Garry, E. M. (2001). Truancy: Firststep to lifetime of problems. OfficialBulletin of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. OlJDP: USDepartment of Justice.

Hansen, D. (1994). Dropping out andstaying in :Elementwy school predictors ofacademic status in later years. RetrievedMay 2003 from http://wwwlmri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/lmri newsletters Ivolume4/news43/v4n3.htm

F'alaye. A. O. and Gesinde. A. M.

Hurlock, E. B (1974). Personalitydevelopment. New Delhi: Tata McGraw­Hill Publishing Company Ltd.

Kinder, K. Harland J. Wilkin. A. andWakefield A. (1995). Three to remember:Strategies Jor disaffected pupils. Slough:NFER.

Lansdown. R. (1990). Non-attendanceat school and school refusal in Britain. InC. Colette and J. G. Young (Eds.) Whychildren reject schooL P. 109 - 122.London: Yale University Press.

Lotz. R and Lee. L (1999). Sociability.school experience and delinquency. Youthand society 31.3. 199-224.

Munn. P. and Johnstone. M (1992).1Tuancy and attendance in Scottishsecondary schools Edinburgh: TheScottish Council for Research inEducation.

Nwana. O. C. (1975). Major schooloffences in Nigerta: A preliminary study.West Ajri£an Journal ojEducation XV. 2.

Oerlemans. K. and Jenkins. H. (1998)Their voice: student perception of thesources of alienation in secondary school.Proceedings: Western Australian InstituteJor Educational Research Forum.

Osarenren. N.A. (1996) Absenteeismand truancy. In E.O. Obe (Ed) SchoolDiscipline and Remedies. III - 121.Lagos: Premier Press and Pub ishers.

31

Project Stay- In (1991). 1hlantsAlternative and Optional EducationProgram. Illnois: Illnois State Board ofEducation publication.

Rumberger RW. (1987). High schooldropouts: A review of issues and evidence.Review oj Educational Research. 57. 2.101-121

Rumberger RW. (2001). Why studentsdrop out of school and what can be done.Santa Barbara . Retrteved May 2002 fromhttp:www.civilrtghtsprojecLharvard.edujresearchjdropouts rumberger.pdf

Siegel. L.J. and Senna. J.J. (1994).Juvenile delinquency: Theory. practice andlaw. 5th Edition.. New York: WestPublishing Company.

Stoll. P. (1993). Truancy in EnglishSecondary Schools Education today 44 .1.35-37

Ugbede. E. O. (1999). The issue ofindiSCipline in schools in Nigerta.Kontagora Journal ojEducation. 4.192. 49- 54.

Woods. E. G (1995). Reducing thedropout rate. SIRS Series IX. RetrievedAprtl 2002 from: http://www.mvrel.org/scpd/sirs /9/c017.html .