Influence of the Family Development Session to parent grantees with inclusion of the Youth

Development Session to Children beneficiaries aged 15-18 years old in High School in the
percentage of school drop-outs

BACKGROUND

Drop-out among poor children in the Philippines is one of the concerns of the government. The
Department of Education (DepEd) has already provided various interventions including the Drop-out
Reduction Program (DORP) to reduce the high drop-out rate and improve learning outcomes using
formal, non-formal and informal approaches.

As Section 1 of Article XIV states that: “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to
all.”, different government agencies are taking actions through social development programs to help in
the alleviation of this occurrence.

The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, as a poverty alleviation program Implemented by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is one of the Philippine government’s social
development programs whose focus is to improve the level of well-being of the poor registered
household beneficiaries. It targets the household’s Health and Educational awareness through provision
of a conditional cash grants.

Conditions of the program includes attendance to school with atleast 85% per month under the
education category, health center visit for children aged 0-5 years old, pre and post-natal checkups for
pregnant household members, deworming to children 6-14 years old in Elementary and attendance to
monthly Family Development Session (FDS) under the health category. Of all the conditional activities
set by the program, the FDS, with the currently implemented inclusion of Youth Development Session
(YDS) is being provided by the department through the program. This is where education or awareness
are being provided to parent beneficiaries. The YDS, although not yet saturated to all high schools with
program beneficiaries and is just currently being implemented, is now taking the leap to reach out to
youth children beneficiaries to provide vital and critical awareness that tackles common teenage
problems and other vital topics like ‘the importance of education’ to support in establishing the youth’s
potentials.

With the program’s implementation since the year 2008 and its saturation and inclusion of 15-18 years
old to incorporate the K-12 program of DepEd, it was presumed that the number of attendees and
student retention to school would escalate to a higher percentage. Drop-out of school aged children,
especially among those program beneficiaries would decline, at the least. However, the program’s data
from 2015 to 2016 shows that for region 10, average per year per period of over a thousand (1,292 per
period for 2 years in exact figure with an average of 6,790 for total per year) is still recorded. The chart
below shows the drop-out trend of Pantawid children beneficiaries per age category from 2015.

Chart 1: Trend of drop-out rate over children monitored by the program

Drop-out rate over Children monitored

1.20%
1.03% 1.06%
1.00%
0.86%
0.80% 0.80%
0.71%
0.60% 0.63% 0.64% 0.59%
0.40%
0.38% 0.35%
0.32% 0.34% 0.32% 0.32%
0.25% 0.28% 0.28% 0.24% 0.28%
0.26%
0.20% 0.21% 0.20%
0.18% 0.21%
0.11% 0.09% 0.13% 0.10%
0.08% 0.12%
0.09%
0.00% 0.05%
1 2015 2 2015 3B 2015 4 2015 5 2015 6 2015 1 2016 3 2016 4 2016 5 2016 6 2016

3-5 CAT 6-14 CAT 15-18 CAT

The percentage of drop-out over the monitored program children beneficiaries may appear small but
considering that they are part of the poorest of the poor in the whole population, making them stay in
school is vital in breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty. In the previous years, drop-outs
escalates on the last 3 months of the school year, that is January, February and March (Period 1 of 2015
covers Jan-Feb and Period 2 is Mar-Apr while Period 1 in 2016 covers Feb-Mar). As shown in chart 1, the
gap between 15-18 CAT trend is farther compared to the other 2 age categories. This suggests that the
problem in drop-outs are extreme among the 15-18 years old youth children beneficiaries. One of the
reasons why the program is maximizing the use of the YDS is to lessen this occurrence.

This is a problem for many reasons. From the efficiency perspective, dropout is a concern in at least two
dimensions. One, at the aggregate economy level wherein education is known to be an important
determinant of economic growth and premature dropout means loss of potential productivity. And two,
within the education sector, dropout raises the cost of achieving a targeted proportion of the population
having some level of schooling (Hanushek, Lavy, and Hitomi 2006).

In the 2014 result of the Annual Poverty Indicator Survey (APIS) by the Philippine Statistics Authority
(PSA), reasons for non-attendance to school of school aged 6-24 years old shows that the most common
reasons for non-attendance for the lowest 30% in income strata are: High cost education/financial
concern (30.2%), Marriage/Family matters (21.1%), Employment/looking for work (20.5%) and Lack of
personal interest (20.2%).
As the main goal of the FDS is to capacitate the household beneficiaries to become more responsive and
active in performing their parental roles and responsibilities, particularly in addressing the health,
nutrition, education and psychosocial needs of their children (Pantawid Pamilya OM, 2015), major
reasons as indicated by the survey in addition to the drop-out trend result triggers curiosity to program
implementers as to the relationship between the conduct of FDS with the inclusion of YDS in the
children beneficiaries’ drop-out to school.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aims to identify if the conduct of the Family Development Session (FDS) among household
beneficiaries and Youth Development Session (YDS) among children beneficiaries aged 15-18 years old in
high school influences the movement of drop-out rates. As part of the CCT program goals, is to
encourage children to enrol and stay in school, result of this study shall be used as guide in the
formulation of localized strategies in the improvement and strengthening of the FDS and YDS. This will
answer the following questions:

1. What is the drop-out rate among pantawid children beneficiaries aged 15-18 years old?
2. What is the FDS attendance rate of the program?
3. What are the demographic characteristics in consideration with the grantee’s:
a. Age
b. Sex
c. IP Affiliation
d. Residing in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA)
 4. Is there any significant relationship in the attendance to Family Development Session of
household beneficiaries with children 15-18 years old in the drop-out rates?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study is anchored within the Social Development Theory developed by Lev Vygotsky in the
1970s. This theory is commonly used in the study on cognitive development. This theory indicates that
cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal
development as children and their partner's co-construct knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). For Vygotsky, the
environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about. He
stated that adults are an important source of cognitive development. They transmit their culture's tools
of intellectual adaptation that children internalize.

As applied to this study, this theory holds that it would be expected that the number of FDS
attended by the beneficiaries with consideration of their demographic characteristics as independent
variables would influence the dependent variable that is the drop-out rates among children beneficiaries
aged 15-18 years old. As the FDS provides awareness on the importance of formal education in breaking
the intergenerational cycle of poverty, the knowledge handed out to the parents of the children will be
transmitted and adapted by the children as stated by Vygosky. As parent beneficiaries transmit their
adapted learnings from the attended FDS, children internalized and thus embraced the knowledge.

- Vygotsky's theories stress the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of
cognition (Vygotsky, 1978);related to marx and hagle???

- Vygotsky places considerably more emphasis on social factors contributing to cognitive development:
o Vygotsky states cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided
learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partner's co-
construct knowledge.
o For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think
and what they think about.

- According to Vygotsky adults are an important source of cognitive development.

o Adults transmit their culture's tools of intellectual adaptation that children internalize.
(This can suffice that FDS through their parents can bridge through child’s awareness on
the importance of education)
-
*More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) + Learner = Learning that leads to higher mental functions or
independence

*Zone of proximal development (ZPD) – in the moment between the ability of being able to do
something and not being able to do something. So with the guidance received allows transition to a
more expanded set of skills by learning and going beyond what was already known.

Can’t do
Can The ZPD is the link
ZPD
do

*Language – Main means to transmit info to children; a very powerful tool for adaptation; an
accelerator to thinking and understanding;

(https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html)

Conceptual Framework

Hypothesis Testing

METHODOLOGY

This study shall be conducted through the use of questionnaires to the program household grantees and
children beneficiaries (currently in school, drop-out) using the stratified sampling technique as
consideration to the existing IP beneficiaries, beneficiaries living in the Geographically Isolated and
Disadvantaged areas (GIDA) as well as other small and inaccessible subgroups within the population. The
active participants and perennially not attending to FDS shall also be considered in the identification of
subgroups. The questionnaires shall be distributed and facilitated by the designated program field staff
following the established structure. It will be part of their responsibility to ensure that the data gathered
are of quality.

An In-depth Interview (IDI) to partner implementer specifically partners in the education category
(DepEd) shall be conducted to gather data based on the observation of the teachers, principals or even
supervisors. Prospective sampling will be used in identification of respondents only covering schools in
the urban or rural areas and schools with high numbers of program children beneficiaries enrolled.
Analysis of the gathered data will be supported by the Stata program application in the quantitative side
of the study while the use of MAXQDA program application will be explored in analyzing data who are
qualitative in nature.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This study shall cover program beneficiaries in Region 10 whose status in the Pantawid Pamilya
Information (PPIS) are code 1 – ‘Active’ and 19 – ‘Grants temporarily on Hold’ with children aged 15-18
years old in Junior or High school educational level. Students who are attending or enrolled in the
tertiary schools will not be covered in this study. This will only work within the turf where FDS may or
may not influence drop-outs among program beneficiaries. Identification of reasons for drop-out may
not be covered in this study.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (use logistic regression)

Family Development
Session
Drop-out rates among
 No of FDS Pantawid Pamilya
attended (year) Children beneficiaries
 Demographic aged 15-18 years old
 No of topics in High School
related to
education(can be
dropped if theory

Youth Development
Session
Drop-out rates among
 No of YDS Pantawid Pamilya
attended Children beneficiaries
 No of topics aged 15-18 years old
related to in High School
education

REFERENCES
Orbeta, A. C., Jr. (2010). Global Study on child poverty and disparities: Philippines [PDF]. Makati City:
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

2014 APIS Survey (Ser. 10, Rep.). (2014). doi:https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20APIS

%20Final%20Report.pdf

Manilyn Destacamento, ICT at DepEd Follow. (2012, July 06). Dropout reduction program (dorp).
Retrieved November 03, 2017, from https://www.slideshare.net/monotremes/dropout-reduction-
program-dorp

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2015). Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program
Operations Manual [Brochure]. Quezon City, Philippines: Author.

Prepared by: Noted and Reviewed by:

MARIA REJIE E. OBSIOMA KENNETH HAZE G. SANCHEZ

Regional Monitoring & Evaluation Officer Regional Program Coordinator

Approved by:

DIR. NESTOR B. RAMOS

Regional Director
Social Development Theory (Vygotsky)

Social Development Theory argues that social interaction precedes development; consciousness
and cognition are the end product of socialization and social behavior. (https://www.learning-
theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html)

RRL

On theory

On the variables

:RRL on independent

RRL on dependent

Summary(RRL)

Elaborates what is in theoretical framework

IN quali, must also answer gaps not gathered in quanti

Note:

All sections must interelates your objective