Social Psychology of Education (2020) 23:1149–1171

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09568-w

Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school

dropout from an ecological viewpoint

Muharrem Koc1   · Osman Zorbaz2   · Selen Demirtas‑Zorbaz3 

Received: 18 October 2019 / Accepted: 20 May 2020 / Published online: 24 June 2020
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the factors relating to school dropout from
the perspective of dropout students, their teachers, and their parents. It also explores
students’ experiences after school dropout. To this end, in this qualitative study, five
young adults who dropped out of middle or high school and their parents and teach-
ers were interviewed. The study found the factors related to school dropout included
adjustment problems at the individual level; family, teachers, and economy at the
microsystem level; and gender at the macrosystem level. While students, teachers,
and parents generally agreed on economic conditions, they had different views about
family impact and teacher impact. The study also determined that individuals drop-
ping out of school cannot enter the labor market due to school dropout or have to
work in low-status jobs; they regret dropping out; and they think that they would
have had a better life if they had not left school.

Keywords  School dropout · School graduation · Dropout consequences · Ecological

theory · Labor market

* Osman Zorbaz
osmanzorbaz07@gmail.com
Muharrem Koc
muharremkoccpdr@gmail.com
Selen Demirtas‑Zorbaz
selenpdr@gmail.com
1
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara,
Turkey
2
Ankara Courthouse, Ministry of Justice, Ankara, Turkey
3
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara University,
Ankara, Turkey

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 1150 M. Koc et al.

1 Introduction

Every year, the majority of individuals between the ages of 17 and 18 complete high
school education and proceed to a higher education institution or enter working life.
However, many young people who are in the normal educational age do not con-
tinue their education for various reasons. School dropout, which is defined as a stu-
dent’s leaving school before graduating or completing the program in which they
are studying/attending (McWhirter et al. 2004), is still among educational problems
in many countries, as in Turkey. According to EUROSTAT (2019) data, the aver-
age rate of individuals in the age range of 18–24 dropping out of school is 31% in
Turkey. However, there is insufficient data related to school dropout in educational
statistics related to Turkey. A variety of research has published data related to school
dropout, but these data are not systematic or comprehensive, forming a barrier to a
full understanding of the problem. According to Küçüker (2019), the following con-
clusions can be made in relation to school dropout in Turkey: (1) school dropout is
observed at all levels of formal education, but intensifies in second level education,
(2) school dropout is mainly experienced in ninth class, and (3) the high school type
with highest school dropout is vocational and technical high schools.
Identifying the causes of school dropout and launching prevention efforts is
regarded as an urgent need for most countries. For example, with the prevention
programs implemented in the United States in the early 1990s, school dropout
rates gradually decreased to 5.4% from 9.7% (National Center for Education Sta-
tistics [NCES] 2015). In Europe, school dropout rates vary from country to coun-
try. Based on EUROSTAT (2019) data, the EU average for individuals in the age
range of 18–24 dropping out of school is 10.6%, while this rate is 21.5% in Iceland
and 17.9% in Spain. Also, this rate is the lowest in Croatia (3.3%). As can be seen,
school dropout remains a serious problem for most countries and Turkey is a disad-
vantaged country in terms of school dropout.
School dropout is a behavior that may adversely affect the lives of young people
who are in adolescence and are preparing for life. Leaving school before gradua-
tion may leave individuals facing important problems throughout their lives. Barton
(2005) lists these as working in low-income jobs or having difficulty in finding a job,
involvement in crime, and social maladjustment. In addition, school dropout results
in no return from investments in students and hinders the economic development
of countries. Within this framework, school dropout is a social problem as well as
an individual problem and poses a significant risk for social welfare (Uysal 2008).
Therefore, the causes and prevention of dropout may depend on both individual and
social factors.

1.1 Theoretical perspective: ecological theory

The literature review shows that there are individual, familial, school-related, and
social causes of school dropout (Jerald 2006; Suh and Suh 2006). In this context,
since a theoretical approach to school dropout requires a systematic perspective, this
study addresses school dropout within the framework of the ecological approach

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1151

developed by Bronfenbrenner (1994). The ecological approach emphasizes the rela-

tionship between the individual and the various systems surrounding them and sys-
tematically discusses the interactions influencing their development (Bronfenbrenner
and Morris 1998). These systems involve the characteristics of the individual (e.g.,
academic achievement, school adaptation, antisocial behavior), the microsystem
withing groups which the individual has close relationships with (e.g., family char-
acteristics, economic level, peer relations, relations with teachers), the mesosystem
within systems that involve interactions of microsystems (e.g., school-family collab-
oration, family involvement), the exosystem referring to interactions between situ-
ations that do not directly affect the individual (e.g., education policies, legislative
regulations), and finally the macrosystem referring to cultural values (e.g., gender).
Moreover, several studies attempted to explain school dropout considering multi-
ple factors such as individual, social and family factors (Archambault et  al. 2017;
McDermott et  al. 2019). We think that the ecological approach may offer a wider
perspective in understanding school dropout as it emphasizes individual characteris-
tics and evaluates the processes the individual undergoes in their social environment
in detail. In addition, the ecological perspectives provide opportunities to reveal the
roles of systems and bi-directional relationships between the systems (McDermott
et al. 2018).

1.2 Predictors of dropout

From an ecological perspective, it may be argued that individual characteristics are

directly related to school dropout. Previous research shows that students with low
academic achievement (Franklin and Trouard 2016; Rumberger 1995; Wood et  al.
2017) and behavioral problems (Bridgeland et  al. 2006; Croninger and Lee 2001)
tend to drop out of school. In addition, factors such as grade repetition (Rumberger
1995), disciplinary problems (Robison et al. 2017), coming to school late and fail-
ure to adapt to the school environment (Shuger 2012) play an important role in
increased school dropout. In terms of gender, male students have a higher risk of
dropout (Sneyers and De Witte 2017; Wood et  al. 2017). Similar to the literature,
research conducted in Turkey determined the relation of individual characteristics
with school dropout. According to Özer (1991), the higher dropout risk among male
students is related to the fact that they are more likely to gain employment in income
generating jobs. Also, students who work in a job outside the school, have a friend
who has left school, display antisocial behaviors, perceive the environment as risky,
and experience school alienation. Have an increased risk of school dropout, whereas
those who perceive the environment as safe, are monitored academically with a high
level of school commitment, and parental involvement in their academic life, have
a decreased risk of school dropout (Zorbaz 2018).
It can be argued that in addition to individual characteristics, economic level
and relations with family, school, and friends, which are the components of the
microsystem level in the ecological approach, are directly related to school dropout
(McDermott et al. 2018). Students with a low economic level are more vulnerable
to school dropout risk because they have fewer social and cultural resources related

13
 1152 M. Koc et al.

to school, and also students with low socioeconomic level experience confusion at
school and feel alienated from school because they cannot adopt middle socioeco-
nomic level values, which results in school dropout (Parr and Bonitz 2015).
Some family characteristics of students may also be influential on school dropout
risk. Rumberger (1983) lists the familial causes of school dropout as parental drop-
out, low parental education level, low parental involvement in school activities, and
low educational expectations of parents for children. Similarly, it is argued that prob-
lematic relationships in the family (Gamier et al. 1997), and parents’ view of educa-
tion (Rumberger et al. 1990) or a low-income single parent (Seppala 2000) lead to
school dropout. Crowded families and responsibilities such as looking after siblings
may also increase school dropout (Bridgeland 2010; Yadav et  al. 2010). Accord-
ing to Roderick (1991), a crowded family means that income per child decreases
and parents display less attention and interest in children, which may increase the
possibility of school dropout indirectly. Furthermore, paid work due to low soci-
oeconomic level increases dropout risk as well (Bridgeland 2010). Also, McDer-
mott et  al. (2019) provided seven categories of turning points for dropout: mobil-
ity, family, peers, school engagement and environment, health, crime, and multiple
categories.
The cultural structure and facilities in schools are also related to school drop-
out. Especially in schools where rules and norms are ambiguous, the school system
turns into a negative socialization environment (Kronick 1994). Carley (1994) found
that lack of interest in curricular and extracurricular activities, unwillingness to
adopt appropriate behaviors, and school alienation predicted school dropout. Nou-
wen and Clycq (2019) stated that support provided by teachers was an important
factor preventing school dropout. However, high numbers of students per teacher,
poor teacher-student relations, over-focus on rules, lack of fair and effective penal-
ties, and punishments like removal from class lead to dropout risk (McNeal 1997;
Reschly and Christenson 2006). Similarly, Zorbaz (2018) indicated that school drop-
out risk is lower in schools where the number of psychological counselors is high,
where there are many cultural activities, and disciplinary punishment is applied less
often.
Peer groups, another component of the microsystem, may also be associated with
school dropout, especially during adolescence. Close friends of the student who
drops out are likely to be at risk of dropout, be incompatible, have problems such as
drugs, alcohol, and smoking addiction, be involved in an active sexual life at a very
early age, and have low future and educational expectations (Battin-Pearson et  al.
2000). Frequent school changes and not being able to develop a circle of friends,
develop a sense of belonging to school, and adapt to the new school and curriculum
also increase school dropout risk (Christenson and Thurlow 2004). Moreover, Dup-
ere et al. (2019) discussed the role of peer conflicts and rejection on school dropout.
Similarly, a study by Haugan et al. (2019) stated that development of peer relation-
ships may reduce the risk of school dropout.
The characteristics of the culture one lives in are included in the macrosystem
level of the ecological approach, and may also be associated with school dropout. In
education, cultural beliefs around gender are disadvantageous for female students.
Since the cost of education is quite high for poor families, it is a disincentive for

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1153

sending girls to school in Turkey (Müftü 2001). In addition, the conservative family
structure in Turkey is listed among reasons for not sending girls to school. Accord-
ingly, the role for women shaped by conservative value judgements within tradi-
tional relationships view it as more appropriate for girls to take on domestic roles
rather than educational ones, and this creates a negative effect on the schooling of
girls (Bakış et al. 2009). Similarly, Tunç (2009) stated that economic reasons and a
patriarchal social structure along with a conservative family structure are significant
obstacles to the education of girls. As value is not attached to girls’ education, they
are not sent to school. According to Küçüker (2018), one of the reasons why girls
are not sent to school or leave school is the family’s lack of confidence in the child,
the school, and/or the environment. Müftü (2001) reports that families in rural areas
are reluctant to send their daughters to mixed schools for traditional reasons, and
girls drop out of basic education in the fourth grade. In addition, children who are
forced to work in family fields in rural areas cannot attend school. Küçüker (2018)
states that female students’ education comes to an end due to lack of confidence
in the environment they live in, conservatism, poverty, and academic failure. Stud-
ies outside of Turkey reveal a similar gender effect as within Turkey. In addition,
females drop out of school due to reasons such as looking after siblings, which are
related to gender norms as much as they are to economic factors (Ramanaik et al.
2018). Female students may discontinue their education due to adolescent preg-
nancy and early marriage (Psaki 2016). However, it appears that these studies were
performed more in Eastern societies where collectivist cultures are dominant. In
Western literature, we did not encounter any recent study which focused on female
disadvantages in terms of school dropout. Different results may be found in Western
societies about the causes of school dropout related to some of the roles attributed
individuals within social gender roles.

1.3 The present study

Individuals who leave formal education as a result of school dropout are a serious
obstacle to the sustainable social, economic, and cultural development of countries.
In Turkey specifically, students who leave school have higher rates of unemploy-
ment, and lower income jobs than those who graduated from school (Özgü 2015).
For this reason, the issue of school dropout is important, and attempts should be
made to minimize the conditions that may cause it. In this study, school dropout and
factors related to it are discussed within the framework of the ecological approach
developed by Bronfenbrenner (1994). To this end, in-depth interviews were con-
ducted with participants which allowed us to examine the individual, microsystem,
and macrosystem characteristics that informed their reason for dropping out.
School dropout has been the subject of many studies. As a result, consid-
erable knowledge has accumulated with regards to its causes. Research about
school dropout in Turkey has dealt with categories of reasons for dropout (e.g.,
family-related factors, individual factors, etc.) but there are insufficiently inte-
grated investigations showing the reasons for dropout among students who have
dropped out in depth along with the causes. Additionally, when studies in the

13
 1154 M. Koc et al.

literature are examined, it appears data were  gathered from a single source.
However, even if a regression model with 40 risk factors is used to identify stu-
dents with the highest risk, it is stated that 60% of the students predicted to
drop out successfully graduate (Dynarski and Gleason 1998). Therefore, no sin-
gle reason may lead to dropout; it can be argued that the interaction between
the individual, family and school characteristics should be considered in relation
to school dropout. Considering both the ecological approach and the fact that
school dropout is both an individual and a social problem, a multidimensional
approach to school dropout may provide a more comprehensive understanding of
this phenomenon. In addition, Turkey integrates modernity with traditionalism
(Caner et al. 2016) and might exhibit a broad range of views about school drop-
out. Therefore, in the present study, unlike in previous qualitative studies, infor-
mation about the participants was obtained from both the participants and their
family members and teachers, as suggested by the ecological approach. Thus,
the aim was to determine the factors related to school dropout by combining the
opinions of multiple stakeholders affecting school dropout and those affected by
it. Thus, the factors leading to school dropout may be evaluated on the basis of
both the individuals and their environment, and the infrastructure may be estab-
lished for school dropout prevention programs.

2 Method

Participants: The participants were five young adults (three females and two
males) in the age range of 18–22  years, residing in eastern Turkey, who had
dropped out of school. In addition, we interviewed a total of five parents of the
students and a total of five teachers. The parents’ ages ranged from 42 to 57
and teachers’ ages ranged from 37 to 55. The study used the snowball sampling
method (Noy 2008; Yazıcıoğlu and Erdoğan 2007).
Data Collection Tools: A semi-structured interview form was prepared for
data collection and the form was used by the first author during face-to-face
interviews. The form was prepared in three different forms: for students, for par-
ents, and for teachers. These three forms consisted of two parts. The first part
inquired about the participants’ demographic information such as gender and
age. The second part of the forms included open-ended questions such as educa-
tional experiences before school dropout, causes of school dropout, and experi-
ences after school dropout.
Before the creation of the form, the researchers reviewed the literature for
similar research. A 26-item interview form was created at the end of the review.
This form was then sent to two domain experts, and their feedback was received.
Based on the feedback from domain experts, some questions were combined
while other questions that were thought to repeat were removed from the form.
In the final version, the student form contained 18 questions, the parent form
included 15 questions, and the teacher form included 15 questions.

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1155

2.1 Procedure

A list of schools for the province where the study was to be conducted and the drop-
out rates there were examined to randomly choose a school that would voluntarily
agree to participate in the study. Teachers were interviewed on the day and hour
that the school administration deemed appropriate, and eight students who dropped
out were randomly selected. Afterwards, the students were contacted through the
teachers, and their approval was obtained for their acceptance of participation in the
study. Only one of the students refused to participate in the study. The remaining
seven students gave their approval. In the next stage, the parents of the students were
contacted by phone, and they were informed about the purpose of the study and
what was expected of them. The parents of two students refused to participate in the
study.
Data were collected through face-to-face interviews. For this purpose, the coun-
seling service office of the school was used on days and times that were deemed
appropriate. Firstly, individual interviews were conducted with the teachers. After
the teacher interviews were completed, the students were invited to the school, and
interviews were conducted with them separately. In the last stage, the parents of the
students were invited to the school, and one parents who accepted the invitation
came to the school and participated in the interview. Since all interviews took place
in the counseling room, the environment was arranged in advance in accordance
with the interview rules. A voice recorder was used in all of the interviews after the
participants’ written informed consent was obtained. All interviews were completed
within two weeks. Each interview lasted 15–20 min on average.
As the interviewer had received undergraduate and graduate education in the field
of psychological counseling and guidance, he used his counseling skills during the
interview and helped the participants to express themselves comfortably. Also, stu-
dent and parent interviews were conducted after school hours so that the interviews
would not be interrupted and the participants would feel comfortable. Since one of
the participating mothers did not speak Turkish, a teacher speaking Kurdish, who
was also one of the school administrators, participated in the study with the consent
of the mother. As the interviewer himself could also speak Kurdish, the interview
with the mother was conducted in Kurdish. Later, the transcript of this interview
was made by the researcher also speaking Kurdish, and the interview was translated
into Turkish during the analysis. In total, 15 interviews were conducted with five
students, five parents and five teachers.

2.2 Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed. Since the study is based on the Ecological System
Theory, the levels of the ecological system approach were taken as the main theme
in data analysis. Therefore, the deductive approach was embraced and content analy-
sis was used (Mayring 2000; Yıldırım and Simsek 2013). Among the documents,
those belonging to two participants were examined by other researchers and coded

13
 1156 M. Koc et al.

independently. In a panel attended by all researchers, the codes for each researcher
were brought together, and consistency between the codes was checked. Contradic-
tory codes were discussed in the panel environment, and a common code list was
formed by consensus. All documents were coded with this code list. There were no
coding disagreements. After coding, two researchers independently created sub-
themes out of the codes. There was one disagreement about the sub-themes. Hence,
following the comparison of the sub-themes with one another, the consistency
between the codes and the sub-themes was checked by a domain expert independent
of the research team and the disagreement was resolved. The sub-themes were then
matched with the main themes identified in accordance with the Ecological System
Theory. There was no power struggle because all the coding researchers had at least
a master’s degree in psychological counseling and guidance, and there was no status
difference between the researchers.
In accordance with the structure of the  Ecological System Theory, information
about school dropout was obtained from the student, their teachers and their parents.
As a result, the target was to increase validity of the study by including multiple
viewpoints about the same case (Glesne 2012). Therefore, triangulation was estab-
lished through the use of multiple reporters. Triangulation consists of validation of
results from three different groups (Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2007; Ma and Nor-
wich 2007). Also, trustworthiness was controlled by applying the checklist which
Elo et al. (2014) suggested.

3 Results

First, the characteristics of the individuals who dropped out of school were exam-
ined. Various characteristics of the participants are given in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, three of the participants were female, and two were male.
Their ages ranged between 18 and 22. Two of the participants left school in sixth

Table 1  Participant characteristics
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Gender Female Male Female Female Male

Age 19 22 18 20 18
Marital status Married Married Single Single Single
School dropout time Sixth grade Ninth grade Sixth grade Eighth grade Eighth grade
Disciplinary punishment No No No No No
Psychological counseling No N/A No No No
help
Grade repetition No No No No No
Academic achievement Moderate Moderate Good Good Bad
Mother alive/dead Alive Alive Alive Alive Alive
Father alive/dead Alive Alive Alive Alive Alive
Current job/profession Not working Seasonal worker Not working Not working Factory worker

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1157

grade, two in eighth grade, and one in ninth grade. None of the participants received
disciplinary punishment or had grade repetition. Also, they never received any help
from the school psychological counselor during their education. Two of the partici-
pants defined their academic achievement as moderate, two as high, and one as low.
As to the current working life of the participants, the female participants were unem-
ployed and could not enter the labor market, while the male participants worked in
low-income jobs. All participants had a low economic level.
The themes emerging as a result of the interviews conducted with the partici-
pants, their parents and teachers are summarized in Fig. 1 within the framework of
the ecological system approach.
As can be seen from Fig.  1, among the reasons students provided for leaving
school, there are adjustment problems at the individual level; reasons related to fam-
ily, teacher, and economy at the microsystem level; and reasons related to gender at
the macrosystem level. The statements of the participants for each theme and sub-
theme are given below.

3.1 Adjustment problems

Only the teacher said that P2 was experiencing adjustment problems at school dur-
ing the interviews. The teacher expressed this as follows: "He was a student with
problems although he was not very problematic. At first he wanted to change classes
by saying ’I cannot adapt to the class I am in’. He said he would leave school for that
reason." The teacher continued as follows: "When we changed the class, he adapted
well in the beginning. Then in the second semester, he started to be absent again and
said, ’I will work so I will leave school." As seen here, the student could not adjust
to class and initially changed classes saying he wanted to leave school. After the
change, though he adapted to the class, he stated he wanted to work and dropped
out of school. Stated differently, though the reason for school dropout appeared to
be adjustment, another factor led to school dropout. In other words, the problem
could not be solved after the class change. However, adjustment difficulties were

Fig. 1  Framework of the ecological system approach

13
 1158 M. Koc et al.

only expressed by one teacher and neither the participants themselves or their par-
ents emphasized adjustment problems.

3.2 Economic conditions

When interviews were investigated, in general it appears the most commonly

repeated theme was economic conditions. At the same time, apart from P3, all indi-
viduals who dropped out, mentioned economic reasons related to school dropout,
while most parents and teachers mentioned economic conditions as a reason for
school dropout. For example, P1 and her parents and teachers agreed that school
dropout resulted from the family’s financial condition. P1 expressed this as follows:
"My father’s financial condition was not very good. He was not making enough
money. I was trying not to cause expenses as much as I could." Her father said:
"Most of her friends were going to the fields to work. Our daughter said ’I will also
go’ and we said ’okay’. Our financial condition was not good anyway." The teacher
emphasized the economic reasons by saying "When the family is conscious and
meets all needs of the student by providing financial support, she can complete her
education." The teacher also mentioned economic reasons: "The family’s economic
condition was very bad. The whole family, including the children, would go to col-
lect hazelnuts every year. Their house was in very bad condition. I mean, they were
a poor family." As can be seen, both P1 herself, her parents and teacher noted the
importance of economic conditions in school dropout. Similarly, P2, his parents and
teacher agreed that economic causes were effective in P2 dropping out of school. P2
explained why he left school: "I left school for my family. My father could not work
because he had trouble with his foot. I had to work in the industrial site. I needed to
earn money. This is because I was the eldest. So, I had to start to work." His mother
also mentioned economic reasons: "I begged when I first heard it. ’Don’t leave,’ I
said, ’You should have a profession like everyone else.’ Despite all my efforts, he
said, ’No, I will not go, I will earn money.’"; "That child wanted to study but he also
wanted to support his family. He wanted to contribute at home. In other words, it
was his own decision." P2′s teacher also mentioned economic reasons:
I think he told me himself. He said their condition was bad and he had to
drop out of school and work. He stated that he had to work as the eldest child
because his father could not work due to his illness. He would not have left if
the family had had a good economic condition. He was a clever student who
wanted to study. But, the conditions…
Similarly, the teacher said, "The family had a bad economic condition. His father
could not work. The family had a bad financial condition. Maybe that is why the
family did not react to the child because he would work.". Additionally, for P5 simi-
larly all stakeholders emphasized economic reasons for school dropout.
Different from P1, P2 and P5, only P3′s parents and P4 themselves alone stated
that economic reasons were effective in dropping out of school. P3′s mother
expressed her daughter’s dropout due to economic reasons as follows: "Honestly, the
financial condition was not very good. She said, ’Let me work and earn money.’ We

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1159

thought, ’She would go to collect hazelnuts, go cleaning, and so on. She is already
a girl.’ We thought it would not be a problem even if she left after studying some
more. It is enough for her to learn to read and write." She also said, "In fact, if
my financial condition was adequate, I would enable my children to complete their
study. I think education is good and necessary. But, they did not have much inten-
tion to study, either. I did not insist, as well." P4 emphasized the economic reasons
as follows: "Our financial condition was bad. My mother used to argue with my
father all the time." However, P4′s parents and teacher did not emphasize economic
conditions.

3.3 Family impact (family barrier)

When the responses of participants are investigated, no parent appeared to mention

the effect of family, while most individuals who left school stated that at least one
of their family members was effective in their dropping out of school. Additionally,
two of the teachers stated that family affected school dropout. As a result, the family
effect was not seen as a reason for school dropout by families, while it appeared to
be a reason according to individuals and teachers. Looking at the reasons for school
dropout of P1, another barrier for her was her elder brother. With the statement, "I
had two elder brothers. They left school, too. As a result, our parents took a dislike
to school…" P1 expressed the family effect on school dropout. Similarly, the teacher
emphasized the impact of the elder brother as follows: "I tried to communicate, but
I could not. After that, her brother came. I asked him. He tried to make up excuses
like ’My father does not let her. Then I asked her friends. They said the main reason,
the main obstacle was the elder brother." Some of the other participants appeared
to drop out of school due to the effect of family. P3 expressed her prevention by
her father with the following words: "I wish my parents were different. I wish they
wanted me to study. Then I could study easily. Nobody would interfere with me.
But, I had to leave as my father did not want me in school." The family impact is
also clear in the following statement: "I always went to school as long as the people
in the house did not interfere. They did not want me to go much. Sometimes, for
example, they would say, ’Don’t go today, don’t mind it.’" P4 mentioned her father’s
impact as follows: "My father married another woman. I was saying, ’I will com-
plete my education and leave here with my mother. I will earn money, take care of
her, and make sure that my other siblings complete their education’.” P5 said, "’No
one said anything. My father was already saying ’Don’t study.’ I think my uncle was
looking for a worker. He said, ’He may come and work with me.’ As a result, I went
there to work." Thus, he showed the impact of his father and uncle.

3.4 Teacher impact

Only one of the participants mentioned the effect of teachers on school dropout,
additionally, none of the families or teachers mentioned the effect of teachers. P5
stated teachers’ attitudes towards him were one of the reasons why he left school as
follows:

13
 1160 M. Koc et al.

My teachers never liked me. Not even one of my teachers showed interest in
me. I was lazy. Nobody helped me at home, as well. The teachers at the school
were always with the hardworking students. They were always angry with us
or telling us, you sit at the back quietly. I will not interfere with you. So, we
sat at the back. Then everyone was studying. We were looking at them. My
teachers always told me, you will achieve nothing. As they said so, I took more
of a dislike to school. Nobody in my family was studying. When the teachers
acted like that, I left school; If the teachers had shown some more interest in
me, I might not have left school. I would probably have completed my educa-
tion if they had not always told me you will not get a degree, you are not clever
enough, you are lazy, drop out, go to a construction work or industrial site at
least to have a job.

3.5 Culture: gender

When statements related to this theme are investigated, one of the cultural factors of
gender was listed among the reasons for school dropout of female participants, while
male participants, their families and teachers did not mention the gender effect. The
three female participants mentioned the perception among their families and teach-
ers that it was not necessary to education girls. As a result, gender appears to be
a factor that all three stakeholders agreed with. The statement of P1′s father, "The
financial condition is not good anyway. Also, we thought ’As she is a girl, it will not
be a problem even if she does not complete her education’" indicates the perception
about the education of girls. Consistent with this, the teacher said: "When I talked
with her brother, I learned that he did not want her to study because she is a girl. If
she were a boy, they would try to get him to study even if he did not have the capac-
ity." The following words of the teacher show that this perception is accepted cultur-
ally: "… Another point is that she is a girl all in all. I knew that the family would not
provide her with much education…" The following statements of P3′s mother can be
mentioned as examples of gender perception: "I did nothing for girls, but I told the
boys, ’Don’t leave school, go, get at least a primary school diploma.’ But, both came
to nothing." and "Frankly, I said nothing. What can I do? I did not receive education,
either." The teacher of P3 revealed the perception of her family about the education
of girls with the following words: "In the beginning, I thought there was a health
problem, etc. I talked to her family. As she did not come to school for a long time, I
asked them. They said she had dropped out. Then I found out that the family did not
want to send female students to school. We tried hard to convince the family, but it
did not work." The teacher supported this, too. This can be exemplified by the fol-
lowing statement: "Obviously, I did nothing, but the administration and the school
counselor went to the family. The family said, ’She is a girl, this much education is
enough.’ I already knew that family. It was a very troubled family. That is why I did
not do much."
Similarly, P4 dropped out of school with the effect of social gender roles and
cultural factors. P4 stated "Because my father did not want me to go to school. He
kept saying, ’You are a girl. You do not need to study. Go on a little more. Then I

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1161

will remove you from school. In the end, he removed me. He did not allow it. He
did not let me study. He was not very interested in us anyway. In addition to this,
he removed me from school." expressing the negative attitude of the family about
educating girls and as a result had to leave school. The following statements of her
father exemplify this theme:
Well, it is enough for us that they make their living. It is up to her whether she
completes her education or not. Of course, as long as she makes her living.
It does not matter what she does. and she is already a girl. It does not matter
whether she completes her education. After all, she will go and marry some-
body. She finished primary school. She knows how to read and write. That is
enough for her.
P4′s teacher revealed the gender perception in the family as follows:
She was absent many times because of her family. I went to her home after
noticing this. I wanted to reintroduce her to school. I asked the family to send
her to school. I said, It is a pity. Send her to school. Do not destroy her future.
They said, She is a girl. Girls do not study. There is no need for that. In fact,
he was saying it as an excuse. He had other plans. He did not want her to com-
plete her education. He did not care about her because her mother was his ex-
wife.
When the opinions of individuals, their parents, and teachers are examined together,
it can be said that they generally show consistency regarding the reasons for school
dropout. Table 2 presents the reasons for school dropout for each participant.

Table 2  Reasons for school dropout according to individuals, their parents, and teachers
Adjustment Economy Family Teacher impact Gender
obstacle

P1 Herself −  +   +  −  + 

Parents −  +  − −  + 
Teachers −  +   +  −  + 
P2 Himself −  +  − − −
Parents −  +  − − −
Teachers  +   +  − − −
P3 Herself − −  +  − −
Parents −  +  − −  + 
Teachers − − − −  + 
P4 Herself −  +   +  −  + 
Parents − − − −  + 
Teachers − −  +  −  + 
P5 Himself −  +   +   +  −
Parents −  +  − − −
Teachers −  +  − − −

 + indicated,—not indicated

13
 1162 M. Koc et al.

As seen from Table 2, the perceptions of P1, her parents, and teachers regarding
the causes of school dropout are largely consistent. P1′s parents did not mention the
family obstacle, but she and her teachers mentioned it. As to P2, he and his parents
did not say anything about the adjustment problems he experienced at school even
though his teacher mentioned them. Different causes were stated for P3′s school
dropout by herself, her family, and teachers. While P3 stated that she dropped out
of school due to family obstacles, her parents mentioned economic and cultural rea-
sons. On the other hand, her teachers emphasized cultural reasons. P4 stated that she
left school because of financial conditions, but her parents and teachers mentioned
other factors. While P5 himself, his parents, and teachers agreed that school dropout
was due to the economic conditions, he stated that his teachers and parents were also
influential.

3.6 Experiences after school dropout

The study also explored whether the participants were satisfied with their decision
to drop out and what they are doing now. All of the participants have regrets and are
not at the point they want to be in their lives and work in low-income jobs.
P1 expressed this situation as follows: "Well, I see those who go to school and I
envy them on one hand, but I say, ’There is nothing to do’ on the other hand." and
"I work now. For example, we go to collect hazelnuts in summer and we stay there
almost all summer. Then there is the cotton work here. I work there. I go cleaning to
some houses in winter." P2 said, "Now I have dropped out of school. I cannot cre-
ate my future. I work in construction work, etc. It is impossible to make a life in this
way. If I had completed my education, I would have been a police officer, but I could
not complete it."
P3 stated her regret for leaving school as follows: "I am so sorry. Some of my
friends are still studying. I really envy them. I sometimes look at their books, but
I have forgotten almost everything." and "To be honest, I would change the place
where I live before anything else. I would go from here, live in decent places, and
then go to nice schools. I would study." P4 stated that she was very upset after
school dropout, but she accepted it now "I am very sad. I still say, ’Maybe one day
I will complete my education,’ but it is impossible. I have got used to it now. What
can I say? That is life. In the beginning, I cried continuously because I could not go
to school." She said that she was not satisfied with where she was: "I go when there
is a job. I work in fields. I work in sewing workshops in winter. The money suffices
just to buy bread. I am paid so little. We try to go on in one way or another." Simi-
larly, P5 also regrets his decision and said:
My brother goes to school. Sometimes I look after him. School comes to my
mind. I tell him to study, but he is like me. He will regret it, too. I dropped out
and regretted it, but how could I have known at that age? For example, I was
making money in a construction site. I wanted to go there more than school.
Now I see that I will always work like this until I die. However, it would be
better if I had completed my education and had a decent job.

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1163

4 Discussion

The study found the factors related to school dropout in Turkey included adjust-
ment problems at the individual level; family, teachers, and economy at the
microsystem level; and gender at the macrosystem level. The findings of the study
are generally consistent with other studies in the literature in terms of reasons for
school dropout. However, one of the crucial contributions of the present study is
in revealing multiple reporters’ views on the reasons for school dropout and how
they are similar and differ.
Based on teacher opinions, school adjustment was determined to be one of the
individual factors affecting school dropout. It is thought that students who have
problems adjusting to school may fail academically, lose interest in school activi-
ties, and, consequently, do not want to go to school (Jiang and Cillessen 2005).
Students who have problems with school adaptation have a higher tendency to
leave school (Jiang and Cillessen 2005; Shuger 2012). Although determination
of school adjustment as a factor related to school dropout is consistent with the
literature, it is interesting that the adjustment problem was only mentioned by
the teacher and not addressed by the child or his parents. Accordingly, while the
teacher thinks that problems in the school environment may lead to school drop-
out, the child and parent focus more on economic and familial factors. One can
say that the macrosystem and microsystem such as gender, economic conditions
or family impact might be more effective based on the individual’s and their fam-
ily’s views compared to individual characteristics such as adjustment. In addition,
teachers mostly spent time with the individual in the school environment and
might focus on the factors which they can observe during school hours compared
to families.
Economic reasons, which are among the factors at the microsystem level, were
found to have an effect on school dropout as well. We think this situation is expe-
rienced especially in families with a low socioeconomic level. Taş Selvitopu et al.
(2013) stated that the families of students leaving school are generally poor and
may need the children’s labor to cope with economic problems. In such families,
children may want to contribute to the family economy and thus go to work. It
was stated in the related literature that working in any job outside school affects
students’ educational experience negatively and causes school dropout (Tunç
2011; Zorbaz 2018). As a matter of fact, Bridgeland (2010) pointed out that
working outside school for money increases school dropout risk. In this context,
it can be said that due to the harsh working conditions, children may have dif-
ficulty in continuing their school and working life together and may leave school.
Students with a low economic level may be more susceptible to school drop-
out risk because they have fewer social and cultural resources related to school
as well as being required to work in a job and contribute to the family economy
(Parr and Bonitz 2015). Uysal (2008), investigating the environmental and indi-
vidual factors related to school dropout, found that a  low socioeconomic level
makes it difficult for students to attend school. In the present study, economic
reasons were one of the factors mentioned by the children and their parents and

13
 1164 M. Koc et al.

teachers in repetitive themes. Accordingly, it can be said that when children are
expected to contribute to the family economy, the expectation is that this will
occur through working life rather than education. This may lead to school dropout
even if the children do not want to do so.
Another theme among factors affecting school dropout at the microsystem level
is teacher impact. Şimşek (2011) stated that teachers’ attitudes towards their stu-
dents is an important factor influencing decreasing and increasing school dropout.
Chionh and Fraser (2009) stated that  the students with positive relationships with
teachers developed more positive attitudes to school and lessons, while Ma (2003)
stated that students with positive relationships with teachers had higher feelings of
belongingness to school. Most of the time, students might substitute the teacher for
their parents in the school environment. Naturally, they may expect their teachers
to exhibit the behaviors they expect from their parents. According to Ardahan and
Ezici (2015), it is quite natural for students who do not receive support from their
parents not to expect this support from their teachers and school. Therefore, we
think that students who are not sufficiently supported by their teachers may drop out.
In addition, teachers’ low professional motivation and manifestations of this in their
classes, indifferent behaviors towards students, and inability to meet student expec-
tations may increase school dropout risk (Battin-Pearson et  al. 2000). Özer et  al.
(2011) determined that problems that may be experienced in teacher-student rela-
tionships play an important role in school dropout. Consistent with the literature, in
the present study, P5 stated that teachers’ negative attitudes towards him increased
his tendency to drop out. Considering the importance of the teacher in the student’s
sense of belonging to the school and their educational life (Uslu and Gizir 2017),
it is expected that children who have unhealthy communication with their teachers
and who receive negative messages from their teachers will want to leave the school
system.
Another theme in the study at the microsystem level is family impact. Low edu-
cational level of parents, dropout experience in the past, low involvement in school
activities, and low educational expectations from children are accepted as famil-
ial causes of school dropout (Rumberger 1983). Çelik (2014) stated that parental
involvement in the school process and parental monitoring of the child’s educational
performance are among the factors that reduce school dropout risk. The social struc-
ture of families often shapes the decisions they make. As mentioned earlier, this
study was conducted with families with low socioeconomic status. From the family
statements, these families have negative attitudes towards school and education. For
example, P4′s father indicated “It does not matter whether she completes her edu-
cation. After all, she will go and marry somebody.” We think that they do not see
school as an important place for the development of children, but as a place where
children idle their time away. Therefore, they may prevent their children from going
to school. It is also considered to be very difficult for children not to accept such
decisions taken by parents. According to Özdemir et al. (2010), school dropout is a
result that students are doomed to, rather than a choice they make. In other words,
the decision to leave school is not made by children, but their parents. Children can-
not object to such decisions and have to accept them. In contrast, in this study it
is implied that they made their own decision to leave school. The family effect in

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1165

school dropout was dealt with within the framework of family structure, cultural and
environmental features in research (Taş et al. 2013). According to the study results,
most participants mentioned economic conditions among reasons for school dropout
due to living in poverty and the need for children’s labor to relieve the family’s dif-
ficulty making ends meet. Additionally, cultures where a collectivist culture is still
dominant, like Turkey, decisions made by parents may affect their children’s educa-
tional lives. However, the family impact was found to be quite a repetitive theme.
Especially, the parental beliefs that the family cannot attain a desired outcome as a
result of education, may support children’s tendency to drop out.
Gender is also among the factors leading to school dropout, as the role of gender
in school dropout was more evident among female students. The literature includes
studies with findings similar to the present study (Caner et  al. 2016; Müftü 2001;
Küçüker 2018; Ramanaik et  al. 2018). Social attitudes around gender include the
position of men and women in the social structure, the perspectives and expectations
of both sexes, and the duties and responsibilities of both sexes (Sancar et al. 2006).
In a society like Turkey where traditional attitudes are at the forefront, women are
expected to play more part in domestic tasks, which is stated to have an impact on
girls’ school dropout (Bakış et  al. 2009). Similarly, when there is a sibling, an ill
person, or an old person in the house, girls are expected to take a role in their care,
and factors such as moral laws and ignorance play an active role in girls’ dropout
(Börkan et al. 2014). The participants in this study are considered to have attitudes
associated with traditional gender roles, which play a role in girls’ school dropout.
In line with such roles, we think that family members did not want girls to attend
school, but wanted them to help with housework until they reach a certain age, and
then they were expected to get married and have children. We consider such factors
to make it difficult to attend school and that they influence school dropout in Tur-
key, where the characteristics of a patriarchal society are prevalent. In parallel with
this view, Sekine and Hodgkin (2017) pointed out that there is a negative attitude
towards the education of girls in regions where the patriarchal structure is domi-
nant. When the statements of the female participants in the study are examined, their
families had negative attitudes towards their education. In other words, the attitudes
of the society in which they live towards the education of women were influential on
their school dropout.
The participants were also asked about their experiences after school dropout.
The majority of the participants said that they regretted their decision to dropout
and would not make the same decision again. While the male participants work in
low-income jobs, the female participants do not work in any jobs and cannot enter
the labor market. In addition, almost all of the participants were dissatisfied with
the conditions they currently live in and thought that they would have better liv-
ing conditions if they had continued their education. Lansford, Dodge, Pettit and
Bates (2016) found five important outcomes in the lives of students after dropout
and determined that these results are more common among students coming from
families with low socioeconomic status. These include arrest, dismissal, government
assistance, drug use, and poor health. Also, Vanttaja and Jarvinen (2006) examined
individuals who dropped out of school after compulsory education and found that
dropout was associated with lower educational levels and lower job positions. In

13
 1166 M. Koc et al.

addition, it was also observed in the study by Vanttaja and Jarvinen (2006) that some
individuals who dropped out of school returned to school in later years and found
the right position in working life. However, in the present study participants didn’t
have a plan to go back to school. The fact that the findings of Vanttaja and Jarvinen
(2006) are different from those of the present study may be due to differences in
culture and education system. In Turkey, it may be difficult for individuals leaving
school to go back as they enter working life due to economic difficulties or mar-
riages, and Turkey’s education system makes it harder. For example, while it is easy
for a student who drops out of primary school to return to school, it may be more dif-
ficult for a student who drops out of high school. As entry into high school is related
to the transition to high school examination in Turkey, a student who drops out of
school is directed towards open education high school if they want to return. While
the open education high school provides education mostly focused on obtaining a
high school diploma, it does not focus on preparations for university examinations
required to enter higher education organizations like university. As a result, even if
an individual who drops out of high school returns, they may need to expend serious
effort and money to continue to university education. Therefore, young people who
drop out of school may not be able to realize their full potential at later ages, either.

5 Implications

Although individuals, parents, and teachers have similar opinions about the rea-
sons for school dropout, especially about economic reasons, their opinions may
differ about reasons related to familial characteristics and school characteristics.
Therefore, future researchers may be advised to collect data from different sources
to determine the reasons for school dropout and produce a robust view of dropout.
Thus, more comprehensive solutions may be produced for school dropout, which
affects both the individual and the society in which they live. Considering that gen-
der roles play an important role in girls’ school dropout, if preventive studies to be
conducted in countries with similar characteristics aim to change the perception of
families and thus of society regarding such roles, they will contribute to producing
more permanent solutions.

6 Limitations

This study is limited to the data collected from one province in eastern Turkey. The
findings of the study cannot be generalized to other students and their families. Also,
the study used retrospective information. It should be considered that there may be
various biases in the information provided and that some information about the past
may be corrupted. Considering that the interviews were conducted by a psychologi-
cal counselor still receiving a doctoral education, the interviewees may have fallen
into social desirability bias and may not have been completely clear about the factors
related to school dropout.

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1167

7 Conclusion

School dropout is a complex phenomenon which is related to a broad spectrum from

individuals to society itself. Our study contributes by probing the reasons for the
school dropout by interviewing multiple stakeholders in the light of the ecological
approach. We revealed that school adjustment, family and teacher impact, economy
and gender were related to school dropout as indicated by the previous literature.
However, we also found that reasons for school dropout differ based on the reporter.
School adjustment as a reason for school dropout was indicated only by teachers,
not by individuals or families whereas teacher impact was indicated only by indi-
vidual students. Also, economy and gender were the most commonly encountered
sub-themes in all interviews. In addition, family impact was indicated as a reason for
school dropout mostly by the individual students themselves, but their parents never
mentioned their effect on school dropout. Last but not least, all student participants
felt regret about their decision to drop out and found it difficult to enter the labor
market due to school dropout or work in low-status jobs.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest  All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval  All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the Ethical Committe of Hacettepe University and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Dupéré, V., Brault, M. C., & Andrew, M. M. (2017). Individual, social, and
family factors associated with high school dropout among low-SES youth: Differential effects as a
function of immigrant status. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 456–477.
Ardahan, F., & Ezici, M. N. (2015). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyal sermaye pro-
fili, sosyal sermaye ve başarı durumunun çeşitli demografik değişkenlere göre değerlendirilmesi:
Antalya örneği [The Social Capital Profile of the Eighth Class Students, Examine the Social Capital
and Student Achievements With Respect to Some Demographics Variable: Antalya Case]. Sakarya
University Journal of Education, 5(1), 16–36.
Bakış, O., Levent, H., İnsel, A., & Polat, S. (2009). Türkiye’de Eğitime Erişimin Belirleyicileri [Determi-
nants of Access to Education in Turkey]. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Barton, P. E. (2005). One-third of a nation: Risking dropout rates and declining opportunities. Princeton,
NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, D. (2000).
Predictors of early high school dropout A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(3), 568–582.
Börkan, B., Levent, H., Dereli, O., Bakış, O., & Pelek, S. (2014). Temel belirleyicileri açısından
ilköğretimde okula devam ve devamsızlık [School attendance and absenteeism in primary education
in terms of basic determinants]. İstanbul: UNICEF Araştırma Raporu.
Bridgeland, J. M. (2010). The new dropout challenge: Bridging gaps among students, parents, and teach-
ers. New Directions for Youth Development. https​://doi.org/10.1002/yd.366.

13
 1168 M. Koc et al.

Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high
school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associ-
ates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. Handbook of Child
Psychology, 1, 993–1023.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–1647). Oxford: Pergamon
Press/Elsevier Science.
Bryk, A. S., & Thum, Y. M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An explora-
tory investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 353–383.
Caner, A., Guven, C., Okten, C., & Sakalli, S. O. (2016). Gender roles and the education gender gap in
Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 129(3), 1231–1254.
Carley, G. (1994). Shifting alienated student-authority relationships in a high school. Children & Schools,
16(4), 221–230.
Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem
in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environ-
mental Education, 18(1), 29–44.
Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions,
and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–39.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk
students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, 548–581.
Çelik, Ç. (2014). Sosyal sermaye, ebeveyn ağları ve okul başarısı [Social capital, parent network and
school success]. Cogito, 76, 265–289.
Dupéré, V., Goulet, M., Archambault, I., Dion, E., Leventhal, T., & Crosnoe, R. (2019). Circumstances
preceding dropout among rural high school students: A comparison with Urban Peers. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 35(3), 1–20.
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can we help?: What we have learned from evaluations of fed-
eral dropout-prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content
analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244014522633.
EUROSTAT. (2019). Early leavers from education and training by sex and labour status. Retrieved from
Jan 07, 2019 https​://ec.europ​a.eu/euros​tat/web/educa​tion-and-train​ing/data/datab​ase.
Franklin, B. J., & Trouard, S. B. (2016). Comparing dropout predictors for two state-level panels using
Grade 6 and Grade 8 data. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 631–639.
Gamier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. K. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: A 19-year
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 395–419.
Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel Araştırmaya Giriş [Introduction to qualitative researchers]. Anı Yayıncılık:
Ankara.
Haugan, J. A., Frostad, P., & Mjaavatn, P. E. (2019). A longitudinal study of factors predicting students’
intentions to leave upper secondary school in Norway. Social Psychology of Education, 22(5),
1259–1279.
Jerald, C. D. (2006). Identifying potential dropouts: Key lessons for building an early warning data sys-
tem. New York: American Diploma Project Network.
Jiang, X. L., & Cillessen, A. H. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: A meta-
analysis. Developmental Review, 25(1), 1–25.
Kronick, R. F. (1994). The imperative of dealing with dropouts: Theory, practice and reform. Education,
114(4), 530–538.
Küçüker, E. (2018). Kırsal kesimde yaşayan kız çocukların örgün öğretimini terk etme nedenleri [Rea-
sons for dropouts of girls from the formal secondary education living in rural areas]. Education and
Science, 43(195), 97–117.
Küçüker, E. (2019). School dropout through three stories: Uneducated, poverty, patriarchy. Journal of
Education Science Society, 16(64), 94–119.
Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2016). A public health perspective on school
dropout and adult outcomes: A prospective study of risk and protective factors from age 5 to 27
years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(6), 652–658.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data
analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584.

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1169

Ma, A., & Norwich, B. (2007). Triangulation and theoretical understanding. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 10(3), 211–226.
Ma, X. (2003). Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference? The Journal of Educational
Research, 96(6), 340–349.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 20, https​://nbnre​solvi​ng.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs00​02204​.
McDermott, E. R., Anderson, S., & Zaff, J. F. (2018). Dropout typologies: Relating profiles of risk and
support to later educational re-engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 22(3), 217–232.
McDermott, E. R., Donlan, A. E., & Zaff, J. F. (2019). Why do students drop out? Turning points and
long-term experiences. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(2), 270–282.
McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1997). Are students being pulled out of high school? The effect of adolescent employ-
ment on dropping out. Sociology of Education, 70(3), 206–220.
Mcwhirter, J. J., Mcwhirter, B. T., Mcwhirter, E. H., & Mcwhirter, R. J. (2004). At risk youth: A compre-
hensive response (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Müftü, G. (2001). Çocukların Hakları. [Rights of children] Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 151–169
National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Common core of data table: Public high school 4-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR). Retrieved from Jan 07, 2019 https​://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
Nouwen, W., & Clycq, N. (2019). The role of social support in fostering school engagement in urban
schools characterised by high risk of early leaving from education and training. Social Psychology
of Education, 22(5), 1215–1238.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.
Özdemir, S., Erkan, S., Karip, E., Sezgin, F. & Şirin, H. (2010). İlköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin okulu
terk etme nedenleri ve çözüm önerileri [Causes of school dropout among elementary school students
and solution proposals]. TÜBİTAK Projesi, Proje No: 107K453.
Özer, A., Gençtanirim, D., & Ergene, T. (2011). Türk lise öğrencilerinde okul terkinin yordanması: Aracı
ve etkileşim değişkenleri ile bir model testi [Prediction of school dropout among Turkish high
school students: A model testing with moderator and mediator variables]. Education and Science,
36(161), 302–317.
Özer, M. (1991). İlköğretim okulları II. kademede (ortaokul) öğrencilerinin öğrenimi terk etme sonu-
nun analizi [The analysis concerning the quit problem of elementary school second phase (second-
ary school) students] (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Özgü, M. (2015). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin okul reddi ve okul terki risklerinin zorbalık mağduriyet kat-
egorilerine göre incelenmesi. [Examining the risk of school refusal and school dropout of second-
ary school students according to bullying-victimization categories] (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans
Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Parr, A. K., & Bonitz, V. S. (2015). Role of family background, student behaviors, and school-related
beliefs in predicting high school dropout. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(6), 504–514.
Psaki, S. (2016). Addressing child marriage and adolescent pregnancy as barriers to gender parity and
equality in education. Prospects, 46(1), 109–129.
Ramanaik, S., Collumbien, M., Prakash, R., Howard-Merrill, L., Thalinja, R., Javalkar, P., et al. (2018).
Education, poverty and" purity" in the context of adolescent girls’ secondary school retention and
dropout: A qualitative study from Karnataka, southern India. PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1–22.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities:
A case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5),
276–292.
Robison, S., Jaggers, J., Rhodes, J., Blackmon, B. J., & Church, W. (2017). Correlates of educational
success: Predictors of school dropout and graduation for urban students in the Deep South. Children
and Youth Services Review, 73, 37–46.
Roderick. M. R. (1991). The path to dropping out among public school youth: Middle school and early
highschool experiences, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
Rumberger, R. W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and family back-
ground. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 199–220.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625.
Rumberger, R. W., Ghatak, R., Poulos, G., Ritter, P. L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1990). Family influences on
dropout behavior in one California High School. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 283–299.

13
 1170 M. Koc et al.

Sancar, S., Acuner, S., Üstün, İ., Bora, A., & Romaniuc, L. (2006). Bir De Buradan Bak [Look at this
way]. Ankara: Kader yayınları.
Sekine, K., & Hodgkin, M. E. (2017). Effect of child marriage on girls’ school dropout in Nepal: Analysis
of data from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014. PLoS ONE, 12(7), 1–13.
Seppala, M. F. (2000). Dropping out of high school: Students’ perspectives. Unpublished Doctoral Dis-
sertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Shuger, L. (2012). Teen pregnancy and high school dropout: What communities are doing to address
these issues. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and
America’s Promise Alliance.
Sneyers, E., & De Witte, K. (2017). The effect of an academic dismissal policy on dropout, graduation
rates and student satisfaction Evidence from the Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2),
354–389.
Steinberg, L., Blinde, P. L., & Chan, K. S. (1984). Dropping out among language minority youth. Review
of Educational Research, 54(1), 113–132.
Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2006). Educational engagement and degree attainment among high school dropouts.
Educational Research and Quarterly, 29(3), 11–20.
Şimşek, H. (2011). Lise öğrencilerinde okulu bırakma nedenleri ve eğilimleri [Tendency and causes of
school dropout among high school students]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 27–47.
Tas, A., Selvitopu, A., Bora, V., & Demirkaya, Y. (2013). Reasons for dropout for vocational high school
students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1561–1565.
Tunç, A. İ. (2009). Kız çocuklarının okula gitmeme nedenleri Van ili örneği [Causes of leaving school
among girls: Sample of city Van]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 237–269.
Tunç, E. (2011). Okulu terk etmiş ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin benlik algıları ve rehberlik gereksinimler-
inin karşılanma düzeyleri [Self image of high-school students having dropped out of school and
supply levels of needs for counselling] (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
Uslu, F., & Gizir, S. (2017). School belonging of adolescents: The role of teacher-student relationships,
peer relationships and family involvement. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(1),
63–82.
Uysal, A. (2008). Okulu bırakma sorunu üzerine tartışmalar: Çevresel faktörler [Debates on leaving
school: Environmental factors]. Milli Eğitim, 178, 139–178.
Vanttaja, M., & Järvinen, T. (2006). The young outsiders: The later life courses of ‘drop-out youths’.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(2), 173–184.
Wood, L., Kiperman, S., Esch, R. C., Leroux, A. J., & Truscott, S. D. (2017). Predicting dropout using
student-and school-level factors: An ecological perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1),
35–51.
Yadav, S., Kalakoti, P., & Ahmad, N. (2010). Determinants of school dropouts in children. Review of
Global Medicine and Healthcare Research, 1(1), 232–245.
Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2007). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scienific
research methods with SPSS application]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative Research
in Social Sciences]. Seçkin Yayınevi: Ankara.
Zorbaz, O. (2018). Lise öğrencilerinin okul terk risklerini etkileyen öğrenci ve okul düzeyindeki faktörler
[Student and school level factors effecting school dropout of high school students] (Yayımlanmamış
Doktora Tezi). Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Muharrem Koç  is a research assistant in the Division of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Depart-
ment of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education at Hacettepe University, Turkey. He completed his
master’s degree in 2017 in the area of counselling and guidance. His main research interests include gen-
der, psychological well-being, mobbing and school psychological counseling.

Osman Zorbaz  is a counselor at Ankara 4’th Juvenile Court for Ministry of Justice in Turkey. He

13
Has the ship sailed? The causes and consequences of school dropout… 1171

completed  his master’s degree in 2013 and PhD in 2018 in the area of counselling and guidance. His
main research interests are risky and problem behaviors of adolescent especially school dropout and
internet addiction. He also has published research and worked on several projects on self-efficacy of ado-
lescents, school attachment, and school adjustment.

Selen Demirtas‑Zorbaz  Ph.D., is an assistant professor in Ankara University, Turkey. She completed her
bachelor’s degree in counselling in 2008 and a master’s degree in 2011. She completed her Ph.D. thesis
which focused on school adjustment in elementary school students. She also worked as a secretary of
education in the Turkish Counselling and Guidance Association between 2010 and 2013. She gained a
scholarship from the Turkish Council of Higher Education and came to Eastern Michigan University as a
visiting scholar. Her research interests include but are not limited to child counseling, career counseling,
school adjustment and school climate.

13