MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY NGO HOANG THAO TRANG DETERMINANTS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL DROPOUT IN VIET NAM MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THESIS HO CHI MINH CITY 2[.]
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY ng hi ep w NGO HOANG THAO TRANG n lo ad ju y th yi pl ua al n DETERMINANTS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL va n DROPOUT IN VIET NAM ll fu oi m at nh z z jm ht vb MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THESIS k om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th HO CHI MINH CITY - 2010 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY FULBRIGHT ECONOMICS TEACHING PROGRAME ng hi ep w NGO HOANG THAO TRANG n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al DETERMINANTS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL n va DROPOUT IN VIET NAM ll fu m oi Public Policy Major nh at Code: 603114 z z vb k jm ht MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THESIS om an Lu Dr JONATHAN R PINCUS l.c gm SUPERVISOR n va ey t re th HO CHI MINH CITY - 2010 CERTIFICATION ng I certify that the substance of the thesis has not already been submitted for any hi ep degree and is not being currently submitted for any other degrees I certify that to the best of my knowledge any help received in preparing the w n lo thesis and all sources used have been acknowledged in the thesis ad ju y th The study does not necessarily reflect the views of the Ho Chi Minh City yi Economics University or Fulbright Economics Teaching Program pl ua al n Author n va ll fu oi m at nh Ngo Hoang Thao Trang z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ng I would like to express my deep gratitude to my parents who always encourages hi ep me in my life and my studying I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr Jonathan R w n lo Pincus, who has help me in performing the thesis With rich knowledge, experience ad ju y th and enthusiasm, he has effectively contributed to my thesis yi I am graceful to Dr Nguyen Hoang Bao, Mr Nguyen Xuan Lam for thoughtful pl ua al and valuable comments on the early version of my work n I would like to thank all teachers in Fulbright Economics Teaching Program, who va n have retransmitted a lot of their knowledge and experience to me ll fu oi m Last but not least, I express my thanks to all of my friends who help and motivate at nh me in performing the study z z vb Ngo Hoang Thao Trang jm ht Ho Chi Minh City - May, 2010 k om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th ABSTRACT ng The study examines the effects of individual, household, community, and hi ep regional level on the dropout behavior of the child in secondary school in Vietnam by using the logistic regression model The results of the empirical model w n lo confirmed age, working hours per year, education of parents, regions have large ad ju y th effects on the probability of leaving school Meanwhile, household expenditure, the yi number of siblings, the proportion of pupils with reduced contributions, the pupil to pl ua al teacher ratio, the pupil to classrooms ratio and the proportion of classrooms with n good blackboards have small effects on the probability of leaving school Therefore, va n an effective policy recommendation to reduce the dropout rate in secondary schools ll fu oi m in Vietnam is to focus on investing more human capital in the present generation as at nh well as supporting the important role of parent in education, reducing working z hours per year of children and concentrating on the Mekong Delta and South East z k jm ht vb Key words: School dropout; secondary school om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th ABBREVIATIONS ng GSO: General Statistic Office hi MOLISA: Ministry Of Labor –Invalids and Social Affairs ep VHLSS: Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th CONTENTS ng CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………….….…… 01 hi ep 1.1 Problem statement…………………………………………………….….…… 01 1.2 The scope and the purpose of the study….…………………………… ……….02 w n lo 1.3 Research questions of the study ……………………………………… ………03 ad ju y th 1.4 The structure of the study………….………………………………….……… 03 yi CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………… ………… 04 pl ua al 2.1 Concepts …………………………………………………………… …………04 n 2.2 Theoretical background ……………………………………………… ……… 05 va n 2.2.1 Demand for education…………………………………………… ……… 05 ll fu oi m 2.2.2 Education production function………………………………… …………08 at nh 2.3 The framework of determinants of the dropout … …… ……………… ……08 z 2.4 Empirical studies of school leaving in Viet Nam……… …………… ……… 16 z jm ht vb 2.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………….……… 19 CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF SECONDARY SCHOOL IN VIET NAM ….20 k gm 3.1 Schooling trends and dropouts from secondary school in Vietnam…………….20 l.c om 3.2 Analyzing opportunities to access secondary school in Vietnam… ……… …23 n va CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL an Lu 3.3 Conclusion……………….… ….……………………………………………….26 th 4.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………… … 28 ey 4.1 Data………… ………………………………………………………………… 27 t re FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………… …………… 27 4.3 Empirical model…………………………………………………………………30 4.4 Variables in the empirical model………………… ………………… ………30 ng hi 4.5 Conclusion …………………… ……………………………………………….36 ep CHAPTER 5: ANALYZING DETERMINANTS OF DROPOUT SECONDARY w n SCHOOL IN VIETNAM………………………………………………… ………37 lo ad 5.1 Descriptive statistics………………… ……………………………………… 37 y th ju 5.2 Regression results………………… ………………………………………… 43 yi pl 5.3 Interpretation and discussion………………….……………… ……………….45 ua al 5.4 Scenario analysis………………………………………………………… ……50 n va n 5.5 Conclusion…………….… …………………………………………………… 56 fu ll CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION………… ……………………………………… 57 oi m at nh 6.1 Conclusion………… … ………………………………………………………57 6.2 Policy recommendations…………… …………………………………………58 z z k jm REFERENCES ht vb 6.3 Limitations of the study.…………………………………………………………60 om l.c gm APPENDIX an Lu n va ey t re th LIST OF TABLES ng Table 5.1: Logistic regression of school dropout as a function of selected individual, hi ep household, school and demographic characteristics, and the children sample aged 11-18, VHLSS 2006……………………………………………………………… 43 w n lo Table 5.2: Marginal effects of the probability of dropping out…… ……………44 ad ju y th Table 5.3: Predicted dropout probabilty of children by education level of yi parents…………………………………………………………………… ……….52 pl hours working per ua al Table 5.4: Predicted probability of dropping out by n year…………………………………………………………………………………54 va n Table 5.5: Predicted probability of dropping out by region……………………… 55 ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Number of pupils in secondary school in Vietnam from 1999- ng hi ep 2006… 21 Figure 3.2: Secondary education dropout and repeat rate, 1999 – 2004 …… ……22 w n lo Figure 3.3 Secondary education dropout and repeat quantities, 1994-2004….… 22 ad ju y th Figure 5.1: Dropout rate in Vietnam in 2006, by gender and by age…………… 38 Figure 5.2: Dropout rate in Vietnam in 2006, by hours working per year…………39 yi pl Figure 5.3: Dropout rate in Vietnam in 2006, by household expenditure…………39 ua al n Figure 5.4: Dropout rate in Vietnam in 2006, by parent educational level ………40 va n Figure 5.5: Dropout rate of Vietnam in 2006, by urban and regions………………42 fu ll Figure 5.6: Conditional effect plot of dropout probability according to educational oi m at nh level of parents…………………………………………………………………… 53 z Figure 5.7: Conditional effect plot of dropout probability according to hours z jm ht vb working per year………………………………………………………………… 54 Figure 5.8: Conditional effect plot of dropout probability by regions …… ……55 k om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th Appendix 10: Educational expenditure for each level ng hi ep w 1998 100% 73,30% 5,40% 35,27% 19,38% 8,33% 4,92% 26,29% 3,79% 4,80% 12,43% 0,81% 4,86% n Total Education expenditure items Kindergarten Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Others Training items Vocation Intermediate College and university Higher level Others Source MOET (2002) lo ad ju y th yi pl 2001 100% 76,01% 6,97% 32,71% 20,32% 11,02% 4,99% 23,99% 3,30% 3,22% 9,58% 0,48% 7,40% 2002 100% 77,68% 6,97% 31,61% 21,32% 10,40% 7,39% 22,32% 3,24% 2,86% 9,71% 0,46% 6,05% n ua al 2000 100% 75,86% 6,71% 32,17% 20,44% 10,02% 6,52% 24,14% 3,06% 3,54% 9,27% 0,45% 7,82% ll fu expenditure in 2002 n va Appendix 11: Educational benefit range from Government Educational oi m % Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Very poor 31 20 Poor 23 23 16 Average 18 23 22 Rather rich 15 20 28 Rich 13 14 26 Source: The General Report of Vietnam and World Bank (2005) “ Vietnam managing public expenditure for growth and poverty reduction” at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th Appendix 12: Individual, household and school variable descriptive statistic Mean hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m Min Max 0.184 0.387 0.499 13.927 2.481 0.500 2.042 5.917 11 18 36 23.530 0.325 0.106 0.021 2.344 15.140 0.468 0.308 0.143 1.093 0.204 1.979 28.788 16.774 23.648 39.169 88.641 0.164 2.268 32.408 23.176 9.247 6.359 23.797 0 0 4,917 11,846 1.241 32 100 100 86.456 59.438 100 20.815 100 16.150 100 0 0 0 0 0 96.875 1 1 1 1 at nh 34.489 z 31.480 3,379 395.064 1 om l.c n va ey t re th Source: Calculation from the data of the author (n=4369, VHLSS 2006) an Lu 20.883 0.193 0.145 0.343 0.369 0.396 0.337 0.298 0.311 0.398 gm 34.379 0.961 0.021 0.136 0.163 0.195 0.131 0.098 0.109 0.197 4369 k jm ht vb Proportion of teachers over 10 years % University level of head master Higher level of head master Urban Red River Northern Mountain North Central Coast South Central Coast South East Mekong Delta Sample Std Dev z ng Variables Dependent variable Dropout Independent variables Individual characteristics Gender Age Hour working per year (hundred hours) Household characteristics Expenditure (million VND/year) Lower secondary level of parents Upper secondary level of parents Higher level of parents Number of children (unit) School characteristics Cost of schooling (million VND) Distance to school (km) Proportion of reduced fee (%) Proportion of reduced contribution (%) Student-teacher ratio (%) Student –classroom ratio (%) Proportion of classroom with good blackboards (%) Proportion of teachers less years experience (%) Proportion of teachers from to 10 years experience (%) Appendix 13: Test relationship between gender and dropout ng hi Case Processing Summary ep Cases Missing N Percent w Valid N Percent n lo dropout * gender ad 4369 100,0% Total N Percent ,0% 4369 100,0% ju y th yi pl dropout * gender Crosstabulation n va Count % within gender Count % within gender Count % within gender n dropout ua al gender 1825 1741 83,4% 79,8% 362 441 16,6% 20,2% 2187 2182 100,0% 100,0% ll fu oi m Total Total 3566 81,6% 803 18,4% 4369 100,0% nh at Chi-Square Tests z z Asymp Sig Exact Sig Exact Sig (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) ,002 ht df vb Value 9,745(b) k jm Pearson Chi-Square Continuity 9,503 ,002 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 9,758 ,002 Fisher's Exact Test ,002 ,001 Linear-by-Linear 9,743 ,002 Association N of Valid Cases 4369 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b cells (,0%) have expected count less than The minimum expected count is 401,04 om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th Ho: There has no relationship between dropout and gender Pearson Chi Square=9,745 => Asymp.Sig=0,002 Asymp.Sig=0,000 Asymp.Sig=0,000 Asymp.Sig=0,018 Asymp.Sig=0,0005% variance of groups is not different T-test =-2,256 sig=0,0245% variance of groups is different T-test =4,439 sig=0,0005% variance of groups is not different T-test =1.691 sig=0.0915% variance of groups is not different T-test =-0.027 sig=0.978>5% there is no difference having statistic significance about mean pupil classroom ratio between dropout group and not dropout group Proportion classrooms with good blackboards om l.c gm an Lu n va Ho: There has no difference of mean proportion classrooms with good blackboards between dropout group and not dropout group Levene’s test = 5.273 sig =0.022 Asymp.Sig=0,002 Asymp.Sig=0,002 chi2 = 0.0000 reject Ho