My Success Project

CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background of theStudy
According to Graetz (1995), one’s educational success depends very strongly on
socio-economic status of the parents. Considine and Zappala (2002) argue that families
where the parents are advantaged socially, educationally and economically foster a high
level of achievement in their children. Greatz agrees with Considine and Zappala (2002)
because students from high socio-economic backgrounds are well exposed to scholastic
materials, which aid their intelligence. Socio-Economic Status (SES) according to
Considine and Zappala (2002) is a person’s overall social position to which attainments
in both the social and economic domain contribute. They add that socio-economic status
is determined by an individual’s achievements in, education, employment, occupational
status and income. In this study socio-economic status (SES) would be characterized by
parental income, parental education and parental occupation. Graetz (1995) argues that
children from high socio-economic status families perform much better at school
compared to children from low socio-economic status families. Schools according to
Sentamu (2003) are social institutions in which groups of individuals are brought
together to share educational experiences and such interactions which may breed positive
or negative influences on learners.
According to some researchers, “the educational achievement gap has deep root;
it is evident very early in child’s lives; even before they enter schools. Socio–economic
1
differences – such as health and nutrition status, home environments that provide access
to academically related experiences, mobility rates, and financial assets can certainly
influence academic achievements” (Laosa, 2005, cited in Ogunshola and Adewale,
2012). “The responsibility of training a child always lies in the hand of the parents”
(Ogunshola and Adewale, 2012).Parental educational background, profession and
occupation affect their financial status. Socio-economic status is one major factor that
affects their children’s educational level, competitive ability and performance (Smith et
al., 2002; Hill et al., 2004; Rothestein, 2004). When you give out what you don’t have,
then you are equated to a proverbial thief. When a woman’s nutritional status improves,
so too does the nutrition of her young children (Lisa et al., 2003 as in Ogunshola and
Adewale, 2012). This could be an automatic adjustment formula for responsible parents
and guardians only; there could be possible objection to this. A sound mind lives in a
sound body is a relevant adage to this phenomenon. Some researchers uphold that
parents’ socio-economic status (or social classes) affects children’s health, rate of
retentive memory and deviation,nutritional balance, and academic performance (Eze,
2002; Guerin et al., 2001; Adewale, 2002; Omoegun, 2007; Oni, 2007; Ogunshola and
Adewale, 2012).
Sentamu (2003), Kwesiga (2002), Portes and Macleod (1996) as cited in
Considine and Zappala (2002) all argue that the type of school a child attends influences
academic achievement. According to Minnesota measures (2007), a report on higher
2
education performance, which was produced by the University of Minnesota, the most
reliable predictor of student success in college is the academic preparation of students in
high school.
A few researches have been conducted on income inequality and the performance
of students. This study intends to assess the relationship between income inequality on
academic performance of tertiary students: the case of Tai Solarin University of
Education. Students’ performance will be measured by their cumulative grade point
average (CGPA) as against their sources of finance.
1.2 Statement of theProblem
Academic performance, which is measured by the examination results, is one of
the major goals of a school. Hoyle (1986) argued that schools are established with the
aim of imparting knowledge and skills to those who go through them and behind all this
is the idea of enhancing good academic performance. Tai Solarin University of Education
whose vision is to be the preferred Education University, which will excel in preparing
educators who will be leaders in all spheres of the discipline. However, findings
discovered that while some students perform well, others do not. Much as it is normal for
students in an educational institution to perform well and others poorly, even after
receiving the same services, this research is then curious to know what makes some
students perform well and while others perform poorly.
3
Tai Solarin University of Education is a state university which living standard of
students parent differs among the system that is people of high, medium and low standard
living students are expected to be there. Findings in Tai Solarin University of Education
proved that average students receives at least N5,000 from parent on a monthly bases for
purchase of textbooks and other needed materials while some have to source for other
means of survival such as getting involved in work and study, working outside the school
during weekdays and weekends to do some running jobs. Therefore, students’
comfortability is certain to some set of people and not all. Research also proved that
relationship between students' performance and family income (socio-eonomic status) is
positive because money can buy all comforts that a child needs to concentrate on studies,
so it is expected that students with low parental socio-economic status (income) should
perform low academically while those with high family income should perform better.
However, reverse is the case where we have students with high socio-economic status
performing low even while at their comforts while students with low income perform
better.
It is against the above problem that this study intends to investigate other factors
aside income that determines the performances of undergraduate students. Case study of
TaiSolarin University of Education. Thus, the ultimate questions which this research
seeks to answer are:
4
1. What is the relationship between socio-economic status of parents and academic
performance?
2. Is income the major determinant of students’ academic performance?
3. What is the relationship and impact of income of parents on academic
performance?
4. What are the other income related determinants of academic performance?
5. What relationship does per capita income have on parent income?
6. How does Gross Domestic Product affect Income?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between socio-
economic status of parents and academic performance in TASUED students’
communities. Specifically, the study will find out;
1. The relationship between socio-economic status of parents and academic
performance.
2. The relationship and impact of parents’income on academic performance.
3. To investigate other income related determinants of academic performance.
1.4 Justification for the Study
Hill et al. (2004) asserted that socio–economic position of parents directly affects
students’ academic performance, improves low background students to firmly compete
5
with those from high income families. Adewale (2002 as in Ogunshola and Adewale,
2012) upheld that rural communities where nutritional status is relatively low and health
problems are prevalent due to low income brackets of parents, children’s academic
performance is comparatively lower.Lacour and Tissington (2011) examined the effects
of poverty on academic achievement in the USA. They concluded their study that poverty
directly affects academic achievement due to the lack of resources available for students’
success; thus low academic achievement is closely correlated with lack of resources, with
emphasis on financial resources.Smith et al. (2002 as in Ogunshola and Adewale, 2012)
argued that parental socio-economic status is a significant predicator of intellectual
performance of children right from 8 years of age. Parental socio – economic status
affects health and vitality status of children, which is a direct reflection on their academic
performance. In a current development, Ali and others’ 2013 study investigated factors
affecting academic performance of graduate students of Islamia University of
Bahawalpur Rahim Yar Khan Campus. Among variables examined against students’
academic performance was father/guardian social economic status.
Having reviewed the above literatures, it is observed that the reviewed study had no
economic theory used to support the findings while this study will employ persistent
income inequality theory to make it different from previous studies in this area. Also, the
common methods used in the past works are Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient (r) and Chi square. Therefore, this study will make a difference by
6
adoptingquantitative research design and also, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) will be
employed. It is also observed from the reviewed study that socio–economic position of
parents directly affects students’ academic performancebut did not review otherparent
income determinants and students part that also affect their performances, this study will
therefore review other income determinant of parents and students part that contributes to
their academic performance. Duration for this study will be expanded to 2018. The
outcome of this study will create new insight to studies on income inequality and
academic performance and also provide policy recommendations.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The study population would comprise of undergraduate male and female students
of the university belonging to different communities around the campus which are;
Ijagun, Ijele, Abapawa and Imaweje. The purposive selection of hostels would aim at
excluding the students in their first year of study from participating since they could not
provide information with respect to the immediate previous academic session.
The collection of data and result would be based on 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and
2017/2018 Academic results.
7
1.6 Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis I
H0: There is no significant relationship between socio-economic status and academic
performance of undergraduate students.
H1: There is significant relationship between socio-economic status and academic
Hypothesis II
H0: There is no significant relationship and impact of parent income on academic
performance.
H1: There is significant relationship and impact of parent income on academic
performance.
Hypothesis III
H0: There are no other income related determinants of academic performance.
H0: There are other income related determinants of academic performance.
1.7 Plan of the Study
This study will be structured into five chapters. The first chapter will introduce
the background of the study, statement of the problems, and the objectives of the study.
The second chapter will review available literatures in a broad view, in light with the
8
relevant conceptual, theoretical and empirical works and provide precise summary to
collapse the broad findings into brief capturing for easy comprehension of the
relationship between the subject variables. The chapter three will deal with the research
methodology; it will include the research design, econometric techniques, model
specification, source(s) and method of data collection. Chapter four will be detailed with
the data and result presentation, data analysis and interpretation of result. Lastly, chapter
five will deal with summary, conclusion and recommendation.
9
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
This chapter reviewed related literatures on income inequality and academic
performance. The chapter is divided into some headings which includes;
Conceptual review
Theoretical review
Empirical review
Methodological review
Appraisal of literature
2.1 Conceptual Review
2.1.1 Income inequality
There are several attempts to define the concept of income inequality but it is important
to note that the definition of income inequality should not been seen on the income
perspectives only but in an all-encompassing context. Income inequality also describes
the gap between the rich and the poor, economic inequality, wealth disparity, wealth and
income differences and the wealth gap (Rugaber, 2014).
Though there are several definitions attached to the concept of income inequality, the
central view is that each concept shares the state of affairs in which assets, wealth, or
income are distributed unequally among individuals in a group, among groups in a
production, or among countries. The issue of economic inequality can implicate notions
10
of equity, equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, and even life expectancy
(Fletcher, 2013). Although the phrase uses the term income, the discussion often includes
inequality in wealth or assets, which are different concepts.
Inequality in wealth is directly related to income inequality which is measured in terms of
the monetary value of a person, group of people or a nation while inequality in asset
represents disparity in the natural resource endowments between two or three nations or
the disparity in the level of real assets of an individual or group or nation, such real assets
include: real estate, investment in stocks and properties, and infrastructural investment.
It is equally important to explain the concept of income distribution in this section.
Income distribution is how a nation's total GDP is distributed amongst its population
(Sullivan, Arthur, Steven &Sheffrin, 2003). Income and distribution has been a central
concern of economic theory and economic policy. Classical economists such as Adam
Smith, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus were mainly concerned with factor income
distribution, that is, the distribution of income between the factors of production, land,
labour and capital. Modern economists have also addressed this issue, but have been
more concerned with the distribution of income across individuals and households
(Sullivan, Arthur; Steven &Sheffrin, 2003). Important theoretical and policy concerns
include the relationship between income inequality and economic growth.
Also, it is important to note that various scholars' (e.g Wilkinson, 2009) opinions differ
on the importance of the concept of income inequality and its effect. Some studies have
11
emphasized inequality as a growing problem (Wilkinson, 2009), while in other studies,
inequality promotes investment and that excess inequality is destructive.
Income inequality can hinder long term growth (Vos, 2012). However statistical studies
comparing inequality to year-on-year economic growth have been inconclusive.
Inequality implies different things to different people. It could be conceptualized as the
dispersion of a distribution, whether one is considering income, consumption or some
other welfare indicator or attribute of a population. Conceptually distinct as they may be,
income inequality is often studied as part of broader analyses covering poverty and
welfare. Inequality is a broader concept than poverty in that it is defined over the whole
distribution, not only the censored distribution of individuals or households below a
certain poverty line (Cowell, 2010). According to Adegoke (2013) income inequality
means disparity in the rewards to factors of production. Bakare (2011) defined income
inequality as a situation whereby money received during a certain period, especially as
payment for work or interest on investment in different sizes, degrees or circumstances
e.t.c especially in an unfair difference in ranking. Income inequality is the line drawn
between the rich and poor. The low income group is characterized by poverty, poor
health care, unstable jobs, inadequate level of education, while the high income group is
characterized by adequate health care, literacy (adequate education attainment). The
middle group shares those characteristics between the low and higher income group
12
(Adegoke, 2013). Income inequality is defined as the inequitable distribution of income
among the members of a particular group, an economy or society.
Income inequality can be within the country or between two or more countries. Some of
the factors that lead to inequality as noted by scholars are gender, globalization,
education level and the level of technology in the country. Inequality can have a direct
and indirect link with poverty. The direct link is more obvious when we look at the
individual. Inequitable distribution of resources in the society hinders the person or group
of persons affected negatively so that they will not have enough to take care for their
children in terms of human capital development (education and health) thus they are
classified as being poor (Ogbeide&Agu, 2015).
This also motivates the present study to further research the links between income
inequality and academic performance.
2.1.2 Income Inequality and academic performance
In most of the studies done on academic performance of students, it is not surprising that
income is one of the major factors studied while predicting academic performance.
Hansen and Mastekaasa (2003), argue that according to the cultural capital theory one
could expect students from families who are closest to the academic culture to have
greatest success. It is believed that low income negatively affects academic achievement
because low income prevents access to vital resources and creates additional stress at
home. Considine and Zappala (2002) agree with Graetz (1995), in their study on the
13
influence of social and economic disadvantage in the academic performance of school
students in Australia found that families where the parents are advantaged socially,
educationally and economically foster a higher level of achievement in their children.
They also found that these parents provide higher levels of psychological support for
their children through environments that encourage the development of skills necessary
for success at school.
What a developed country categorizes as low income may bedifferent from the definition
of low income of a developing country. Additionally students do not form a homogenous
group and one measure of social economic disadvantage may not suit all sub groups
equally.
Combs (1985) argued that in virtually all nations, children of parents high on the
educational, occupation and social scale have far better chance of getting into good
secondary schools and from there into the best colleges and universities than equally
bright children of ordinary workers or farmers. Combs (1985) adds that the findings of
many empirical studies suggest that children whose parents are at the bottom of the social
economic hierarchy are not as inclined to seek or gain access to available educational
facilities as the children with families are located at the middle or top of the hierarchy.
Dills (2006) had a similar view with Combs (1985) when she found that students from
the bottom quartile consistently perform below students from the top quartile of
socioeconomic status. Another similar view was held by Hansen and Mastekaasa (2006),
14
when they studied the impact of class origin on grades among all first year students and
higher level graduates in Norwegian universities. Their analysis showed that students
originating in classes that score high with respect to cultural capital tend to receive the
highest grades.
McMillan and Westor (2002) argued that social economic status is comprised of three
major dimensions: education, occupation and income. They add that education,
occupation and income are moderately correlated therefore it is inappropriate to treat
them interchangeably in the higher education context.
Family income, according to Escarce (2003) has a profound influence on the educational
opportunities available to adolescents and on their chances of educational success.
Escarce (2003) adds that due to residential stratification and segregation, low-income
students usually attend schools with lower funding levels, have reduced achievement
motivation and much higher risk of educational failure. When compared with their more
affluent counterparts, low-income adolescents receive lower grades, earn lower scores on
standardized test and are much more likely to drop out of school.
Escarce (2003) is in agreement with Combs (1985) and Sentamu (2003) who argued that
social class determines what school a child will attend and whether the child will pass the
examinations. Considine&Zappala (2002) found that children from families with low
income are more likely to exhibit the following patterns in terms of educational
outcomes; have lower levels of literacy, innumeracy and comprehension, lower retention
15
rates, exhibit higher levels of problematic school behavior, are more likely to have
difficulties with their studies and display negative attitudes to school.
King and Bellow (1989) used parents’ occupation as a proxy for income to examine the
relationship between income and achievement and found that children of farmers had
fewer years of schooling than children of parents with white-collar jobs. They also
determined that the schooling levels of both parents had a positive and statistically
significant effect on the educational attainment of Peruvian children. They argue thathow
much education a child’s parents have is probably the most important factor in
determining the child’s educational opportunities. They observe that the higher the
attainment for parents, then the greater their aspirations for children.
In any context the concept of inequality refers always to comparability between elements.
The comparison is usually based on specific characteristics which can be measured using
adequate indexes or indicators. Thus, the fact is reduced to comparisons between
quantities and inequality will relate to differences in these quantities. In these terms,
inequality seems to be a straightforward concept which, as Cowell (1995) states,
"obviously" suggests a departure from the simple idea of equality, this is, the fact that
two or more quantities are the same size.
Academic performance is measured by the final grade earned in the course. The grade
point average or GPA is now used by most of the tertiary institutions as a convenient
summary measure of the academic performance of their students. The GPA is a better
16
measurement because it provides a greater insight into the relative level of performance
of individuals and different group of students. Findings discovered that while some
students perform well, others do not perform well. Much as it is normal for students in an
educational institution to perform well and others poorly, even after receiving the same
services, this research is then curious to know what makes some students perform well
and while others perform poorly. Therefore, students comfortability is certain to some set
of people and not all. Research also proved that relationship between students'
performance and family income (socio-eonomic status) is positive because money can
buy all comforts that a child needs to concentrate on studies, so it is expected that
students with low parental socio-economic status (income) should perform low
academically while those with high family income should perform better
According to the literature cited it can be seen that income is related to academic
performance, whether one studies income inequality as a whole or with distinct
dimensions, there is considerable support to hypothesize that parents’ income affects
academic performance of students.
17
2.1.3 Factors affecting income Inequality
There are various factors affecting income inequality, some of the reviewed factors are
considered in this section.
a. Technology
Rapid advancements in technology add more to the level of inequality in less developed
countries (Rugabar, 2014). Technology has shifted labour demand from low-skilled
labour towards high-skilled labour. Developments in computer technology have
revolutionized car, cell phones, healthcare, and the way we work, shop, read and even
worship. Technological progress has changed the type of labour needed to support the
way we live and work, and has literally created jobs where there previously were none.
Technology creates the need for specialized workers who can fix cars, iPads and hospital
equipment and creates a need for higher-skilled labour. To this end, technological
progress is correlated with increasing income inequality (Florence, Subir, and Chris,
2008)
b. Inequality in Wages and Salaries
Gurria, (2011) argued that one of the causes of inequality is increasing wages and salaries
disparity. He argued that different sectors of an economy have different salary scale for
their staff even with similar qualification. For example, a graduate working in the
banking industry may be paid higher than a similar graduate working in the educational
18
sector. The differences in the wage rate paid to labour constitutes to the promotion of
income inequality.
c. Growing Markets
Another important factor causing inequality according to Florence, Subir and Chris
(2008) is the rapid growing markets. Globalized markets break down the boundaries of
smaller, local markets and provide new platforms and new audiences for trade. They
allow artisans, farmers and manufacturers to open their products and services to the
global economy. This means those who could have leverage on this growing global
market may have low demand for their products compared to others who are able to
penetrate into the global market.
d. Immigration
Immigration into a country changes the supply of labor, usually low-skilled labor in that
country. As the supply increases, there is downward pressure put on wages for low-
skilled labor, more people competing for the same low-skilled jobs can increase income
inequality.
e. Property Rights
Rights in property affect all of economic life. The security of those rights is crucial for
economic growth. Property rights involve rights to maintain, sell, transfer and modify
that which you own. Property rights extend to both animate objects (houses, cars) and
inanimate objects (ideas, air, spiritual gifts). Our accumulation of property tends to grow
19
through our lifetime. When we are young we do not own much, aside from what our
parents give us and what we are endowed with. As we get older we acquire property
through the fruits of our labor, we buy a home, start a business, and invest our capital in a
variety of ways. By definition we will all acquire different levels of income and capital
based on how we invest our resources (talents, spiritual gifts, skills and abilities) and
some of those investments will have higher payoffs than others.
f. Length of Working/Life Experience
Markets for goods and services are not static; they are always moving and changing,
ultimately based on the desires and preferences of those doing the purchasing. In a
market economy, most people start out at a lower income bracket. They enter the labor
market with low skills and little experience. As they progress in their work they gain
both. As they gain skills, knowledge, experience and awareness of what they are good at,
they earn more income over time. Therefore, those who are idle and gain no further
experience cannot compete in earnings to others who have acquired more skills and
experience.
g. Policy Reforms
Government reforms have the power to make the life of some people better off and some
people worse-off, this is against the case of Pareto Optimality. Most public projects
create more levels of inequality, by making some people better while others are worse off
(Gurria, 2011).
20
h. Regressive Taxation
The more regressive taxation is adopted, the wider the inequality gap, this is because in
real terms, regressive taxation taxes the poor than the rich (Wilkinson, 2009).
i. Ethnic Discrimination
If there is ethnic discrimination for certain socio-economic position or aspiration, the
level of inequality will be high in such society, the ethnic group that has the upper hand
tends to dominate in all aspects over the less privileged.
j. Gender Discrimination
A society that discriminates against gender will continue to experience inequality among
both sexes. If males are given more preferences than females, males tend to dominate in
wealth, status and income.
k. Nepotism
A society where favouritism exists tends to have high levels of inequality and the
favoured groups flourish than the less favoured.
2.1.4 Numerical Indices for measuring Income Inequality
Several international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World
Bank, United Nations and World Health Organization have advocated various means of
measuring income inequality. The indicator is called income inequality metrics or income
distribution metrics (Fletcher, 2013). Income inequality metrics is therefore used by
21
social scientists to measure the distribution of income, and economic inequality among
the participants in a particular economy, such as that a specific country or of the world in
general. While different theories may try to explain how income inequality comes about,
for example Gini index expresses perfect quality, where everyone has the same income,
and income inequality exists as a result of differences in taxes and transfer payments.
Also, the theoretical background behind Hoover index explains that what caused income
inequality is the socio-economic class in the society; some people are highly placed in
certain societal positions than others. Likewise, Theil Index explains that the causes of
income inequality are information asymmetric, lack of diversity, isolation, segregation,
and non-randomness in socio-economic activities (Amiel, 2000; Anand, 2001; Brown,
2000).
Income inequality metrics simply provides a system of measurement used to determine
the dispersion of incomes. Distribution of income has been the main concern of modern
economists (Levy, 2008) with lesser focus on the distribution of income across
individuals and households. Important theoretical and policy concerns include the
relationship between income inequality and health.
It is important to note that among the most common metrics used to measure inequality
are the Gini index (also known as Gini coefficient), the Theilindex, and the Hoover index.
(Banerjee and Duflo, 2003). These metrics are discussed below:
22
a. Gini index
Gini index is measured within the range 0 and 1 (0% and 100%), where 0 indicates
perfect quality and 1 (100%) indicates maximum inequality. The Gini index is the
most frequently used inequality index, the reason for this popularity is that it is easy
to understand (Banjeree, and Duflo, 2003). As a disadvantage, the Gini index does
not capture where in the distribution the inequality occurs.
The Gini coefficient adopts the reduced form of the common equation to include
perfect equality and the absence of inequality. There is a perfect equality when only
the equation ratio, rj = Ij/x, equals 1 for all j units in some population (for example,
there is a perfect income inequality when everyone’s income Ij equals the mean
income X, so that rj = 1 for everyone). Measures of inequality, then, are measures of
the average deviations of the rj = 1 from 1; the greater the average deviation, the
greater the inequality. Based on these observations the inequality indices have this
common form (Firebaugh, 1999) as stated below.

❑
Inequality ∑ ❑
j pj f (rj)
Where pj weights the units by their population share, and f(rj) is a function of the
deviation of each unit’s rj from 1, the point of equality. The insight of this generalized
inequality index is that inequality indices differ because they employ different
functions of the distance of the inequality ratio (the rj) from 1.
23
b. Hover index
This measurement is the simplest of all inequality measures to calculate: It is the
proportion of all income which would have to be redistributed to achieve a state of
perfect equality. In a perfectly equal world, no resources would need to be
redistributed to achieve equal distribution which implies a Hoover index of 0. In a
world in which all income was received by just one family, almost 100% of that
income would need to be redistributed (i.e taken and given to other families) in order
to achieve equality. The Hoover index then ranges between 0 and 1 (0% and 100%),
where 0 indicates perfect equality and 1 (100%) indicates maximum inequality
(Rugaber, 2014).
c. Theil Index
The Theil index is a statistic used to measure economic inequality; it has also been
used to measure the lack of racial diversity. It can be viewed as a measure of
redundancy, lack of diversity, isolation, segregation, inequality, non-randomness, and
tightness. It was proposed by econometrician Henri Theil, a successor of Jan
Tinbergen at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. A Theil index of 0 indicates perfect
equality, which implies that income earners cannot be distinguished by their different
resources, with the resources being incomes.
A Theil index of 1 indicates that there is no perfect equality which implies that
income earners can be distinguished by their different resources
24
2.2 Theoretical review
2.2.1 Theory of Persistent Income Inequality
This theory was developed by Steven N. Durlauf who explores the dynamics of income
inequality by studying the evolution of human capital investment and neighborhood
choice for a population of families. Parents affect the conditional probability distribution
of their children's income through the choice of a neighborhood in which to live.
Neighborhood location affects children both through local public finance of education as
well as through sociological effects. These forces combine to create incentives for
wealthier families to segregate themselves into economically homogeneous
neighborhoods. Economic stratification combines with strong neighborhood wide
feedback effects to transmit economic status across generations, leading to persistent
income inequality. This theory describes the evolution of the distribution of income and
the possible emergenceof poverty in an economy in which education is locally financed
and in which the empirical income distribution in a community affects the eventual
occupational status of offspring. Wealthy families have an incentive to isolate themselves
from the rest of the economy in order to provide the highest level of education for their
children at the lowest cost. Decreasing average costs in human capital formation, on the
other hand, create incentivesfor communities to emerge with heterogeneity in income
across agents. When the forcesleading to homogeneity are strong enough, endogenous
stratification of the economy willoccur, causing poor families to be isolated from the rest
25
of the population. This isolation caninduce persistent or permanent poverty among some
families as they are unable to jointlygenerate sufficient human capital investment in their
children to escape from low-paying occupations.
Starting with Becker and Tomes (1979) and Loury (1981), many researchers have
examined models explaining a non-degenerate cross-section income distribution (see
Galor and Zeira, 1993). In much of these literatures, differences in human capital
investment by parents in children play a major role in generating cross-section inequality.
Generally, human capital markets are taken to be incomplete in the sense that human
capital formation cannot be financed by issuing claims against a child's future earnings
due to the lack of enforceability of such contracts.
This theory attempts to understand persistent income inequality by constructing a
dynamic model of income distribution. The model contains two key features. First, a
model was developed to explicitly model communitywide influences on individual
occupational attainment. Education is locally financed; intercommunity borrowing is
ruled out. In addition, the distribution of productivity shocks among offspring is allowed
to depend on neighborhood composition in order to capture various sociological
influences. These factors create a feedback from the community income distribution to
the realized income of offspring. Second, families choose which neighborhoods in which
to live, subject to minimum and maximum income requirements, which proxy for zoning
restrictions. Homogeneous neighborhoods benefit the wealthy due to the positive
26
spillover effects induced by high per capita incomes whereas larger, heterogeneous
neighborhoods provide the advantage of lower average costs to education.
Together, these features induce a complex pattern of intergenerational neighborhood
formation and income dynamics. Further, the economic stratification of neighborhoods
creates a link between cross-sectional and inter-temporal inequality. The basic model is
also able to describe the process by which heterogeneous urban communities can be
transformed into ghettos as wealthier families move to suburbs. Together, these results
indicate how community factors strongly influence whether a family is trapped in
poverty. By modeling individual education levels and productivity as functions of
neighborhood behavior, we introduce a mechanism by which each family's opportunity
set is affected by the choices of others. This idea has been the basis for much recent work
on theories of multiple equilibria and coordination failure (see Cooper and John, 1988).
2.2.2 The Neoclassical view on Income Inequality
In neoclassical school, income inequality is as a result of different productive capacity of
an individual or group of an individuals and this leads to different wage levels and
income levels. Also, in neoclassical economics, there exists a trade-off between equality
and efficiency. This is discussed by Okun (1975), he exemplifies transfers from rich to
the poor as a “leaky bucket” were some money will be lost as it carried in the leaky
bucket. Equality is expected to affect incentives, and politicians must make a choice in
whether to prioritize equity or economic efficiency. Kaldor’s (1955) reasoning for this
27
trade-off is that the rich have a higher marginal propensity to save than the poor do. If
one assumes that GDP growth has a direct relationship with the savings rate, this implies
that unequal economies will experience faster growth. Furthermore, it implies that
income redistribution, such as progressive taxation, will reduce the savings rate of the
whole economy.
If wealth is more concentrated, at least some individuals have the sufficient resources to
bring forward new investments.(Aghion, et al. 1999).Mirrlees (1971) discusses the
incentives concerning inequality and growth. In his model, output is dependent on
unobservable effort borne by agents.
2.3 Empirical review
Barbara K. et al (2017) accessed Income inequality and economic growthin US
metropolitan areas between the years 2010 and 2015. Findings show that Gini coefficient
has a positive and significantrelationship with GDP Per Capita Growth and a negative
and insignificant relationship withGDP Per Capita level.
Kyoshaba M. (2009) investigated factors affecting academic performance of
undergraduate students at Uganda Christian University, Uganda. Findings revealed the
existence of a significant relationship between students’ A’ level and Diploma admission
points and academic performance, but there was no relationship between mature age
points and academic performance. The findings also revealed that there was a significant
28
relationship between parents’ social economic status and academic performance and a
significant relationship between former school background and academic performance.
Teri O. et al, (2016) examined the impact of poverty on a child’s academic
performance at Wilkis University Northeastern Pennsylvania, America between the
periods of 2009 and 2013. It was found that students of low Socio-economic status
families experience have relatively little to do with their academic success.
Adzido, R. Y et al(2016) examined assessment of family income on academic
performance of tertiary students: The case of Ho Polytechnic, Ghana. Findings revealed
that family income of Polytechnic students could affect their learning process, motivation
and academic performance at the long-run and that though higher family income may
improve students’ performance, but for the responsible and serious students, low family
income must not be an excuse for poor performance.
Blevins, B. M. (2009) investigated effects of socioeconomic status on academic
performance inMissouri public schools, United States of America. Findings revealed that
there was a significant correlation betweenacademic performance and socioeconomic
status among the twohundred fifty, randomly chosen Missouri school districts
incommunication arts and math which means that the higher the percent ofstudents on
free and reduced lunch, the lower the percentof students that would score proficient or
above proficient
29
Beth A. et al, (2015) examined academic performance gaps and family income in
a rural elementary school: Perceptions of low-income parents at Southern Illinois
University Edwardsville. Findings indicated a gap does exist at the school. This findings
support the notion that gaps in educational achievement are not limited to the urban
context and that low-income parents believe that such gaps are brought about by a
complex interplay of forces and circumstances on the communication arts and math
portions of the MAPtest.
Adeleke H. A. et al, (2017) examined income polarisation among undergraduate
students of university of Ibadan, Nigeria. Findings revealed that Income polarisation and
inequality decreased among students between the twoobserved years (2011/2012).
Sholeh A. M. &Guyonne K. (2005) examined academic performance, parental
income,and the choice to leave school at agesixteen at the University of Auckland. The
study shows that the school-leaving decisions at age 16 are influenced by factors that are
atwork over a long period of time.This means policies aimed at retaining students at
school shouldtarget children from a young age onwards. Personal ability, household
income constraints andsocio-economic background are all influential in school-retention
choices.
Singh S. P. et al, (2016) investigated factors affecting academic performance of
students, in India.The study revealed that there is a positive and statistically significant
30
impact of learning facilities, communicationskills and proper guidance from parents on
student academic performance.
Jose D.& John W. L., (2002) examined education and income inequality: New
evidence from cross-country data in Korea between the periods of 1960 and 1990. The
findings indicate that educational factors-higher educational attainment and more equal
distribution of education plays a significant role in making income distribution more
equal. It also confirmed that Kuznets inverted-U curve for the relationship between
income level and income inequality and also found that government social expenditure
contributes to more equal distribution of income.
Mariam J.et al, (2013) explored the impact of parents’ status on the academic
performance and behavior of students, university of Punjab, Pakistan. Findings reveals
that children’s education and health is highly associated with their parents’ financial
status that is the rich students feel free from the tension of money and they wear branded
outfits while majority of the respondent’s family income is 30,000-60,000.
Arnaud C. (2005) investigated the impact of parental income and education on the
schooling of their children in London. It was found that the education effects remain
significant even when household income is included.
Memonet al,(2010) study examined the impact of parental socio-economic status
on students’ educational achievements at Secondary Schools of District Malir, Karachi.
A significant relationship was found between family income and academic performance
31
of students in matriculation examination. They also found a significant relationship
between parent’s occupational status and academic performance of the students at
matriculation examination.
Hijaziet al,(2006) explored factors affecting college students’ performance,
focusing on private colleges in Pakistan. They believed that the relationship between
students’ performance and student family income is positive because money can buy you
all the comforts that you need to concentrate on their studies but interestingly the result
also shows that students belonging to more prosperous families do not give proper
attention to studies, thus affluence cannot make a student necessarily serious about
his/her studies.
Yousefiet al. (2010) examined the effect of family income on test-anxiety and
academic achievement in Iranian high school, Iran. The findings showed that family
income significantly affected academic achievement of students. It was recommended
that in enhancing academic achievement in school setting, support strategies such as
improving family income among families by government must be focused on. To
decrease the rate of influence of family income on depression and academic achievement
among students, the government should organize practical programs to help families and
also students in the areas of food, money and the other supports.
32
2.4 Methodological review
There are several studies that have been carried out by several researchers using different
methodology on the relationship between income inequality and academic performance.
Barbara K. et al (2017) accessed Income inequality and economic growthin US
metropolitan areas. Descriptive statistics and correlations are discussed, the outcomes of
the regression analysis was presented in 357 metropolitancities in America. With the data
gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau and several otherdatabases, between the years
2010 and 2015, a series of OLS regressions are run.
Kyoshaba M. (2009) accessed the factors affecting academic performance of
undergraduate students at Uganda Christian University. Primary data was collected from
selected340 respondents using questionnaire and analyzed. The Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficient (r) was used to compute the relationship between admission
points, parents’ social economic status, school background and academic performance.
The researcher also used the t-test to find out how academic performance varied with
gender.
Teri O. et al, (2016) examined the impact of poverty on a child’s academic
performance at Wilkis University Northeastern Pennsylvania, America between the years
of 2009-2013. Data was gathered from the Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. In order to determine which socioeconomic factors are most
33
highly correlated with educational outcomes, linear regression analysis was used and a
table of R-squared values was compiled.
Adzido, R. Y et al(2016) investigated assessment of family income on academic
performance of tertiary students: The case of Ho Polytechnic, Ghana of which primary
data using survey questionnaire was analyzed to collect data from respondents using
stratified-quota-simple random techniques.Population of 480 students including all 2nd
and 3rd year students of 2015/16 academic year across the faculties and 40 each from the
12 departments respectively, was selected using stratified-quota-simple random
techniques. Data collected from the field are analyzed using SPSS.
Blevins, B. M. (2009) investigated effects of socioeconomic status on academic
performance inMissouri public schools, United States of America. Primary data was used
through questionnaire analyzing two hundred and fifty (250) school districts on the
communication arts portion of the MAP test. All data collected was obtained from the
DESE website,involving the subject areas of the MAP exam, the Pearson (r) Formula
wasused in determining the relationship between academicsuccess and socioeconomic
status.
Beth A. et al, (2015) examined academic performance gaps and family income in
a rural elementary school: Perceptions of low-income parents at Southern Illinois
University Edwardsville. Primary data using questionnaire was analyzed and focusing on
62 students from low-income families attending a small rural elementaryschool and
34
quantitative data were collected through aggregate performance measures including
2013Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) results, May 2013 AIMSweb scores.
Adeleke H. A. et al, (2017) examined Income polarisation among undergraduate
students of university of Ibadan, Nigeria. Primary data using questionnaire was analyzed.
300 respondents were selected from the 2nd and 3rd year students of one blockeach from
all the ten undergraduate halls of residence in theUniversity. A two-stage sampling
technique was employed. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics; Duclos-Esteban-
Ray (DER), (2008) polarisation index and Generalised Entropy (GE) inequality index
were used to estimate income polarisation and inequality respectively.
Sholeh A. M. &Guyonne K. (2005) examined academic performance, parental
income,and the choice to leave school at agesixteen at the University of Auckland.
Primary data using questionnaire was analyzed, new and extensive panel data set from
New Zealand was used.
Singh S. P. et al, (2016) investigated factors affecting academic performance of
students in India. The study consisted of 200 managementstudents from ten management
institutes of Haryana state and primary data were used by questionnaire for these
students. The study uses ex post facto research design. An instrument measuring
students’academic performance has been used to collect data from the management
students.Mean, standard deviation and regression analysis were usedfor the data analysis
and interpretation.
35
Jose D. & John W. L., (2002) examined education and income inequality: New
evidence from cross-country data in Korea. Secondary data was used by presenting
empirical evidence on how education is related to income distribution in a panel data set
covering a broad range of countries.
Mariam J.et al, (2013) explored the impact of parents’ status on the academic
performance and behavior of students, university of Punjab, Pakistan. A self-
administered questionnaire focusing on 275 students and measuring various items of
impact of parent’s status is used.The analysis is applied through the combination of
descriptive and inferential statistics. Chi-Square test, Man Whitney U test and Kruskal-
Wallis H-test are used for hypothesis testing.
Arnaud C. (2005) investigated the impact of parental income and education on the
schooling of their children in London.138 thousand respondents from theapproximately
59 thousand households between 1993 to 2003 were considered and instrumental variable
methods are used to simultaneously accountfor the endogeneity of parental education and
paternal income and analysis is based on the Labor Force Survey (LFS) which is a
quarterly sample of householdsin the U.K.
Memonet al,(2010) study examined the impact of parental socio-economic status
on students’ educational achievements at Secondary Schools of District Malir, Karachi.
Questionnaires were used to collect data from 240 students using purposive sampling
technique. Statistical tables were used for data analysis.
36
Hijaziet al,(2006) explored factors affecting college students’ performance,
focusing on private colleges in Pakistan. Questionnaires were used to collect data from
300 students randomly selected. Simple linear regression analysis was used to test the
hypothesis. Their findings show mixed results.
Yousefiet al. (2010) examined the effect of family income on test-anxiety and
academic achievement in Iranian high school, Iran. Their paper focused on 400 Iranian
high school students. Statistical analysis of ANOVA was employed.
2.5 Appraisal of Literature
This chapter has attempted a review of income inequality and academic
performance. By contrast, a few studies have found correlation between income
inequality and academic performance. Oni (2007) and Omoegun (2007) found that there
is a significant dissimilarity between conduct of students from high and low socio–
economic statuses and this ultimately influence their learning process while Arnaud C.
(2005) found that the education effects remain significant even when household income
is included. In the course of the review of literature, this chapter has examined and
conceptualized the term income inequality and also the academic performance. This has
created an avenue for comprehensive inference to be made as touching the research topic
with regards to the study’s theoretical framework, research design, methods and a-priori
expectation.
37
This study adopted Persistent income inequality theory developed by Steven N.
Durlauf. This theory is related to the present study because it explains that parents affect
the conditional probability distribution of their children's income through the choice of a
neighborhood in which to live. Neighborhood location affects children both through local
public finance of education as well as through sociological effects. These forces combine
to create incentives for wealthier families to segregate themselves into economically
homogeneous neighborhood which reflects in the output of wards.
The model to be adopted by this study rest on Barbara K. et al (2017) who
accessed Income inequality and economic growthin US metropolitan areas. Data was
gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau and several otherdatabases, between the years
2010 and 2015, a series of OLS regressions are run.
The current study aims to carry out regression analysis on some of the variables to
be adopted in the findings of Barbara K. and Veronika K. (2017) on Income inequality
and economic growth in US metropolitan areas are expected to be modified in its
findings. Hence, conclusion on the findings cannot be made until the analysis is carried
out.
2.5.1 Theoretical framework
From the reviewed literature, Barbara K. and Veronika K. (2017) centered on Income
inequality and economic growth in US metropolitan areas. It argues that Inequality of
outcomes is linked with inequality of opportunity, thereby preventing individuals from
38
low social and economic backgrounds to reach their full potential. This indicates that
income inequality has a negative effect even on future economic growth. This makes
sense intuitively; the poor often need to spend all their earnings simply to have the
necessities to get by.
In estimating the relationship among the variables, the model is specified as;
Ŷ = β1G + lgβ2 I + lg β3Pop + lgβ4 + lgHS + β5HC + β7CR + Ɛi…………………………. (i)
Where;
Ŷ= GDP Growth, G = Gini index, I = Average income, Pop = Total population, P =
Innovation, HS = High school, HC = Human Capital, CR = Crime Rates.
39
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The objective of this study is to critically and thoroughly investigate income inequality
and academic performance among Tai Solarin University of Education students’
community. The study area is Tai Solarin University of Education (TASUED),
established on 29th January 2005 by the administration of His Excellency,
OtunbaGbenga Daniel.
3.1 Research Design
For the purpose of the research, quantitative research design will be adopted which
involves the use of questionnaire. This is done in order to obtain relevant information
directly from the respondent in the study area. Thus, the questionnaire will be distributed
to respondents to give their perception on income inequality and the influence on their
academic performance in Tai Solarin University of Education. The variables of interest in
achieving these objectives include: educational level of parent, occupational level of
parent, income level of parent, other income determinant of parent (parent opportunities)
and students’ academic performance (CGPA).
3.2 Population of the Study
The population for this study depends on students in Tai Solarin University of Education
located at Ijebu-Ode. TASUED is the premier university of Education in Nigeria, 2 nd in
40
Africa and 8th in the World; formula 1 2 8 with an estimated population of 10,000 and
above (2019). Ijebu-Ode is a town in Ogun State, South-West Nigeria, close to the A121
highway. The city is located 110km by road north-east of Lagos. It is from this large
population size that the sample size needed for this study will be obtained from.
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques
Sample represents the small portion of the population; the more valid it will be to
estimate the population characteristics using the sample. A two-stage random sampling
technique would be employed in selecting 300 respondents. The first stage would be the
selection of the four communities each from all the undergraduate hostels of residence
around the University. The second stage is the random selection of respondents from
randomly selected hostels of each community. The questionnaire would be administered
to the undergraduate students in their various communities. However, students who were
unwilling to participate when the questionnaire would be administered should be
exempted from the study and should be replaced with other willing students from various
hostels. Furthermore, the study will make use of the stratified random sampling
techniques. This techniques is chosen in order to ensure equal representative of the
respondents (male and female)
41
3.4 Sources and method of Data Collection
Primary data would be collected through the use of structured questionnaire in the
2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 Academic Session. This study would adopt the
Ordinary Least Square econometric technique (OLS) as the mean equation to estimate the
linear relationship between the variables
3.5 Research Instrument
The questionnaire is the main research instrument used in this study, respondents
completed the questionnaire designed by the researcher in order to solicit information in
the following: income of parents, parent educational level, parent other opportunities,
parent occupational level, student current Cumulative Grade Point Accuracy and
demographic condition of students (age, sex, level and community). The questionnaire
titled Income Inequality and academic performance is made up of four sections A, B, C
and D. Section A contains questions pertaining to useful demographic variables such as
age, sex, level and community. Section B deals with Income inequality factors such as
the socio and economic status of parents (Income level, Educational level and
Occupation) and other economic opportunities. Section C deals with Academic
performance factors while section D gives the actual academic performance.
In carrying out the study, the researcher employed the use of questionnaire to collect
necessary data for the study. The questionnaire is closed ended 4 Liker-Scale which
allows for Very High (HV), High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L) and Strongly Agree (SA),
42
Agree (A), Disagree (D) or Strongly Disagree (SD) responses from respondents. All
questions are asked are to assist the research questions and test hypotheses under study.
3.6 Research Hypothesis
The hypotheses of this study is formulated as Null (Ho) and Alternation (H1)
Hypothesis I
H0: There is no significant relationship between socio-economic status of parents and
academic performance of undergraduate students.
H1: There is significant relationship between socio-economic status of parents and
Hypothesis II
performance.
performance.
Hypothesis III
43
3.7 Model Specification
Based on Barbara K. et al (2017), in order to achieve the research objective, this research
thereby adopts and modifies the model below;
Ŷ = β1G + lgβ2 I + lg β3Pop + lgβ4 + lgHS + β5HC + β7CR + Ɛi…………………………. (i)
Where;
Ŷ = GDP Growth, G = Gini index, I = Average income, Pop = Total population, P =
Innovation, HS = High school, HC = Human Capital, CR = Crime Rates.
Objective I
Find out the relationship between socio-economic status of parents and academic
ACP = f(OED)...................... (II)
ACP = a0 + a1OED + U.....................(III)
Where; ACP = Academic performance, OED = Occupation and educational level and U
= error term. To achieve the objective, Ordinary Least Square regression method was
used.
Objective II
Find out the relationship and impact between income of parent on academic performance.
ACP = f(OED, EOS)...................... (IV)
44
ACP = a0 + a1OED + a2EOS + U. .....................(V)
Where: ACP = Academic performance, OED = Occupation and educational level, EOS =
Economic status of parents (Income) and U = error term
To achieve the objective, Ordinary Least Square regression method was used.
Objective III
To find out other income related determinants of academic performance.
ACP = f(OED, EOS, EPO)...................... (VI)
ACP = a0 + a1OED + a2EOS + a3EPO +U. .....................(VII)
Where;
a = Constant variable
ACP = Academic performance
OED = Occupation and Educational qualification of parent
EOS = Economic status of parent (Income)
EPO = Employment opportunity of parent
U = Error term.
To achieve the objective, Ordinary Least Square regression method was used.
45
3.8 The A-Priori Expectation
Nyakunga’s 2011 found that the effects of cost sharing on academic performance
seem to be complex and they may depend on the particular circumstance an individual is
facing. The study found that students from low-income families were more likely to
perform lower because of financial hardship and poor schools they attended.
The a-priori expectation is that a positive relationship would be established
between academic performance and economic status (Income), educational qualification,
employment opportunities and class population.
However, the a-prior expectation for this study is represented mathematically below;
ACP = f(OED, EOS, EPO)
∆ ACP
> 0 there is a positive relationship between ACP and OED
OED
∆ ACP
> 0 there is a positive relationship between ACP and EOS
EOS
∆ ACP
> 0 there is a positive relationship between ACP and EPO
EPO
3.9 Estimation Techniques
This study employs one estimation methods to ensure accuracy of the result across the
different estimation techniques which is the Ordinary least square (OLS) so as to test the
relationship between the variables.
46
3.9.1 Data Estimation Criteria
Obtaining the numerical estimates of the parameter or coefficient of the model constitutes
model's estimation. It is based on the knowledge of the various econometric models, their
assumptions and economic applications. Estimation is facilitated with the use of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyse the data. The study adopted
simple regression models in obtaining the parameter estimates, which will aid the
determination of the relationship existing between the explained variable and the
explanatory variable. Other relevant statistical test will be carried out to determine the
validity or otherwise of the hypothesis. In evaluating the model, the criterion employed
are given below;
3.9.2 OLS Decision
Statistical Criteria
This criterion determines the statistical significance of the individual parameter of the
model.
The coefficient of determination (R2);
The coefficient of determination (R2) is used; the goodness of fit of the regression to a
data set is measured by the co-efficient of the determination. R-measures the variation in
the explained variable that is explained by variations in the explanatory variable. A high
R' denotes strong relationship between dependent variable and the explanatory variables.
47
It is however important to note that R. is a summary that tells how the sample regression
line fits the data.
48
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter covers the analysis of data and presentation of result which include
descriptive analysis of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, data
analysis/test of research hypotheses and discussion and findings. The hypotheses are
tested using regression estimation while the demographic characteristics of the
respondents are analyzed using the simple percentage method. The total number of the
respondents for this study is 300 in Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijagun.
4.1 Presentation of Results
Demographic characteristics of Respondents
Table 4.1 Gender Distribution of the Respondents
Gender Frequency Percent (%)

Male 139 46.3
Female 161 53.7
Total 300 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2019.
From table 4.1, it was shown that 139 respondents representing 46.3% of the sample size
were male while 161 respondents representing 53.7% of the sample size were female.
This suggests that greater number of the respondents who participated in the
questionnaire administration were females.
Table 4.2 Age Distribution of the Respondents
Age Range Frequency Percent (%)

16 – 20years 94 31.3
49
21 – 25years 172 57.3
26 – 30years 32 10.7
31 – 35years 2 0.7
Total 300 100.0
Furthermore, table 4.2 showed that 94 respondents indicating 31.3% of the sample size
fell within 16-20 years, 172 respondents representing 57.3% of the sample size fell
within 21-25 years, 32 respondents representing 10.7% of the sample size fell within 26-
30 years and finally, only 2 respondents representing 0.7% of the sample size fell within
31-35 years respectively. This implies that greater number of the respondents were within
21-25 years.
Table 4.3 Year of study of the Respondents
Year Frequency Percent (%)

Year 2 114 38
Year 3 96 32
Year 4 90 30
Total 300 100.0
From table 4.3, it was shown that 114 respondents representing 38% of the sample size
were year two students, 96 respondents representing 32% of the sample size were year
three students while 90 respondents representing 30% of the sample size were year four
students. This suggests that greater number of the respondents who participated in the
questionnaire administration were year two students.
Table 4.4 Community Residence of the Respondents
Age Range Frequency Percent (%)

Ijagun 116 38.7
50
Abapawa 49 16.3
Ijele 103 34.3
Imaweje 32 10.7
Total 300 100.0
The above table 4.4 showed that 116 respondents indicate 38.7% of the sample size stays
at Ijagun, 49 respondents representing 16.3% of the sample size stays at Abapawa, 102
respondents representing 34.3% of the sample size stays at Ijele and finally, only 32
respondents representing 10.7% of the sample size stays at Imaweje respectively. This
implies that greater number of the respondents stays at Ijagun.
4.2 Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing
Table 4.5 Parent/guardian educational level of the Respondents
Gender Very High High Medium Low

Male parent/guardian educational level 49 94 90 67
(16.4%) (31.3%) (30%) (22.3%)

Female parent/guardian educational 48 75 99 78
level (16%) (24%) (33%) (26%)

Total 97 169 189 145
Average 48.5 84.5 94.5 72.5

Table 4.6 Parent/guardian income level of the Respondents

Male parent/guardian income level 37 56 111 96
51
(12.3%) (18.7%) (37%) (32%)
Female parent/guardian income level 25 55 94 126
(8.3%) (18.3%) (31.4%) (42%)

Total 62 111 205 222
Average 31 55.5 102.5 111

Table 4.7 Parent/guardian occupation level of the Respondents

Male parent/guardian occupation level 71 64 146 19
(23.7%) (21.3%) (48.7%) (6.3%)

Female parent/guardian occupation level 52 56 174 18
(17.3%) (18.7%) (58%) (6%)

Total 123 120 320 37
Average 61.5 60 160 18.5

Table 4.8 Parent/guardian opportunity of the Respondents

Parent/guardian opportunity level 37 188 53 22
(23.7%) (21.3%) (48.7%) (6.3%)

Table 4.9 Responses on academic performance factors for parent/guardian
sponsored students
S/N Items SA A D SD
1. Parent/guardian income level affects my 59 82 90 64
52
academic performance (CGPA). (20%) (27.8%) (30.5%) (21.7%)
2. When my parent/guardian income 127 123 37 08
improves, my monthly (43.1%) (41.7%) (12.5%) (2.7%)
stipend/allowance also improves.

3. My CGPA improves when my 29 59 118 89
parent/guardian income also improves. (9.8%) (20%) (40%) (30.2%)

4. My parents/guardians are rich but are 11 23 77 184
not ready to fully pay for my (3.7%) (7.8%) (26.1%) (62.4%)
educational expenses.
5. Whether there is money or not, I always 128 141 17 09
perform better in my academics (43.4%) (47.8%) (5.8%) (3%)

6. Parent/guardian financial aid is easier to 138 126 26 05
access than external aids. (46.8%) (42.7%) (8.8%) (1.7%)

7. I prefer parent/guardian financial 137 113 35 10
support to external financial support. (46.4%) (38.3%) (11.9%) (3.4%)

8. Students with parental opportunities gets 97 141 46 11
consistent income which improves their (32.9%) (47.8%) (15.6%) (3.7%)
academic performance better than others

9. Parent opportunities discourage their 35 71 134 55
wards from being serious with their (11.9%) (24.1%) (45.4%) (18.6%)
academics
10. Students with high income will 33 78 115 69
ultimately perform better than students (11.2%) (26.4%) (39%) (23.4%)
with low income

11. Money is the major determinant of a 49 80 111 55
53
student academic performance (16.6%) (27.1%) (37.6%) (18.6%)
12. Students with low income performs 19 125 120 31
better in their academics (6.4%) (42.4%) (40.7%) (10.5%)

13. Parental income has nothing to do with 66 110 80 39
the performances of their ward (22.4%) (37.3%) (27.1%) (13.2%)

14. Self-sponsored students will perform 40 70 136 49
better than parent sponsored learners (13.6%) (23.7%) (46.1%) (16.6%)

15. Academic performance can only be 30 56 131 78
determined by the learners income level (10.2%) (19%) (44.4%) (26.4%)

Responses on academic performance factors for self- sponsored students
S/N Items SA A D SD
1. The work I engage in does not allow me 01 01 03 0
to have time for my academic work. (20%) (20%) (60%) (0%)

2. The money I work for does not have any 01 02 01 01
effect on my academic performance (20%) (40%) (20%) (20%)

3. I perform very bad due to the part time 01 02 02 0
employment I engage in (20%) (40%) (40%) (0%)

4. The more I work hard to earn money, 00 02 03 00
the more my CGPA decreases (0%) (40%) (60%) (0%)

5. The higher my income, the higher my 00 02 03 00
performance (0%) (40%) (60%) (0%)

6. I prefer a personal financial support to 02 01 01 01
external financial support. (40%) (20%) (20%) (20%)

7. When my income improves, I get 01 01 01 02
distracted from my academics (20%) (20%) (20%) (40%)

8. Students with parental opportunities gets 02 02 01 00
54
consistent income which improves their (40%) (40%) (20%) (0%)
academic performance better than others

9. Parent opportunities discourage their 01 03 01 00
wards from being serious with their (20%) (60%) (20%) (0%)
academics
10. Students with high income will 01 03 00 01
ultimately perform better than students (20%) (60%) (0%) (20%)
with low income

11. Money is the major determinant of a 00 03 01 01
student academic performance (0%) (60%) (20%) (20%)

12. Students with low income performs 01 03 01 0
better in their academics (20%) (60%) (20%) (0%)

13. Parental income has nothing to do with 01 02 01 01
the performances of their ward (20%) (40%) (20%) (20%)

14. Self-sponsored students will perform 01 02 01 01
better than parent sponsored learners (20%) (40%) (20%) (20%)

15. Academic performance can only be 01 03 00 01
determined by the learners income level (20%) (60%) (0%) (20%)
Table 4.10 Academic performance
Student Very High High Medium Low

CGPA 31 189 80 00
(10.3%) (63%) (26.7)

4.3 Analysis of the research hypothesis
55
Hypothesis I
H0: There is no significant relationship between socio-economic status of parents and
H1: There is significant relationship between socio-economic status of parents and
Table 4.11 Educational level
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardized
d
Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
Std.
B Beta
Error
1 (Constant) 2.683 0.092 29.047 0
educationa
0.033 0.018 0.103 1.788 0.075
l level
a. Dependent Variable: Academic performance
Model Summaryb
Std.
Adjusted
R Error of
Model R R
Square the
Square
Estimate
1 .103a 0.011 0.007 0.585
a. Predictors: (Constant), educational level
b. Dependent Variable: Academic performance
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 1.093 1 1.093 3.195 .075b
1 Residual 101.904 298 0.342

Total 102.997 299
b. Predictors: (Constant), educational level
56
From the above, regression results of the relationship between parent educational level
and academic performance of students, a1 is 0.033 and is the parameter estimate for
educational level. The result showed that parent educational level and student academic
performance is positively related.
Hence, this direct relationship is statistically significant at 5% level of significance using
t-test and standard error for decision making. The t-test for educational level is 1.788
while the t-tabulated is 1.313 at 5% level of significance; the standard error for
educational level is 0.018 while half of the parameter estimate (1/2x 0.033 = 0.0165). The
calculated t-test (1.788) is greater than the tabulated t-test (1.313) but the standard error
(0.018) is greater than half of the parameter estimates (0.0165), then we conclude that
educational level of parents as a factor does not have a significant relationship with the
R-squared measures goodness of fit of model. In the analysis, the R-squared is 1.1%
which is not a good measure of fit which shows the educational level, for about 1.1%
systematic variation in the dependent variable (educational level of parents) whereas the
remaining 98.9% (U = stochastic terms) are other factors which affects academic
performance of students, but not captured in the above model. Thus, this implies the
acceptance of Null hypothesis (H0), that there is no significant relationship between
educational level of parents and academic performance of students.
57
Table 4.12 Occupation
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardized
d
Coefficients
Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant) 2.483 0.116 21.386 0

1
occupation 0.069 0.022 0.181 3.181 0.002
Model Summaryb
Std.
Adjusted
R Error of
Model R R
Square the
Square
Estimate
1 .181a 0.033 0.03 0.578
a. Predictors: (Constant), occupation
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 3.383 1 3.383 10.119 .002b

1 Residual 99.614 298 0.334
Total 102.997 299
b. Predictors: (Constant), occupation
From the above, regression results of the relationship between parent occupation level
and academic performance of students; a1 is 0.069 and is the parameter estimate for
58
occupation level. The result showed that parent occupation level and student academic
performance is positively related.
Hence, this direct relationship is statistically significant at 5% level of significance using
t-test and standard error for decision making. The t-test for occupation level is 3.181
while the t-tabulated is 1.313 at 5% level of significance; the standard error for
educational level is 0.022 while half of the parameter estimate (1/2x 0.069 = 0.0345).
Since the calculated t-test (3.181) is greater than the tabulated t-test (1.313) and the
standard error (0.022) is less than half of the parameter estimates (0.0345), there is
evidence to conclude that occupation level of parents as a factor have a significant
relationship with the academic performance of students.
which is not a good measure of fit which shows the occupation level, for about 3.3%
systematic variation in the dependent variable (occupation level of parents) whereas the
acceptance of Alternative hypothesis (H1), that there is a significant relationship between
occupation level of parents and academic performance of students.
Hypothesis II
performance.
59
performance.
Table 4.13 Income of parent
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardized
d
Coefficients
Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant
)
2.697 0.082 32.761 0
1
Income 0.034 0.019 0.107 1.855 0.065
Model Summaryb
Std.
Adjusted
R Error of
Model R R
Square the
Square
Estimate
1 .107a 0.011 0.008 0.585
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 1.176 1 1.176 3.441 .065b

1 Residual 101.821 298 0.342
Total 102.997 299
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income
From the above, regression results of the relationship and impact of parent income on
academic performance of students; a1 is 0.034 and is the parameter estimate for parent
60
income. The result showed that income of parent and student academic performance is
positively related.
Hence, this direct relationship and impact is statistically significant at 5% level of
significance using t-test and standard error for decision making. The t-test for parent
income is 1.855 while the t-tabulated is 1.313 at 5% level of significance; the standard
error for parent income is 0.019while half of the parameter estimate (1/2x 0.034 = 0.017).
The calculated t-test (1.855) is greater than the tabulated t-test (1.313) but the standard
error (0.019) is greater than half of the parameter estimates (0.017), then we conclude
that parent income as a factor does not have a significant relationship and impact on the
which is not a good measure of fit which shows the parent income, for about 1.1%
systematic variation in the dependent variable (income of parents) whereas the remaining
98.9% (U = stochastic terms) are other factors which affects academic performance of
students, but not captured in the above model. Thus, this implies the acceptance of Null
hypothesis (H0), that there is no significant relationship and impact of parent income and
Hypothesis III
61
Table 4.14 Other income determinants (parent opportunities)
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardized
d
Coefficients
Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant
)
2.445 0.13 18.796 0
1
Other
0.14 0.045 0.177 3.112 0.002
income
Model Summaryb
Std.
Adjusted
R Error of
Model R R
Square the
Square
Estimate
1 .177a 0.031 0.028 0.579
a. Predictors: (Constant), Other income
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 3.242 1 3.242 9.686 .002b

1 Residual 99.754 298 0.335
Total 102.997 299
b. Predictors: (Constant), Other income
62
From the above, regression results on other income determinants of parent (opportunities)
and academic performance of students; a1 is 0.140 and is the parameter estimate for
parent opportunities. The result showed that other income determinants of parent
(opportunities) and student academic performance is positively related.
Hence, this result is statistically significant at 5% level of significance using t-test and
standard error for decision making. The t-test for parent opportunities is 3.112 while the
t-tabulated is 1.313 at 5% level of significance; the standard error for parent opportunities
is 0.045 while half of the parameter estimate ( 1/2x 0.140 = 0.07). Since the calculated t-
test (3.112) is greater than the tabulated t-test (1.313) and the standard error (0.045) is
less than half of the parameter estimate (0.07), there is a significant evidence to conclude
that there are other income determinants of students’ academic performance.
which is not a good measure of fit which shows the parent opportunities, for about 3.1%
systematic variation in the dependent variable (parent opportunities) whereas the
acceptance of Alternative hypothesis (H1), that there are other income determinants of
students’ academic performance.
4.4 Discussion of Findings
63
The finding of this study revealed that socio-economic status of parents (education) does
not have a significant relationshipwith performance of the students. This findings
correlates with Teri O. et al, (2016) and opined that students of low Socio-economic
status families have relatively little to do with their academic success.Instead, other
family, environmental, and psychological factors are important to educational
achievement which is in contrary with Memonet al.(2010) who found a significant
relationship between parent’s occupational status and academic performance of the
students at matriculation examination. They concluded that students whose family
income and socio-economic status was higher performed well in matriculation
examination as compared to those students who belonged to low income families
This study revealed that occupation level of parent has a significant relationship
with academic performance of students. The finding correlates with Kyoshaba M. (2009)
and opined that there was a significant relationship between parents’ social economic
status and academic performance of students. Parents’ socio-economic status is important
because parents provide high levels of psychological support for their children through
environments that encourage the development of skills necessary for success at school.
The study suggested that the university could improve the student support system such
that students from low social economic backgrounds are identified and assisted with
financial aid or even a student loan scheme could be developed.It correlates with Singh S.
P. et al, (2016) and revealed that there is a positive and statistically significant impact of
64
learning facilities, communicationskills and proper guidance from parents on student
academic performance.It also correlates with Blevins, B. M. (2009) and revealed that
there was a significant correlation betweenacademic performance and socioeconomic
status among the twohundred fifty, randomly chosen Missouri school districts
incommunication arts and math which means that the higher the percent ofstudents on
free and reduced lunch, the lower the percentof students that would score proficient or
above proficient.
Also, findings showed that parent income as a factor does not have a significant
relationship and impact on the academic performance of students. This correlate with
Adzido, R. Y et al, (2016) and concluded that family income could affect their learning
process, motivation and academic performance at the long-run. The study also concludes
that though higher family income may improve students’ performance, but for the
responsible and serious students, low family income must not be an excuse for poor
performance. It also correlates with Arnaud C. (2005) and opined that the education
effects remain significant even when household income is included which is in contrary
withYousefiet al. (2010) who showed that family income significantly affected academic
achievement of students. It was recommended that in enhancing academic achievement
in school setting, support strategies such as improving family income among families by
government must be focused on. To decrease the rate of influence of family income on
depression and academic achievement among students, the government should organize
65
practical programs to help families and also students in the areas of food, money and the
other supports
Finally, the result of the analysis showed the significant evidence to conclude that
there are other income determinants of students’ academic performance meaning that
other parent income related determinants have a significant influence on the performance
of the students. This correlates with Mariam J.et al, (2013) who reveals that children’s
education and health is highly associated with their parents’ financial status that is the
rich students feel free from the tension of money and they wear branded outfits while
majority of the respondent’s family income is 30,000-60,000. Also, this findings
correlate with Steven N. Durlaufwho explores the dynamics of income inequality by
studying the evolution of human capital investment and neighborhood choice for a
population of families. Findings revealed that parents affect the conditional probability
distribution of their children's income through the choice of capital investment involved
and the choice of a neighborhood in which to live which is in contrary with Hijazi et al,
(2006) which findings show mixed results. They believed that the relationship between
students’ performance and student family income is positive because money can buy you
all the comforts that a child need to concentrate on their studies but interestingly the
result also shows that students belonging to more prosperous families do not give proper
attention to studies, thus affluence cannot make a student necessarily serious about
his/her studies.
66
67
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter therefore deals with the summary of major findings, conclusion,
recommendations and suggestion for further studies.
5.1 Summary
The study examined income inequality and academic performance among TASUED
students community. The specific objectives include testing if a relationship exists
between socio-economic status of parents and academic performance, relationship and
impact of parent income on academic performance and to investigate other income
related determinants of academic performance. Research questions were raised and
hypotheses postulated which gave the study direction.
The study reviewed relevant literatures, empirical and methodological review were also
drawn. Conceptual clarification of the concept of income inequality was explained.The
variables considered in the model include academic performance, Occupation and
Educational qualification of parent, Economic status of parent (Income) and Employment
opportunity of parent.
This study used quantitative research design which involves the use of questionnaire.
This is done in order to obtain relevant information directly from the respondent in the
study area. In order to achieve the study objectives, questionnaire was distributed to
respondents to give their perception on income inequality and how it influences their
68
academic performance among 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 Academic Session
students (200, 300 and 400 level students). Analysis was done through the use of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
5.2 Summary of Major Findings
To determine whether there is a relationship between socio-economic status (education)
of parent and academic performance of students, OLS test was used which proves that
socio-economic status of parents (education) does not have a significant relationship on
performance of the students. This means that though there might be positive relationship
between education of parents and students academic performance because educated
parents will be able to encourage and support their wards morally, intellectually and give
advice due to their education level but that does not fully determine the performance of
such student because there are other issues which the student has so much concentrated
on and setting apart the teachings given by the parent.
To determine if there exists a relationship between occupation of parent and academic
performance of students, OLS test was used which proved that occupation level of parent
has a significant relationship with academic performance of students. This means that
students whose parents educational, occupational and social scale is high, have better
chances of getting into good secondary schools on time and from there into the best
colleges and universities than equally bright children of ordinary workers or
69
farmers.Also, children whose parents are at the peak of the social economic hierarchy are
inclined to seek or gain access to available educational facilities.
To determine whether there is a significant relationship and impact of parent income on
students’ academic performance, OLS test was used and revealed that parent income as a
factor does not have a significant relationship and impact on the academic performance
of students.This means that though higher family income may improve students’
performance, but for the responsible and serious students and that low family income
must not be an excuse for poor performance. This means that income of parent does not
have total determinant on ward academic performance because money cannot get all
things. Though money can get all needed physical materials; textbooks, handout,
notebooks and can be used for assignments and make further research, but even at the
comfort of a child, it is not an essential predictor of higher academic performance. The
above result correlates with Teri O. et al, (2016) and opined that students of low Socio-
economic status families have relatively little to do with their academic success.Instead,
other family, environmental, and psychological factors are important to educational
achievement.
It was revealed that there is significant evidence to conclude that there are other income
determinants of students’ academic performance meaning that other parent income
related determinants have a significant influence of the performance of the students.
70
5.3 Conclusion
Having examined income inequality and academic performance in Tai Solarin University
of Education, the following conclusions were drawn based on the findings;
Tai Solarin University of Education is a state institution where students with different
backgrounds are brought together for learning purpose and all results are being treated
equally. Also, all students have equal access to the facilities provided by the school
management such as internet connection, e-library,work and study, academic library
textbooks and so on making learning easy and equally available to all students. Income
should be a major determinant of students performances in school, reason being that all
needed available materials and items needed to encourage learning will be provided such
as, conducive environment, handout and textbooks, food stuffs, research work
(assignment) and so more.
Also, some of TASUED students majorly depend on money as a means to have a very
good performance and as such, the parent sponsored students heavily depend on the
allowances of parents while the self-sponsored students’ does not support thatfully.
Analysis from this research found that while some students conclude money as a major
determinant, and other (self-sponsored) believed that money is just a means but not the
major determinant which makes them perform better in their studies. Though, higher
parent income may improve students’ performance, but for the responsible and serious
71
students. There are other environmental and psychological factors which are important to
educational achievement.
The following conclusions drawn as a result of the research work carried out in the area
of academic performance of undergraduate students at Tai Solarin University of
Education which can be drawn from the study.
The researcher confirmed that though socio-economic status of parent has a role to play
in the performances of the students but it is not the major determinant of their academic
excellence confirming that, though, there are students from high socio-economic
background but that does not fully reflect their performances. The researcher confirmed
that income of parent does not have a positive impact on the performances of the students
meaning that though, the higher the parent income, the higher the students allowances
and the more they have access to needed materials, but at then, it does not determine their
academic performance or excellence.
This study confirmed that parent opportunities have tendencies of influencing the
performance of students because it will serve as additional income and findings also
observed that if income of parents increase, the allowances of students also increase. As
such, other income of parents in TASUED has significant determinant on the
performance of their wards.
Other issues that could lead to academic failure or low academic performance are;
72
1. Lack of a Clear Plan:
Success does not happen suddenly or by chance, however, if it happened by
chance to some people, it would be an exception. Basically, before starting any
work, there should be developed plans like plans for success and plans to achieve
the indicated goals in a given period, and what is the best strategy that will be
followed to implement these plans. Actually, planning is not a difficult task; it
just needs time and commitment. Someone says," I do not want to put plan for a
task because I might change my mind at any stage of implementing it". This could
be ridiculous because you can change and develop your plan at any time because
the basic principle of any plan is that it should be adjustable and elastic at any
stage in its implementation. Whether the goal is big or small, but without a plan
you will not reach a complete success of the task. Thus, ideas will remain ideas
and unimplemented if the map of the work (the plan) does not exist. Some people
tend to do the same work without a plan so they always get the negative results.
But with a flexible plan, they can develop their ideas to guarantee their success
and be away from failure.
2. Medical and Psychological Reasons:
With reference to academic failure there are many causes related to medical and
psychological reasons such as:
73
a. Major Depression Disorder: It is common that depression as a disease
caused by failing in exams but it is more frequent that depression often
precedes the exams' period. Depression can cause inability and weakness in
concentration of the patient. The result of the equation becomes inverted
because any depression can lead to failure.
b. Generalized anxiety disorder that can cause a situation of forgetting and
weakness in concentration.
c. Exam Phobia: It is a case of a sever fear of the exam and the expectation of
failure, which weakens the educational achievement and preparation and is
accompanied with less attentive and not fully prepared for the exam.
d. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: It is the frequent predominant ideas in
mind of the students that prevent them from thinking of anything else.
However, they can't overcome them and cause severe distress and affect their
academic performance.
e. Attention Disorder: It is the lack of the ability to focus attention on one thing
for a suitable time. It may be associated with hyperactivity disorder.
f. Learning Disabilities and Slow Learning: It is a functional deficit in the
brain leading to a lack of capacity to acquire new knowledge, as cases in low
IQ or difficulty in reading (Dyslexia) or difficulty in writing (Dysgraphia) or
74
difficulty in mathematics (Dyscalculia) and they are investigated by special
psychological measurements.
3. Reasons Related to the Learner:
The weakness of enthusiasm, lack of experience and hasty in getting the results
are considered causes that often lead to academic failure, along with lack of
abilities, fear of failure and lack of self-confidence. Therefore, academic failure
occurs when someone convinces himself/herself that he/she is unable to succeed
because of the weakness of his/her abilities and lack of experience. The goals
should also be clear, specific and realistic to the learner. Failure to do so will
result in missing these goals.
4. Parental and Educational Reasons:
The excess pressure on the student in order to get higher marks in the exams may
create a feeling of fear if he is unable to get high marks as required by parents,
and this frequently leading to the academic failure. Moreover, the unstable
families situations make students live in a state of tension, confusion and lack of
concentrating during the exam which will reflect negatively the on academic
performance.
5. Exam's Anxiety:
It is a state of feeling or an emotional condition that student faces during the
exam, and arise from the fear of failing in the exam or the fear of not getting
75
satisfactory result for himself and for others. However, this emotional state may
affect mental processes such as paying attention, concentrating, thinking and
remembering, as a result of the fact that any examination or test may decide the
fate of its taker and it will affect a particular aspect of his life, such as success in
the study, admission to a particular job and others, causing him fear and not
achieving the requested level.
6. Lack of Motivation for Success:
Although most of people may fail at some point or at some stages in their lives,
they have to consider failure is one chain for success and to learn from failure and
know how to deal with it. Still, if anyone was able to know why he /she failed;
definitely this would lead to success. Thus, anyone who suffers from failure he
will also enjoy the sweetness of success, and learn from his mistakes and saying
"Good bye to failure." To sum up, these factors attributed to teachers, students,
parents and the school environment were primarily responsible for the low
academic performance of the students. It must be emphasized that these factors
generally do not operate in isolation. Teacher absenteeism and lateness for
example would result in incompletion of the syllabus and would also affect
student's motivation, enthusiasm, zeal and commitment to learn.
76
5.4 Policy Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were raised;
 The government and educational policy makers: Authorities that are concerned
with the academic achievement of students should take preventive actions such as
developing programs related to counseling and psychoanalysis.
Counseling
Counseling psychology is a psychological specialty that encompasses research
and applied work in several broad domains: counseling process and outcome;
supervision and training; career development and counseling; prevention and
health.
Psychoanalysis
Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study
of the unconscious mind, which together form a method of treatment for mental-
health disorders.
 To use attractive techniques and educational activities by the teachers to motivate
students for leaning.
Student-Centered Method
This technique needed to promote interest, analytical research, critical thinking
among students. The teaching method is regarded more effective since it does not
centralize the flow of knowledge from the lecturer to the student. The approach
77
also motivates goal-orientated behaviour among students; hence the method is
very effective in improving student achievement.
Teacher-Student Interactive Method
This teaching method applies the strategies used by both teacher-centered and
student-centered approaches. The subject information produced by the learners is
remembered better than the same information presented to the learners by the
lecturer. The method encourages the students to search for relevant knowledge
rather than the lecturer monopolizing the transmission of information to the
learners. As such, research evidence on teaching approaches maintains that this
teaching method is effective in improving students’ academic performance
 Students should be encouraged not to fully depend on money and not get
discouraged if they do not have money to get needed materials.Students must see
every reason why higher academic attainments and achievements are essential.
Students must note that money is just one of the resources that promote better
academic performance; it is just a means but not an end itself. Students must be
bold to say “NO!” to academic failure and dropout due to “no money syndrome”.
 The school authority must allow the students enjoy the leveled-field of learning
process and must also encourage them to participate in all academic activities.
Students should be encouraged to make use of the library to study, using needed
materials and also to make use of the e-library to further their research.
78
 Income status of parents and the students’ academic performance must be a
shared responsibility with the government for the purpose of mutual benefits in
the future.
 To provide a relaxing school environment in order to increase the motivation of
students and increase the level of belonging to the school and community.
 The parents should be aware of their children's problems and pursue their
academic achievement step by step.
 Students should not be exposed to the wealth of their parents. During fresher’s
orientation, students should be oriented not depend on their parents socio-
economic status that they should work out their own means.
 To coordinate between higher educational leadership, whether in the Ministry of
Education or universities, to develop the learning process in a way to keep pace
with changes and new developments in the field of education all over the world.
 Teachers should give hands-on assignment which will enable personal attempt of
such assignment question; that is discouraging students from contracting out
research works and assignment.
79
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies
Having earlier identified the limitation of this study, the researcher suggests further study
in these following areas:
1. To detect and close the achievement gap, a nationwide, if not a global study on
the same or similar topic should be carried out in other institutions, both public
and private with a larger sample size. This will help to provide deep
understanding and making a generalisation if income inequality really has any
definite effect on academic performance. Few interesting research questions were
provided under results and discussions to guide future research.
2. Globalization is one of the factors that lead to inequality. To research how
globalization can affect academic performance of students.
3. Improvisinganother means to capture academic performance.
80
REFERENCES
Adeleke, H. A., Sulaiman A.Y.,OluwoleI. O.&WasiuA.Y.(2017).Income polarisation
among undergraduate students of University of Ibadan.Mathematics Letters3(2),
20-28.
Adewale, A.M. (2002). Implication of parasitic infections on school performance among
school-age children, Ilorin.Journal of science education.2(7), 78-81.
Adzido, R. Y., Dzogbede, O. E., Ahiave, E. &Dorkpah, O.K., (2016). Assessment of
family income on academic performance of tertiary students: The case of Ho
Polytechnic, Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting,
Finance and Management Sciences.6(3), 154–169.
Aghion, P., Caroli, E., &García-Peñalosa, C. (1999). Inequality and economic growth:
The perspective of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature37(4),
1615-1660.
Ali, S., Haider, Z., Munir, F., Khan, H. & Ahmed, A. (2013). Factors contributing to the
students’ academic performance: A case study of IslamiaUniversity Sub-Campus.
American Journal of Educational Research.1(8), 283-289.
Amiel, Y., & Cowell, F.A. (2000).Thinking about inequality.Cambridge.
Anand, Sudhir (2001). Inequality and poverty in Malaysia. New York: Oxford University
Press.ISBN 0-19-520153-1.
81
Arnaud, C. (2005). The impact of parental income and education on the schooling of
their children.The Institute for Fiscal Studies.WP05/05.
Barbara, K. &Veronika, K. (2017).Inequality and economic growth.International
Economics and Policy, Jönköping.
Banjaree, A.V. &Duflo, E. (2003). Inequality and growth: What can the data
say?.Journal of Economics Growth.8(3), 267-99.
Becker, G.& N. Tomes. (1979). Anequilibrium theory of the distribution of income and
intergenerational mobility?Journal of Political Economy.87, 1153-1189.
Beth, A. R., Phillip, B.& Laurel, P.(2015). Academic performance gaps and family
income in a rural elementary school: perceptions of low-income parent. NCPEA
Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2(1), 1532-0723.
Blevins, B. M. (2009). Effects of socioeconomic status on academic performance in
Missouri public school.Ann Arbor, 48106-1346.
Brown, M. (2000). Using gini-style indices to evaluate the spatial patterns of health
practitioners: Theoretical considerations and an application based on Alberta
data.Social Science Medicine. 38(9), 1243-1256.
Considine, G. &Zappala, G. (2002). Influence of social and economic disadvantage in the
academic performance of school students in Australia. Journal of Sociology.38,
129-148.
82
Cooper, R., &JohnA. (1988).Coordination failures in Keynesian models?Quarterly
Journal of Economics103, 441-464.
Cowell, Frank A., (1995), Measuring inequality, second edition, LSE handbooks in econ
omics series, prentice hall/harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Dills, K.A. (2006).Trends in the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=88 6110
Escarce, J. J (2003).Socioeconomic status and the fates of
adolescents.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid
Eze, O.M. (2002). The effects of parental economic status and pupil sex on school
achievement in English language. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education
in Nigeria, 3(3), 27
Fletcher, M.A. (2013). Research ties economic inequality to gap in life expectancy.
Washington Post.
Florence, J., Subir, L.& Chris P.I. (2008). Rising income inequality: Technology, or trade
and financial globalization? IMF Working Paper, 2008
http://tifwe.org/resources/income-inequality/part-one/#sthash.Hkxcz4Re.dpuf
Galor, O. & J. Zeira. (1993). Income distribution and macroeconomics.Review of
Economic Studies60, 35-53.
Gerster, T.C. (2000). The impact of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NEPAP)
on economic development of Nigeria.
83
Graetz, B. (1995). Socioeconomic status in education research and policy. In Ainley, J,
Graetz, B., Long, M. and Batten, M. (Eds). Social economic status and School
education. Canberra: DEET/ACER.
Gurria, A. (2011). Press release for dividend we stand: Why inequality keeps rising
(Report).
Guerin, N., Reinberg, A., Testu, F., Boulenguiez, S., Mechkouri, M. &Touitou, Y.
(2001).Role of school schedule, age and parental socio-economic status on sleep
duration and sleepiness of Parisian children.ChronobioInt. 18(6), 1005-17.
Hansen, N.M &Mastekaasa, A. (2006).Social origins and academic performance at
university.Oxford University press.http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/
abstract/22/3/277
Hijazi, S.T. &Raza -Naqvi, S.M.M. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance: A
case of private colleges. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology.3(1), 1-10.
Hill, N.E., Castelino, O.R., Lansford. J.E., Nowlin, E., Dodge, P. Bates, K.A. & Pettit,
G.S. (2004).Parents academic involvement as related to school behaviour,
achievement and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child
development.75(5), 1491-1509.
Hoyle, E. (1986). Policies of school management, suffolk.The press ltd.International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(7), 2222-6990.
84
Jose D. &John. W. L. (2002). Education and income inequality: New evidence from
cross-country data. Review of Income and Series.48(3).
Kaldor, N. (1955). Alternative theories of distribution.The Review of Economic Studies,
83-100.
King, E.M & Bellow, R. (1989).Gains in the education of Peruvian women, 1940-
1980.Policy research working paper.World Bank, Washington D.C.
Kwesiga, C.J. (2002). Women’s access to higher education in Africa: Uganda’s
experience. Kampala: Fountain publishers Ltd.
Kyoshaba, M. (2009).Factors affecting academic performance of undergraduate students
at Uganda Christian University.HD04/4262U.
Lacour, M. &Tissington, L.D. (2011).The effects of poverty on academic
achievement.Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 6(7), 522-527.
Laosa, L.M. (2005). Effects of preschool on educational achievement.NEER working
paper.1-14.
Levy, F. (2008). Distribution of income. In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise
Encyclopedia of economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and
Liberty. IBSN 978-0865976658.
Loury, G. (1981).Intergenerational transfers and the distribution of
earnings.Econometrica 49, 843-867.
85
Mariam J., Ahmad S. A. &Nasir A., (2013).Exploring the impact of parents’ status on the
academic performance and behavior of Students.Secondary Education
Journal.1(1), 55-65.
McMillan, J &Western ,J. (2000). Measurement of Social-economic status of Australian
higher education students.Higher education, 39(2).
Memon, G.R., Joubish, M.F. &Khurram, M.A. (2010).Impact of Parental Socio-
Economic Status on Students’ Educational Achievements at Secondary Schools of
District Malir, Karachi.Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 6(6), 678-687.
Minnesota Measures (2007) Report on higher education performance.
www.opencongress.org/bill/110.s/642/show-139k
Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. The
Review of Economic Studies 38(2), 175-208.
Ogunshola, F.,&Adewale, A.M.(2012).The effects of parental socio-economic status on
academic performance of students in selected schools inEdulgaof Kwarastate
Nigeria.
Rothestein, R. (2004). Class and schools using social economic and educational reforms
to close the white and black achievement gap.Economic Policy Institute, U.S.A
Rugaber, C.S. &Boak, J. (2014). Wealth gap: A guide to what it is, why it matters. AP
News.
86
Sentamu, N.P.(2003). School’s influence of learning: A case of upper primary schools in
Kampala and Wakiso Districts. Uganda Education Journal. 4.
Sholeh, A. M. &Guyonne Kalb, (2005).Academic performance, parental income, and the
choice to leave school at age sixteen. Economics Working Papers Research Space
at Auckland.http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/ecwp/258.
Singh, S. P. Savita M.&Priya S., (2016).Factors affecting academic performance of
students.Indian Journal of Research.5(4), 2250-1991.
Smith, L., Fagan, J.F. &UIvund, S.E. (2002).The relation of cognition memory in infancy
and parental socio – economic status to later I intellectual competence.
Steven, N. D. (1996). A Theory of persistent income inequality.Journal of Economic
Growth, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 1,75-93
Sullivan A., Steven, M. &Sheffrin, V. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper
saddle river, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. 348.ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
Teri, O. Andrew, C. &Nimita, P., (2016).The impact of poverty on a child’s academic
performance.The Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009).The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost
always do better. Allen Lane. 352.ISBN 978-1-84614-039-6.
Vos, R. (2012). World economic situation and prospects.Development Policy and
Analysis Division. New York: United Nations. 22.
87
Yousefi, F., Redzuan, M., Bte, M., Juhari, R.B. &Talib, M.A. (2010).The effects of
family income on test-anxiety and academic achievement among Iranian high
school students.Asian Social Science, 6(6), 89-93.
88
APPENDIX I
TAI SOLARIN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, IJAGUN

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Questionnaire
Income inequality and academic performance among TASUED Students
community
Dear Respondent,
The researcher is carrying out a study whose main objective is to establish whether there
is a relationship between income inequality and academic performance of undergraduate
students in TASUED. You have been selected as one of the respondents for the study and
the information you will give will be treated with utmost confidentiality and used purely
for academic purposes. The findings and recommendations from this study are likely to
benefit TASUED in so many areas. Kindly please spare some of your valuable time to
answer these questions.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
_______________
OnayemiOlamide
B.Sc(Ed) Economics
Tai Solarin University of Education
89
Please tick or fill in as appropriate.
SECTION A: BIO-DATA
Discipline:
________________________________________________________________
1. Sex: Male [ ] Female[ ]

2. Age: 16-20 yrs [ ], 21 – 25 yrs, [ ], 26-30yrs [ ], 31-35yrs [ ], 35& above [ ]
3. Year of study: Year 2 [ ] Year 3: [ ] Year 4: [ ]
SECTION B: INCOME INEQUALITY FACTORS
COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
Key: (IJA – 4), (ABA – 3), (IJE – 2), (IMA – 1)

4. Ijagun: [ ] Abapawa: [ ] Ijele: [ ] Imaweje: [ ]
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
How would you rate the education level of your parents/guardian?
Keys: (Very high is post graduate) (High is First Degree) (Medium is Diploma)
(Low is Certificate and below)
(VH – 4), (H – 3) (M – 2) (L – 1)
S/N VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW
5. Father/Male guardian
6. Mother/Female guardian
Please rate the income level of your parents/guardian on monthly basis

Keys:(Very high is 500,000 and above) (High is 499,999 to 250,000) (Medium is
249,999 to 100,000) and (low is below 100,000/-)
Please tick the status of your parents/guardian in terms of occupation.
90
Keys:(Very High is white collar job) (High is blue collar job ) (Medium is self-
employed/peasant) (Low is unemployed)
OPPORTUNITIES
Please, indicate other parental sources of income
Keys: (Very high is politically inclined) (High is being an industrialist)
(Medium is having an inheritance as a source of income) (Low is getting
contributions from family members)
22. Parent opportunity
SECTION C: ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE FACTORS

Self sponsored: [ ] Parent/Guardian sponsored [ ]
State your level of agreement to the following statements:
Keys: Strongly Agree (SA = 4); Agree (A = 3); Disagree (D =2); Strongly Disagree (SD
= 1)
Note: This section should be answered by Parent/Guardian sponsored students.
SA A D SD
11. Parent/guardian income level affects my academic

performance (CGPA).
12. When my parent/guardian income improves, my

monthly stipend/allowance also improves.
13. My CGPA improves when my parent/guardian income

also improves.
14. My parents/guardians are rich but are not ready to fully

pay for my educational expenses.
15. Either there is money or not, I always perform better in

my academics
16. Parent/guardian financial aid is easier to access than

external aids.
91
17. I prefer parent/guardian financial support to external

financial support.
23. Students with parental opportunities gets consistent
income which improves their academic performance
better than others
24. Parent opportunities discourage their wards from being
serious with their academics
25. Students with high income will ultimately perform better

than students with low income
26. Money is the major determinant of a student academic

performance
27. Students with low income performs better in their

academics
28. Parental income has nothing to do with the performances

of their ward
29. Self-sponsored students will perform better than parent

sponsored learners
30. Academic performance can only be determined by the

learners income level
Note: This section should be answered by self- sponsored students

Nature of work: Part-time employment [ ], Personal business [ ]
S/N SA A D SD
11. The work I engage in does not allow me to have time
for my academic work.
12. The money I work for does not have any effect on
my academic performance
13. I perform very bad due to the part time employment I
engage in
14. The more I work hard to earn money, the more my
CGPA decreases
15. The higher my income, the higher my performance
16. I prefer a personal financial support to external
financial support.
92
17. When my income improves, I get distracted from
my academics
23. Students with parental opportunities gets consistent
income which improves their academic performance
better than others
24. Parent opportunities discourage their wards from
being serious with their academics
25. Students with high income will ultimately perform

better than students with low income
26. Money is the major determinant of a student

academic performance
27. Students with low income performs better in their

academics
28. Parental income has nothing to do with the

performances of their ward
29. Self-sponsored students will perform better than

parent sponsored learners
30. Academic performance can only be determined by

the learners income level
SECTION D: ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
With reference to the variables mentioned in the table below, how would you rate your
academic performance at Tai Solarin University of Education.
College of study: COSMAS [ ] COSPED [ ] COHUM [ ]COSIT [ ] COVTED [ ]
Keys: (Very high is 70 and above) (High is 60-69)(Medium is 50–59)(Low is below 50)
18. In your previous semesters examinations
19. In core/compulsory courses
20. In optional courses
Please, tick your Current CGPA:
Keys: (Very high is 4.5 and above) (High is 3.5 - 4.49) (Medium is 2.5 - 3.49)
(Low is below 2.5)
21. Your current CGPA on the school portal
93
94
APPENDIX II
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

My Success Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

My Success Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background of theStudy

According to Graetz (1995), one’s educational success depends very strongly on

materials, which aid their intelligence. Socio-Economic Status (SES) according to

is determined by an individual’s achievements in, education, employment, occupational

compared to children from low socio-economic status families. Schools according to

or negative influences on learners.

influence academic achievements” (Laosa, 2005, cited in Ogunshola and Adewale,

(Ogunshola and Adewale, 2012).Parental educational background, profession and

retentive memory and deviation,nutritional balance, and academic performance (Eze,

Sentamu (2003), Kwesiga (2002), Portes and Macleod (1996) as cited in

academic achievement. According to Minnesota measures (2007), a report on higher

reliable predictor of student success in college is the academic preparation of students in

academic performance of tertiary students: the case of Tai Solarin University of

Education. Students’ performance will be measured by their cumulative grade point

average (CGPA) as against their sources of finance.

1.2 Statement of theProblem

Academic performance, which is measured by the examination results, is one of

students perform well and while others perform poorly.

during weekdays and weekends to do some running jobs. Therefore, students’

relationship between students' performance and family income (socio-eonomic status) is

seeks to answer are:

2. Is income the major determinant of students’ academic performance?

3. What is the relationship and impact of income of parents on academic

4. What are the other income related determinants of academic performance?

5. What relationship does per capita income have on parent income?

6. How does Gross Domestic Product affect Income?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

economic status of parents and academic performance in TASUED students’

communities. Specifically, the study will find out;

1. The relationship between socio-economic status of parents and academic

2. The relationship and impact of parents’income on academic performance.

3. To investigate other income related determinants of academic performance.

1.4 Justification for the Study

students’ academic performance, improves low background students to firmly compete

performance is comparatively lower.Lacour and Tissington (2011) examined the effects

emphasis on financial resources.Smith et al. (2002 as in Ogunshola and Adewale, 2012)

argued that parental socio-economic status is a significant predicator of intellectual

affecting academic performance of graduate students of Islamia University of

academic performance was father/guardian social economic status.

academic performance and also provide policy recommendations.

1.5 Scope of the Study

provide information with respect to the immediate previous academic session.

2017/2018 Academic results.

H0: There is no significant relationship between socio-economic status and academic

performance of undergraduate students.

H1: There is significant relationship between socio-economic status and academic

performance of undergraduate students.

H0: There is no significant relationship and impact of parent income on academic

H1: There is significant relationship and impact of parent income on academic

H0: There are no other income related determinants of academic performance.

H0: There are other income related determinants of academic performance.

1.7 Plan of the Study

methodology; it will include the research design, econometric techniques, model

five will deal with summary, conclusion and recommendation.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

This chapter reviewed related literatures on income inequality and academic

performance. The chapter is divided into some headings which includes;

2.1 Conceptual Review

2.1.1 Income inequality

perspectives only but in an all-encompassing context. Income inequality also describes

income differences and the wealth gap (Rugaber, 2014).

income are distributed unequally among individuals in a group, among groups in a