Dropout Cases in Philippine Schools Education is the primary need that children should have for they are

said to be the hope of the nation. Nevertheless, Education seemed neglected when many children nowadays are on streets busy for risky works during weekdays. The trend is some children are involved in Child Labor who were supposed to be enjoying proper education. According to Corpuz (2011), the International Labor Organization (ILO) announced that the Philippine Labor Force Survey revealed that as of April 2010, there were 2.4 million working children in the country. These child labor cases were said to be one of the causes and effects of school-leaving as quoted by Corpuz, ILO Philippines Director Lawrence Jeff Johnson said, "Children that combine work with school often drop out, as child labor interferes with their learning. And children who have poor access to education often work to meet immediate family needs, and lack of a better alternative." In the Philippines as further explained, the dropout rate for elementary students has increased over the last 3 years, rising from an average of 5.99% in 2007-2008 to 6.28% in 20092010. This means that 803,836 students dropped out in elementary and 434,517 in high school for school year of 2009-2010 (DepEd, 2011). There have been many issues of dropout incidences in the past 10 years which have fluctuated between 60 % and 80 % in both elementary and secondary levels (DepEd, 2008). These statistics mean that about between 20 to 40 % of Grade 1 pupils do not reach Grade 6; According to Nava (2009), of the 60 to 75 % who enter secondary school, about one-third of them do not finish high school. Nava (2009) in her study of Factors in School Leaving: Variations Across Gender Groups, School Levels and Locations mentioned that studies on Dropping-out have attributed the phenomenon mainly to poverty (Barton, 2006). One extensive critical review of about 50 studies on public school education (Barsaga, 1995) described dropouts as coming from low-income families whose parents had little or no education, and who were unemployed or had jobs that gave them little or irregular income. The study also identified reasons for dropping out such as poor health due to malnutrition, distance between home and school, lack of interest, and teacher factor. It concluded that the education system then was socially selective since most dropouts were from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Additionally, Distance of schools from their homes was also a major cause of dropping out for young elementary pupils. A few dropouts complained about the hike they had to do each day to go to and from school. One Grade 1 dropout (EMR09) from an urban elementary school had to walk alone to school for about 20 minutes. According to him as further emphasized by Nava (2009), his parents were fearful of him being run over by speeding vehicles if he were to

cross the major road on his own, so when no one could accompany him to school, he was told to stay home. His absences accumulated and he was eventually dropped from the class roll. Financial reasons emphasized by Nava (2009) also were a major cause for school leaving among secondary school dropouts. Many of them had to work (50 %), lacked money for projects (50 %), and for daily allowance or pocket money (41 %). Those who had to work part-time were also beset by school-related problems. One male dropout from an urban high school (HMU17) recalled that he was frequently absent, and found it hard to cope with his numerous school requirements, which consequently led to his poor school performance. Moreover, the impact of social influences on school life was pronounced among this group of dropouts (Nava, 2009). High school dropouts cited peer influence and family problems (both 14 %) as reasons for leaving school. This finding concurs with those of an earlier study (Ballo-Alzate, 2007) cited by Nava (2009); peer pressure played a crucial role in what adolescents did and did not do. It is characteristic of many secondary school dropouts from urban areas, according to one teacher (TUH07) from an urban high school. Adolescent students could easily be swayed by their barkada (peers), some of them sacrificing their schooling in order to be accepted, she explained. Thus, evaluation of dropout intervention programs has to be carefully designed and systematically implemented. Among the interventions already in place are the UNICEF ChildFriendly School System and Student Tracking System (STS), the No Dropout Learning System for Education For All (NO-DROPS), and the Alternative Learning System (ALS) centers not only accept dropouts or out-of-school youths, but are also open to adults who want to go back to school and learn and they are free (Padilla, 2011). Moreover, Drop-out Reduction Program (DORP) offers alternative delivery programs that aim to keep students in school and finish their basic education which was recently initiated by the Department of Education (Malipot, 2011). Under this program are: Open High School Program (OHSP), DepEd Order No. 46, which provides access to those who are not capable of coming to school every day for justifiable reasons. It is a distance education program with unique features like self-directed learning and acceleration by learning area or by year level. This allows working students or previously out-ofschool-youth to continue studying using specialized learning modules. Second is the Schools Initiated Interventions (SII), wherein the school itself designs the kind of help a student needs according to his/her unique circumstances (Hannibal, 2010). The SII has enabled schools to determine, based on interview, specific problems of students or the real causes for dropping out. Lastly, the Effective Alternative Secondary Education (EASE) is an alternative learning system for secondary school students who cannot report to their classes regularly, for justifiable reasons: part-time job, illness in the family, seasonal work, distance from school, calamitous events, peace and order problem, absence of regular public transportation and the like (Andrada, 2008). These programs should be implemented and such awareness should lead to the formulation of coordinated and appropriate strategies that should specifically address the issues threatening potential dropouts.