View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Quality of Education in Migration Hotspot Areas in Ethiopia: Input-Process-Outcome-Context Approach

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Quality of Education in Migration Hotspot Areas in Ethiopia: Input-Process-Outcome-Context Approach
Language: English
Authors: Fantahun Admas (ORCID 0000-0003-3748-0434), Abebaw Minaye, Kassahun Habtamu, Seleshi Zeleke, Abera Tibebu, Mesay Gebremariam Kotecho, Yohannis Adgeh, Habtamu Getnet
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Educational Quality, Educational Opportunities, Foreign Countries, Student Attitudes, Migration, Parent Attitudes, Teacher Attitudes, School Effectiveness, Creativity, Teacher Effectiveness, Student Motivation, Poverty, Class Size, Educational Attitudes
Geographic Terms: Ethiopia
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12662
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: While the lack of educational opportunities limits the future of most people in Ethiopia, they pose dire consequences to young people in migration hotspot areas. Using input-process-outcome-context-education quality framework, this study investigated the quality of education in eight migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia and its association with migration. A random sample of 1,187 participants (793 students, 262 teachers and 132 parents) completed a survey. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that participants' overall rating of education quality was low. Over a third of participants perceived that input, process and outcome components of education in migration hotspot areas have a quality problem. Over 80% of the participants believed that poor quality of education could be a cause for migration. More specifically, a significant portion of the participants (37%) reported that there was no pedagogical centre in their respective schools; continuous assessment was practiced rarely (36%); and creativity and discovery among students was almost non-existent (40%). The participants' ratings indicated that the top five factors that contribute to the poor quality of education are low level of teacher competence, poor student motivation, poverty, value attached to education and large class size.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1434555
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFfgpAxwRq5QChGwLGvcI32AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH5FkgnoW4Qvb0WecQIBEICBmlNcLC-nPTiYIbhGAC8lEPnPkP5lc97qjkyzU_ZpeP-uwgOF_smbM1NT478m3vCpC9XfV4aUFa_vcVLtq95TxKTh8MosNwAwu175ofLt0iAjypsAdPYXr93RRLamm7tlj80xMo2tj6JxuY65FeD7jJfu-LkukF054wtBYmYGJlvW_4v6-0X4uAoksJUT6vW0ZIV3r2qqhNsoQkQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178882258;eje01sep.24;2024Aug09.05:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178882258-1">Quality of education in migration hotspot areas in Ethiopia: Input‐process‐outcome‐context approach </title> <p>While the lack of educational opportunities limits the future of most people in Ethiopia, they pose dire consequences to young people in migration hotspot areas. Using input‐process‐outcome‐context‐education quality framework, this study investigated the quality of education in eight migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia and its association with migration. A random sample of 1,187 participants (793 students, 262 teachers and 132 parents) completed a survey. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that participants' overall rating of education quality was low. Over a third of participants perceived that input, process and outcome components of education in migration hotspot areas have a quality problem. Over 80% of the participants believed that poor quality of education could be a cause for migration. More specifically, a significant portion of the participants (37%) reported that there was no pedagogical centre in their respective schools; continuous assessment was practiced rarely (36%); and creativity and discovery among students was almost non‐existent (40%). The participants' ratings indicated that the top five factors that contribute to the poor quality of education are low level of teacher competence, poor student motivation, poverty, value attached to education and large class size.</p> <p>Keywords: input quality; migration; outcome quality; process quality; quality of education</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Improving education quality has become one of the key objectives of the global education agenda. One of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (UN's SDGs, Goal 4), directly addresses quality education (UN, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). However, the meaning of quality education continues to be contested. Divisions arise because the meaning of quality of education depends upon the culture, economy and politics of a country (Garira, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]; Luong & Nieke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). For example, limited access to physical infrastructure, teaching and learning facilities and materials remain crucial unconquered barriers to a quality education in low income countries. Whereas, in the developed world, these education quality indicators have so long been achieved (Tikly, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref4">30</reflink>]) and they seem almost irrelevant. As a result, there is no universally accepted definition, or indicator, of quality education (Luong & Nieke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]). Politicians and academics alike have offered competing definitions, each reflecting different agendas and objectives, ranging from UN organizations (e.g. UNESCO) to researchers (e.g. Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]). As a result, quality of education has been conceptualized from the point of view of human capital (Wils et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]), human rights (Tikly & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]), social justice (Sayed & Ahmed, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]), human capabilities (Tikly, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]), input‐process‐outcome (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2002: Luong & Nieke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]) and input‐process‐outcome‐context (Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The human capital approach emphasizes investment in education as a major contributor to economic growth (Santos, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]; Tikly, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref15">30</reflink>]). However, it does not, by itself, provide a framework for understanding or evaluating education quality (Tikly & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]). Instead, the human capital approach guides policymakers along an important economic rationale and provides them an adept tool to focus on education quality. Human capital's influence can be felt in, for example, the influential UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref17">35</reflink>] quality framework (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]). The human rights approach as an alternative to understanding quality of education stresses the individual's right to receive exemplary education. In this approach, quality of education conceptualizations and directives seek teaching approaches that can be broadly identified as learner‐centred and which foster democratic school structures (Tikly & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The social justice approach to education quality expands considerably on the human capital and human rights approaches. In this approach, the principles of equity, participation and diversity work together to conceptualize quality (Sayed & Ahmed, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]). From the perspective of social justice, Tikly and Barrett ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>], p. 9) described quality of education in dimensions of 'inclusion, relevance and democracy'. In it, capabilities of humans are also considered essential in defining quality of education. Capabilities here refer to the various functioning that a person can attain and examples of functioning are being healthy, being educated, holding a job, being part of a nurturing family, having deep friendships, etc. (Robeyns, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]). The capabilities perspective not only recognizes that both economic growth and the realization of human rights are important for their own sake, but also sees they become a means for achieving fundamental freedoms and wellbeing both at the individual and collective level. Human capabilities approach has remarkably wider vision towards the development of the individual (Tikly, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Input‐process‐outcome approach is another competing framework sometimes used to define and conceptualize quality of education (Luong & Nieke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]). In this approach, inputs may include such things as: policies, strategies and standards; human resources, infrastructure, facilities, curriculum and materials; and financial resources that determine the quality of education. Process, meanwhile, consists of managing and organizing, networking and partnership, teaching and learning, and monitoring and assessing. The outcome component of education quality refers to the individual learner's acquisition of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes as a result of the inputs and processes put into them (Luong & Nieke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of all of these, Scheerens ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]) suggests the most comprehensive model of education quality to date. Defined and refined over the past 30 years, his concept has come to be known as the input‐process‐outcome‐context model. This model's superiority comes because it clearly indicates what inputs and processes are necessary, given a context, to produce outcomes that ensure quality of education (Abate et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]). Indicators are also provided for the input (e.g. financial and human resources invested in education, background conditions of the students), process (e.g. access, participation, progression, transition school to work learning environment and organization), outcome (e.g. achievement, labour‐market outcomes) and context (e.g. demographic, social and economic context of education). This model considers the context of learning as the single most important factor in determining quality of education. We chose the input‐process‐outcome‐context model as the framework for this study because a study site would be a socially complex migration hotspot area, where participants' social, economic and demographic conditions would all matter.</p> <p>Yet, no matter which approach researchers prefer, the concept educational quality in Ethiopia remains less or not explored. A small‐scale study conducted in five secondary schools in Ethiopia revealed that teachers believed in low education quality in process and output components and better education quality in input component (Dagnew & Asrat, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]). Parents, meanwhile, are intensely concerned about the lack of quality of education (Boyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]), and associate quality of education mostly with input quality (Alderman et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]), trained and qualified teachers, strong academics, co‐curricular activities, discipline and moral values, infrastructure and facilities and safe, nurturing and warm environment (Noman & Kaur, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]). In another study, parents associate higher education quality with higher academic achievement (Gibbons & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref32">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Ethiopian education system focuses on providing free education to children aged between 5 and 18 years. The 5 and 6‐year‐olds in pre‐primary level, 7–12 in primary, 13 and 14 in the middle and 15–18‐year‐olds in secondary level education. The vison of the Ethiopian education system is 'Sustainably building an education and training system that ensures quality and equitable education for all citizens and that continuously produces a competent and competitive workforce fueling the country's economic development' (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>], p.1).</p> <p>The quality of education in Ethiopia is believed to be poor. In general, the poor quality of education in Ethiopia threatens everyone's future. It has long been critiqued by scholars such as Negash ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]) as declining from its current level of crisis to the brink of collapse. Negash argued that quality of education at the imperial time (1930–1974) was far better than the socialist (1975–1990) and federal Ethiopia (1991–present). The 2007 Ethiopian National Learning Assessment (NLA) in grades 4 and 8 showed that student achievement still fell below the required levels, which was attributed to poor school organization and management, teacher training, no school supplies, outdated curricular and instructional materials, and the language of instruction (MoE, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]). Research conducted for over a decade also showed that quality of education in Ethiopia remained desperately inadequate (see Asgedom et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]; Bishaw & Lasser, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>]; Fekede & Fiorucci, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]; Admas & Teferra, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Specifically, the migration hotspot areas in Ethiopia are exposed to factors that compromise quality of education such as giving less attention to learning. Most migrants are young men and women who did not complete their education, and therefore, see their only economic future in domestic service and manual labour (Anteneh, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]; Malamassam, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref41">18</reflink>]). Their migration is usually dangerous and illegal, and most of them will be abused and exploited, if not killed, outright, at some point (Habtamu et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The quality of education in the study sites is not known. However, another study conducted in the same study sites linked quality of education and migration, and suggested improving the education system as the chief mechanism to reduce unsafe migration to the Middle East and South Africa (Habtamu et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]). By implication, here, context, that is, being a migration hotspot area, is believed to differentially affect the quality of education, and the migration of some individuals influences the educational decisions of those who stay behind (Dustmann & Glitz, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>The aim of this study was, therefore, to examine the perception of students, teachers and parents about the input, process and outcome quality of education in the context of migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia and their relationship with migration, as well as to identify those factors most significantly associated with, and likely to raise, the quality of education.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-3">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178882258-4">Design</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger thematic research project undertaken to study the nexus among unsafe migration, quality of education and gender in the migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia. Specifically, this study assesses the quality of education from the perspectives and perceptions of students, teachers and parents in light of input‐process‐outcome‐context approach. For its most practical purposes, therefore, researchers employed a survey‐research design.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-5">Study sites and participants</hd> <p>This study is conducted in Ethiopia, an East African ancient nation with a history of over 3000 years. A 3.2‐million‐years‐old fossil, Lucy or Dinkinesh, believed to be one of humankind's oldest ancestors, was discovered in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is the only African nation which has its own Ethiopic alphabets, indigenous formal education systems, ancient Geez literature and ancient civilization. Ethiopia is now home to over 80 ethnic groups and languages that constitute over 110 million people. Among which, 80% dwell in rural areas and make their livelihood in agriculture (Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]). Modern education was introduced to Ethiopia in 1900 (Pankhurst, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants of this study were selected from eight purposively identified migration hotspot areas in Ethiopia (Anteneh, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>]; Minaye, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref48">20</reflink>]). These areas included: Assela, and Jimma from Oromia regional state; Shewa Robit, Desie and Kemisie from Amhara regional state; Hossana, and Butajira from South Nations, Nationalities and Peoples regional state; and Atsbi Wonberta from Tigray regional state. Following the selection of sites, multistage sampling technique was employed to select students, teachers and parents. One school with grades 7–12 was selected from each region. After the selection of the schools, one section from each grade level (7–12) was selected. On the average, 100 students, 30 teachers and 16 parents were randomly selected from each study site. A total of 1,187 participants (793 [66.8%] students, 262 [22.1%] teachers and 132 [11.1%] parents) participated in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-6">Measures</hd> <p>We consulted the literature to identify education quality indicators (e.g. Scheerens et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]). The quality of education indicators identified from the literature review were used for the qualitative study conducted prior to this study. We then developed a contextualized measures of quality of education after reviewing extensive amounts of literature and considering results from a prior qualitative study. Having a keener understanding of migration hotspots as a context, we then began to assess the input, the process and the outcome components of quality of education. The input quality indicators were services provided, curriculum content, teacher and student‐related issues, parental and community involvement and finance‐related issues. As process quality indicators, the teaching‐learning process was assessed. Outcome quality indicators were as follows: overall student achievement, English language, Math and Science competence, creativity and related factors. A total of 61 (31 input, 18 process and 12 outcome) quality indicators were developed. Brief descriptions of the input, process and outcome quality measures are provided below.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-7">The input scale</hd> <p>This scale was used to determine the presence and adequacy of input quality indicators in terms of services, curriculum, teacher and student‐related issues, parental involvement and financial sources. Services were assessed against presence, adequacy and quality of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, pedagogical centres and teaching aids, information communication technology (ICT) and furniture. The curriculum‐related items focused on curriculum relevance, and textbook availability. The teacher‐related items addressed teachers' salary, motivation, qualification and English language competence. The student‐related items focused on students' motivation, value to education and discipline. The parental/community involvement items were based on community's value of education, and support offered to the education system. Financial resources addressed limited budget and related issues. In this scale, the higher scores indicate perception of participants. The input quality scale had 31 items.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-8">The process scale</hd> <p>This scale measured the frequency of use of process quality indicators, covering continuous assessment, communication skills, cooperative learning, teacher support and follow‐up, homework and classwork, pedagogy, administrative and other related issues. Higher scores in this scale indicate the perception of better process quality of education among study participants. The process quality scale had 18 items.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-9">The output scale</hd> <p>This scale assessed the outcome quality of education through indicators such as academic achievement, national exam scores, dropout rate, student discipline, Math, Science and English language competence. The higher score in this scale indicates the better outcome quality of education perception of participants. The outcome quality measure had 12 items.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-10">Factors that lower quality of education</hd> <p>In this part of the data collection tool, 20 factors thought to be lowering the quality of education were identified. Participants were asked to rate the factor's level of contribution to low quality from 'not at all' contributing low quality to 'highly' contributing to low quality of education. Based on the responses of the participants, the factors were rank ordered.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-11">Data analyses</hd> <p>We analysed data using both descriptive and inferential statistics. We used descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation) to describe the perceptions of students, teachers and parents about quality of education. We used inferential statistics to examine group differences in perceived quality of education and relationships among input, process and output education quality. Using ANOVA helped us to analyse group (students, teachers and parents) differences in perceptions of the quality of education. We added correlation and regression analyses to further examine association between input and process quality and other socio‐demographic variables seen in outcome education quality. Finally, <emph>t</emph>‐test was used to examine gender difference in perceiving quality of education.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-12">Ethical considerations</hd> <p>To ensure that the study complied with the appropriate ethical standards, we sought and obtained preapproval for all the procedures we followed. First, the proposal of this study was reviewed by a technical committee established by the Director for Research and Technology Transfer which functions under the Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer of Addis Ababa University. This committee approved the proposed study and wrote a letter of support, thereby allowing us to proceed with the study.</p> <p>Second, we assessed all plausible risks to the participants in terms of physical, social psychological repercussions. Then, as per the American Psychological Association Guidelines, major ethical concerns were addressed which, among others, included obtaining oral informed consent of participants, maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of participants as necessary, and informing participants of their right to withdraw if they felt uncomfortable at any stage of the study. Participants in this study (students, teachers and parents) were informed about the objectives of the study, and the entire process was explained to them. Only after taking these steps were they asked to provide oral consent.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-13">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178882258-14">Background characteristics of the respondents</hd> <p>A total of 1,187 respondents (students, teachers and parents) participated in this study. These groups of participants represent major stakeholders in the education sector. Students comprised nearly 66% of the participants and below 20 years in age. Almost all participants had completed primary, secondary or above in education. The number of participants was approximately the same at each site (see Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE Socio‐demographic characteristics of participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Characteristics</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char" char=".">656</td><td align="char" char=".">55.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char" char=".">529</td><td align="char" char=".">44.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respondent type</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student</td><td align="char" char=".">793</td><td align="char" char=".">66.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher</td><td align="char" char=".">262</td><td align="char" char=".">22.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent</td><td align="char" char=".">132</td><td align="char" char=".">11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years of education</td></tr><tr><td align="left">0</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1–4</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td><td align="char" char=".">0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5–8</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td><td align="char" char=".">15.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9–10</td><td align="char" char=".">403</td><td align="char" char=".">34.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11–12</td><td align="char" char=".">258</td><td align="char" char=".">21.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">>12</td><td align="char" char=".">325</td><td align="char" char=".">27.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><20</td><td align="char" char=".">743</td><td align="char" char=".">63.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21–30</td><td align="char" char=".">179</td><td align="char" char=".">15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30–40</td><td align="char" char=".">145</td><td align="char" char=".">12.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">>40</td><td align="char" char=".">103</td><td align="char" char=".">8.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Study site</td></tr><tr><td align="left">AtsbiWonerta (Tigray)</td><td align="char" char=".">149</td><td align="char" char=".">12.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dessie (Amhara)</td><td align="char" char=".">139</td><td align="char" char=".">11.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kemissie (Amhara)</td><td align="char" char=".">158</td><td align="char" char=".">13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ShewaRobit (Amhara)</td><td align="char" char=".">150</td><td align="char" char=".">12.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hossana(SNNP)</td><td align="char" char=".">138</td><td align="char" char=".">11.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Butajira (SNNP)</td><td align="char" char=".">156</td><td align="char" char=".">13.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Assela (Oromia)</td><td align="char" char=".">146</td><td align="char" char=".">12.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jimma (Oromia)</td><td align="char" char=".">151</td><td align="char" char=".">12.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178882258-15">Quality of education as perceived by students, teachers and parents</hd> <p>As can be seen from Table 2, over 60% of students, teachers and parents combined rated the input quality of education as 'inadequately available' in their respective schools. When we closely re‐examined participants' perceptions of input quality indicators at the subscale level, we found that this percentage varies slightly across some categories. For example, student‐related input quality indicators (e.g. student motivation, effort etc.) were rated as inadequately present by over 66% of the participants. Similarly, curriculum (e.g. curriculum relevance), teacher (e.g. teacher satisfaction), community (e.g. community involvement) and finance (e.g. budget)‐related factors were rated as 'inadequately present' by majority of respondents.</p> <p>2 TABLE Presence and adequacy of quality indicators (N  = 1,187).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Quality type</th><th align="left">Level of adequacy</th><th align="left" /></tr><tr><th align="left">Absent (%)</th><th align="left">Inadequately present (%)</th><th align="left">Adequately present (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Input quality</td><td align="char" char=".">16.9</td><td align="char" char=".">60.5</td><td align="char" char=".">21.8</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Service related</td><td align="char" char=".">15.6</td><td align="char" char=".">56.9</td><td align="char" char=".">27.5</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Curriculum related</td><td align="char" char=".">7.9</td><td align="char" char=".">61.8</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher related</td><td align="char" char=".">17.7</td><td align="char" char=".">59.4</td><td align="char" char=".">23</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Student related</td><td align="char" char=".">20.4</td><td align="char" char=".">66.1</td><td align="char" char=".">13.6</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Community/parent</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">61.6</td><td align="char" char=".">19.5</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Finance related</td><td align="char" char=".">20.8</td><td align="char" char=".">61.8</td><td align="char" char=".">17.4</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Never (%)</td><td align="left">Rarely (%)</td><td align="left">Sometimes (%)</td><td align="left">Always (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Process quality</td><td align="left">10.6</td><td align="left">27.8</td><td align="left">33.8</td><td align="left">27.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcome quality</td><td align="left">12.3</td><td align="left">32.8</td><td align="left">41.4</td><td align="left">13.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Participants were also asked to indicate how consistently process quality indicators were implemented at their school. They reported that process quality indicators were implemented but their adequacy was questionable. For example, nearly 34% of the participants indicated that these indicators were implemented 'sometimes. Close to 28% of the participants reported that the process quality indicators were implemented in their respective school system 'rarely'. Slightly more than a quarter of the participants acknowledged that process quality indicators were implemented 'always'. Over 10% reported that the process indicators 'never happened' in their school.</p> <p>Outcome quality was also assessed against overall achievement, national examination scores, competence in Math, English language and ICT to mention a few. Similar results were observed in the outcome quality. A significant number of the participants indicated that outcome quality indicators were not observed in their school system. Over 12% of the participants indicated that outcome quality indicators were not observed in their school. Likewise, nearly 33% and over 41% of the participants indicated that the outcome quality indicators were observed 'rarely' and 'sometimes' respectively. Only 13.5% of the participants indicated that their schools fulfil the quality indicators 'always'. In general, the majority of the study participants perceived that quality of education in migration hotspot areas had significant problems.</p> <p>Item‐by‐item analysis was also made to closely see the perception of participants on the quality of education. Each item was analysed (Tables 3–5), but only salient items are described. It is clearly seen that almost all indicators were rated as 'inadequately available' by 50%–60% of the study participants.</p> <p>3 TABLE Frequency distribution of input quality indicators (N  = 1,187).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Input quality indicators</th><th align="left">Availability</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Not available (%)</th><th align="left">Inadequately availability (%)</th><th align="left">Adequately availability (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Services</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classrooms</td><td align="char" char=".">5.5</td><td align="char" char=".">61.8</td><td align="char" char=".">32.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Library</td><td align="char" char=".">8.7</td><td align="char" char=".">63.3</td><td align="char" char=".">27.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Laboratory</td><td align="char" char=".">26.5</td><td align="char" char=".">53.2</td><td align="char" char=".">20.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pedagogical centre</td><td align="char" char=".">36.9</td><td align="char" char=".">50.5</td><td align="char" char=".">12.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching aids</td><td align="char" char=".">16.9</td><td align="char" char=".">63.3</td><td align="char" char=".">19.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ICT</td><td align="char" char=".">22.2</td><td align="char" char=".">57.4</td><td align="char" char=".">20.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Toilet for males and females</td><td align="char" char=".">13.2</td><td align="char" char=".">56.8</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Blackboard</td><td align="char" char=".">5.4</td><td align="char" char=".">47.2</td><td align="char" char=".">47.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chairs and desks</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3</td><td align="char" char=".">60.1</td><td align="char" char=".">34.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Water</td><td align="char" char=".">13.4</td><td align="char" char=".">59</td><td align="char" char=".">27.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Electricity</td><td align="char" char=".">17.1</td><td align="char" char=".">53.1</td><td align="char" char=".">29.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Curriculum related</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Curriculum relevance</td><td align="char" char=".">2.9</td><td align="char" char=".">65.8</td><td align="char" char=".">13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Textbooks</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td><td align="char" char=".">64.3</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher related</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Salary and benefits</td><td align="char" char=".">21.7</td><td align="char" char=".">55.8</td><td align="char" char=".">22.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Job satisfaction</td><td align="char" char=".">25.8</td><td align="char" char=".">54.4</td><td align="char" char=".">19.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">English language competence</td><td align="char" char=".">14.4</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char=".">22.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers' qualification</td><td align="char" char=".">8.7</td><td align="char" char=".">64.5</td><td align="char" char=".">26.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student related</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motivation and interest</td><td align="char" char=".">21.3</td><td align="char" char=".">66.6</td><td align="char" char=".">12.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Values to education</td><td align="char" char=".">18.4</td><td align="char" char=".">66.7</td><td align="char" char=".">14.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">18.2</td><td align="char" char=".">68.2</td><td align="char" char=".">13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Promotion policy</td><td align="char" char=".">16.6</td><td align="char" char=".">64.5</td><td align="char" char=".">18.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Effort to learn</td><td align="char" char=".">15.7</td><td align="char" char=".">71.1</td><td align="char" char=".">13.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">English language competence</td><td align="char" char=".">31.9</td><td align="char" char=".">59.5</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Community/parent</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Value to education</td><td align="char" char=".">18.1</td><td align="char" char=".">63.5</td><td align="char" char=".">18.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Support to education</td><td align="char" char=".">15.2</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char=".">21.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respect to teaching profession</td><td align="char" char=".">24.3</td><td align="char" char=".">54.1</td><td align="char" char=".">21.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Involvement in education</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">63.5</td><td align="char" char=".">18.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Support and follow‐up to students</td><td align="char" char=".">19.6</td><td align="char" char=".">63.9</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Finance related</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Government budget</td><td align="char" char=".">18.2</td><td align="char" char=".">65.3</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Internal revenue</td><td align="char" char=".">23.5</td><td align="char" char=".">58.3</td><td align="char" char=".">18.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In the input quality assessment, interesting results emerged. Almost 37% of the participants reported that pedagogical centres were not available in their schools. The second highest indicator rated as not available was English language competence. It was rated as 'Not Available' by nearly 32% of participants. Indicators that were rated by 20% and above participants as 'Not Available' were Laboratory (26.5%), ICT (22.2%), salary and benefits of teachers (21.7%), job satisfaction of teachers (25.8%), motivation and interest of students to education (21.1%) and respect to teaching profession by the community/parents and internal revenue of schools (23.5%). It should also be noted that many of the indicators were rated as 'inadequately available' by over 60% of participants. For example, curriculum relevance (65.8%), teaching aids (63.3), students' motivation and interest in learning (66.6%), value students place on education (66.7%), student discipline (68.2%) and government budget for education (65.3%) were rated as 'inadequately available'. Indicators rated by 30% and above participants as 'adequately available' were available blackboards (47.4%), classroom (32.4%), restrooms for males and female students (30%) and enough chairs and desks (34.6%). English language competence was rated as adequate only by 8.6% of the participants.</p> <p>As Table 4 shows, over 50% of the participants perceived that the process quality indicators were practiced 'rarely' or 'sometimes'. After doing the item‐by‐item analysis, investigators re‐examined the data again to see which of the most salient factors might require additional explanation (see Table 4 for details).</p> <p>4 TABLE Frequency distribution of process quality indicators (N  = 1,187).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Process quality indicators</th><th align="left">Level of practice</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Never (%)</th><th align="left">Rarely (%)</th><th align="left">Sometimes (%)</th><th align="left">Always (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teachers practice continuous assessment</td><td align="char" char=".">7.6</td><td align="char" char=".">36.6</td><td align="char" char=".">28.1</td><td align="char" char=".">27.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers use effective communications skills</td><td align="char" char=".">7.6</td><td align="char" char=".">29.6</td><td align="char" char=".">33.2</td><td align="char" char=".">29.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Co‐operations of students among themselves</td><td align="char" char=".">9.3</td><td align="char" char=".">29.4</td><td align="char" char=".">39.5</td><td align="char" char=".">21.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher support for students</td><td align="char" char=".">5.6</td><td align="char" char=".">25.1</td><td align="char" char=".">32.1</td><td align="char" char=".">37.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers' follow‐up of students</td><td align="char" char=".">8.1</td><td align="char" char=".">25.3</td><td align="char" char=".">31.4</td><td align="char" char=".">35.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classworks and activities</td><td align="char" char=".">4.3</td><td align="char" char=".">25.1</td><td align="char" char=".">34</td><td align="char" char=".">36.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Homeworks</td><td align="char" char=".">5.6</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char=".">29.3</td><td align="char" char=".">39.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Effective teaching methods (pedagogy) employed</td><td align="char" char=".">13.5</td><td align="char" char=".">27.4</td><td align="char" char=".">32.8</td><td align="char" char=".">26.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Coverage of textbook contents in the academic year</td><td align="char" char=".">13.1</td><td align="char" char=".">26.9</td><td align="char" char=".">33.5</td><td align="char" char=".">26.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subject matter knowledge of teachers</td><td align="char" char=".">4.7</td><td align="char" char=".">21.9</td><td align="char" char=".">35.6</td><td align="char" char=".">37.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Addressing the needs of students with special needs</td><td align="char" char=".">14.9</td><td align="char" char=".">29.1</td><td align="char" char=".">36.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers and students respect each other</td><td align="char" char=".">13.5</td><td align="char" char=".">25.2</td><td align="char" char=".">36.2</td><td align="char" char=".">25.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers' feedback to the students</td><td align="char" char=".">10.7</td><td align="char" char=".">25.9</td><td align="char" char=".">36.8</td><td align="char" char=".">26.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School effectiveness to manage the teaching–learning process</td><td align="char" char=".">9.5</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td><td align="char" char=".">34</td><td align="char" char=".">29.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Continuous professional development of teacher</td><td align="char" char=".">11.4</td><td align="char" char=".">30.2</td><td align="char" char=".">37.3</td><td align="char" char=".">21.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Administrative support and leadership</td><td align="char" char=".">11.9</td><td align="char" char=".">28.8</td><td align="char" char=".">35</td><td align="char" char=".">24.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers have conducive working condition (office, recreation)</td><td align="char" char=".">26.3</td><td align="char" char=".">25.2</td><td align="char" char=".">26.6</td><td align="char" char=".">21.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Students' participation in extracurricular activities</td><td align="char" char=".">12.4</td><td align="char" char=".">34.4</td><td align="char" char=".">37.1</td><td align="char" char=".">16.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Among the process quality indicators, teachers' practice of continuous assessment was perceived to be practiced 'rarely' by 36.6% of the participants. Teachers' use of effective communication skills, cooperation of students among themselves (29.4%), effective teaching methodology use, addressing the needs of students with special needs (29.1%), teachers' feedback to students, managing teaching–learning process (26.7%), continuous professional development of teachers, administrative support and leadership, conducive work environment for teachers and students' participation in extracurricular activities were all indicators that over a quarter of participants perceived as 'rarely' practiced in the classrooms or schools.</p> <p>A total of 60%–70% of the participants rated the overall outcome quality of education as low or moderate. As can be seen in Table 5, item‐by‐item analysis revealed that academic achievement was perceived to be low (32.4%) or moderate (47.2%). Only 13% of the participants reported that the academic achievement of students was high. Likewise, participants reported that creativity and discovery (40.8%), competence in ICT (39.2%), competence in English language (39.4%) and ethics of students (36.8%) were low. Only primary school completion was rated as high (36.6%).</p> <p>5 TABLE Frequency distribution of outcome quality indicators (N  = 1,187).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome quality indicators</th><th align="left">Level of presence</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Absent <italic>N</italic> (%)</th><th align="left">Low <italic>N</italic> (%)</th><th align="left">Moderate <italic>N</italic> (%)</th><th align="left">High <italic>N</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Academic achievement</td><td align="char" char=".">8.4</td><td align="char" char=".">31.4</td><td align="char" char=".">47.2</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Performance on national examinations (grades 8 and 10)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td><td align="char" char=".">45.3</td><td align="char" char=".">22.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dropout</td><td align="char" char=".">12.7</td><td align="char" char=".">30.2</td><td align="char" char=".">48.9</td><td align="char" char=".">8.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ethics of students</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">36.8</td><td align="char" char=".">40</td><td align="char" char=".">6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural changes (knowledge, skills, attitude and productivity)</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">32.8</td><td align="char" char=".">46.1</td><td align="char" char=".">14.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competence in Math</td><td align="char" char=".">11.6</td><td align="char" char=".">33.7</td><td align="char" char=".">44.4</td><td align="char" char=".">10.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competence in science</td><td align="char" char=".">9.6</td><td align="char" char=".">33.8</td><td align="char" char=".">42.8</td><td align="char" char=".">13.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competence in English language</td><td align="char" char=".">13.7</td><td align="char" char=".">39.4</td><td align="char" char=".">37.6</td><td align="char" char=".">9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competence in information and communication technology</td><td align="char" char=".">17.3</td><td align="char" char=".">39.2</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td><td align="char" char=".">10.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Absenteeism</td><td align="char" char=".">12.8</td><td align="char" char=".">29.5</td><td align="char" char=".">48.2</td><td align="char" char=".">9.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Creativity and discovery</td><td align="char" char=".">27</td><td align="char" char=".">40.8</td><td align="char" char=".">24.8</td><td align="char" char=".">7.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of students completing primary school</td><td align="char" char=".">4.8</td><td align="char" char=".">19.8</td><td align="char" char=".">38.8</td><td align="char" char=".">36.6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178882258-16">The relationship among quality components and differences in perception of quality of educati...</hd> <p>Input quality of education had moderate correlation with process quality (<emph>r</emph> = .42, <emph>p</emph> < .001), and with outcome quality (<emph>r</emph> = .47, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Similarly, process and outcome quality had a correlation of <emph>r</emph> = .52, <emph>p</emph> < .001 which is moderate. The regression analysis indicated that the variables entered into the model explained 35% of the variance (<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .35), <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>, 755) = 204.03, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Input quality (<emph>β</emph> = .16, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and process quality (<emph>β</emph> = .19, <emph>p</emph> < .001) had independent significant association with outcome quality.</p> <p>We found a statistically significant group difference in perceiving quality of education among students, teachers and parents, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>, 949) = 24.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001). A follow‐up statistical test was conducted to explore the differences at the group level. This analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between students and teachers and parents and teachers in input and process quality. There was no significant difference between students and parents. Overall, teachers rated the input quality below students and parents.</p> <p>We also observed statistically significant group difference among students (47.9, SD = 10.4), teachers (53.2, SD = 10.5) and parents (49.5, SD = 9.9) in perceived process quality, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>, 1,016 = 10.42, _I_p_i_ < .001). The post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between teachers and students and teachers and parents. In this case, teachers believed that process quality was stronger than students and parents did.</p> <p>A statistically significant difference in output quality was also seen among students (M = 31.1, SD = 4.8), teachers (M = 29.9, SD = 5.6) and parents (M = 30.7, SD = 4.9), <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>, 1009) = 3.9, <emph>p</emph> < .001). In the outcome quality, significant differences were observed only between teachers and students. There was no significant difference between parents and teachers, and parents and students in outcome quality.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-17">Factors lowering quality of education</hd> <p>As can be seen from Table 6, participants were asked to rank a list of pre‐identified factors that lower quality of education from 'not at all' to a 'high level'. The first five factors believed to affect the quality of education with a level from medium to high were teachers' competence (73.5%), students' motivation (60.6%), poverty (59.3%), value placed on education (59.1%) and large class size (59%). The second five factors were respect for teachers (57.6%), distance from school (56.6%), lower community participation (56.6%), free promotion (56%) and low teacher salary (56%).</p> <p>6 TABLE Frequency distribution of factors contributing to low education quality.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Factors contributing to low education quality</th><th align="left">Level</th></tr><tr><th align="left">None to low %</th><th align="left">Medium to high %</th><th align="left">Rank</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teachers' competence</td><td align="char" char=".">26.5</td><td align="char" char=".">73.5</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student motivation</td><td align="char" char=".">39.4</td><td align="char" char=".">60.6</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Poverty</td><td align="char" char=".">40.7</td><td align="char" char=".">59.3</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Value given to education</td><td align="char" char=".">40.9</td><td align="char" char=".">59.1</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Large class size</td><td align="char" char=".">40</td><td align="char" char=".">59</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respect for teachers by the society</td><td align="char" char=".">42.4</td><td align="char" char=".">57.6</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Distance from home to school</td><td align="char" char=".">43.5</td><td align="char" char=".">56.6</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lower community participation</td><td align="char" char=".">43.4</td><td align="char" char=".">56.6</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Free promotion</td><td align="char" char=".">44</td><td align="char" char=".">56</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low teacher salary</td><td align="char" char=".">44</td><td align="char" char=".">56</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Material resources</td><td align="char" char=".">44.2</td><td align="char" char=".">55.8</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Commitment, motivation and satisfaction of teacher</td><td align="char" char=".">44.3</td><td align="char" char=".">55.7</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student behaviour problem</td><td align="char" char=".">46.2</td><td align="char" char=".">53.8</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School facilities</td><td align="char" char=".">48.7</td><td align="char" char=".">51.3</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extracurricular activities</td><td align="char" char=".">49</td><td align="char" char=".">51</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intent to migrate</td><td align="char" char=".">51.6</td><td align="char" char=".">48.4</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language of instruction</td><td align="char" char=".">51.7</td><td align="char" char=".">48.3</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐contained classroom instruction</td><td align="char" char=".">52.7</td><td align="char" char=".">47.3</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers' ethical problem</td><td align="char" char=".">55.3</td><td align="char" char=".">44.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequent curriculum and syllabi change</td><td align="char" char=".">56.1</td><td align="char" char=".">43.9</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178882258-18">The relationship between quality of education and migration</hd> <p>Most scholars assume that low quality of education has a direct relationship with unsafe migration in the migration hotspot areas, but this study made it a specific point to ask participants whether academic failure, lack of hope in education and being less educated are causes for migration. In response, over 80% of the participants agreed that these factors could be causes for unsafe migration. Respondents were also asked whether poor quality of education and unsafe migration have strong link or not. In response, 80% of the respondents believed that poor quality of education and unsafe migration have strong link. They were also asked whether lower quality of education triggers migration or not, and 70.6% of the respondents agreed that low quality of education triggers migration (see Table 7 for details).</p> <p>7 TABLE Education‐related factors causing migration.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Items</th><th align="left">Response</th><th align="left">Frequency</th><th align="left">Per cent (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Academic failure and dropout are causes for migration</td><td align="left">Agree</td><td align="char" char=".">961</td><td align="char" char=".">81.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undecided</td><td align="char" char=".">84</td><td align="char" char=".">7.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disagree</td><td align="char" char=".">130</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">1,175</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lack of hope in education is a cause for migration</td><td align="left">Agree</td><td align="char" char=".">958</td><td align="char" char=".">82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undecided</td><td align="char" char=".">65</td><td align="char" char=".">5.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disagree</td><td align="char" char=".">145</td><td align="char" char=".">12.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">1,168</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Less educated/uneducated youth are more vulnerable to migration</td><td align="left">Agree</td><td align="char" char=".">919</td><td align="char" char=".">78.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undecided</td><td align="char" char=".">88</td><td align="char" char=".">7.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disagree</td><td align="char" char=".">164</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">1,171</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">There is a strong link between lower quality of education and vulnerability to migration</td><td align="left">Agree</td><td align="char" char=".">912</td><td align="char" char=".">80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disagree</td><td align="char" char=".">227</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">1,140</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lower quality of education is triggering factor to migration</td><td align="left">Agree</td><td align="char" char=".">813</td><td align="char" char=".">70.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disagree</td><td align="char" char=".">337</td><td align="char" char=".">29.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">1,151</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178882258-19">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>We assessed the quality of education using input, process, outcome and context model in migration hotspot areas in Ethiopia. Group differences in perceiving quality of education and the association among input, process and outcome education quality were examined. Factors contributing to low quality of education were also identified. Most importantly, the relationship between poor quality of education and the risky patterns of migration were examined.</p> <p>Our study showed that students, teachers and parents all perceived significant problems in the quality of education at the study sites. The input quality was assessed using indicators related to service provisions, curriculum relevance, teacher and student‐related issues, community/parent participation and financial matters. On average, nearly 17% of participants reported that these qualities are absent in schools and over 60% of the respondents indicated that they are inadequately available. This result is consistent with a study conducted over a decade ago by Asgedom et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]). This indicates that quality of education continues to be a concern in modern Ethiopia. Lack of these important educational inputs hampers the quality of education significantly. For example, pedagogical centres, ICT and laboratory services were rated as 'not available' by significant number of respondents. This claim was also corroborated by respondents that schools suffer from financial limitations. We can easily imagine that the complete absence of these services significantly compromises the quality of education. This finding is consistent with a previous study conducted to assess the student support services in Ethiopia in selected grades (Admas & Teferra, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]). These services are at best inadequately available, and, at worst, completely absent, in a significant number of schools, which could be due to the lack of funding allotted to them as they are capital intensive in nature.</p> <p>Teachers' salary and benefits, and job satisfaction are also leading teacher‐related factors that are perceived to lower the quality of education. This finding is consistent with a study conducted by Gemeda and Tynjälä ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref56">14</reflink>]) in which teachers' salary, poor working condition and professional development were challenges. It is not uncommon to hear teachers complaining that their salary is not sufficient and they are not getting benefits. Low salary could be related to low job satisfaction and may, unfortunately, reduce teacher incentive.</p> <p>As regards student‐related factors, lack of English language competence, no motivation and disinterest are the salient factors described as jeopardizing the quality of education. It is obvious that if students refuse to make any effort on their education to benefit from the learning process, teachers' effort and inputs alone will not result in a better outcome. Teachers and parents claim that students are not motivated to learn and lose interest and aspiration. They rather look for a shortcut to prosper. Another community‐related factor that limits quality of education is the lack of respect the teaching profession holds in these communities. Ethiopian society has little respect for teaching as a profession (Menna & Tesfaye, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Process quality education indicators also have the same pattern with the input process with some exceptions. Surprisingly, continuous assessment was a rare practice in schools. Teachers use of effective communication skills, cooperation of students among themselves, use of effective teaching methodology, coverage of textbook contents in the academic year, addressing the needs of students with special needs, continuous professional development of teachers, supportive administration and leadership and students' participation in extracurricular activities were each perceived to be rare practices in schools. This is alarming in that the near absence of these processes significantly lowers the quality of education. If the contents are not covered in a given academic year, students are not cooperating with one another, teachers are not using effective communication to present the subject matter and they are not implementing continuous assessment on regular basis.</p> <p>Regarding outcome quality indicators, important outcomes are either absent or present at low levels in schools. Over a third of the respondents indicated that students show ethical problems. The same students also had low competency in English, Science and Math, ICT skills and, more importantly, in creativity and discovery. Lower levels of knowledge, skills and ethics on the part of students clearly indicate that education quality is compromised and the education system is not meeting its objectives. In addition to performing poorly in national examinations, significant numbers of students' dropout from schools.</p> <p>Our study revealed significant differences between teachers and students and teachers and parents in terms of perception of quality of education. Students and parents have better perception of input quality than teachers. In the process quality, teachers' perception is better than students' and parents' perception of education quality. Teachers and students differ in outcome quality of education. Teachers perceive that outcome quality is compromised while students perceive that outcome quality is good. Outcome quality was assessed against the performance of students. Students might overrate their performance and perceive better outcome education quality while teachers are not.</p> <p>Likewise, our research confirms a relationship among input, process and outcome quality of education. Input and process education quality predicts outcome education quality. When there is better input and process quality of education, outcome quality in the form of academic achievement, English language and Math performance of students improve.</p> <p>The factors that contribute to the low quality of education were examined and rank ordered. Teachers' competence, student motivation, poverty, value given to education and large class size are the top five major factors that compromise quality of education. Surprisingly, teacher and student factors are the top two factors. Teacher competence and student motivation are the most widely spoken problems to date that attribute to the low quality of education.</p> <p>The association of low quality of education and unsafe migration was established in the migration hotspot areas. Participants agreed that lower quality of education exacerbates migration. It is revealed in this study that those who fail in academics and dropouts, who lack hope in education and who are less educated are more prone to migration. Participants agree that there is a strong link between low quality of education and migration. Low quality of education is found to be contributory factors towards migration.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-20">CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>In conclusion, our study reveals that input, process and outcome quality of education all have problems in migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia. Students, teachers and parents perceived that quality of education has a problem at the input, process and outcome level. It is also concluded that low quality of education exacerbates migration. There is relationship between low quality of education and migration. Students focus on the process quality of education while teachers focus on the input quality. Students were critical of the process quality and relate it to the competence of teachers. Teachers attributed the low quality to limited or lack of input. Students, teachers and parents unanimously agreed that the outcome quality is low. We infer that the Ethiopian education quality in the migration hotspot areas is low at the input, process and outcome level.</p> <p>Student migration to the Middle East and South Africa is prevalent in these migration hotspot areas. If quality of education improves, the prevalence of student migration will decrease. The quality of education could be improved through immediate and aggressive action such as continuous professional development for teachers, motivating students and engaging them and provision education materials. The federal and regional governments in Ethiopia could play their role in improving quality of education. While students' performance improves, students would believe in education than migrating to change their lives. This would reduce unsafe migration significantly. We therefore suggest that students, teachers and parents work together for a common goal to improve the quality of education at the input, process and outcome level in the context where unsafe migration is misconstrued to be a way out from poverty.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-21">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We acknowledge the Addis Ababa University for funding this research.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-22">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0178882258-23">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0178882258-24"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref27" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abate, S. G., Ayenalem, K. A., & Desta, S. Z. (2023). Investigating the quality of the integrated functional adult education program in Ethiopia. Studies in the Education of Adults, 55 (1), 197 – 219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref39" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Admas, A., & Teferra, T. (2017). Support services in Ethiopian school system: Grades four, eight, ten and twelve in focus. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, 37 (2), 1 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alderman, H., Orazem, P. F., & Paterno, E. M. (2001). School quality, school cost, and the public/private school choices of low‐income households in Pakistan. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 304 – 326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref40" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anteneh, A. (2011). Trafficking in persons overseas for labour purposes: The case of Ethiopian domestic workers. ILO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asgedom, A., Desta, D., Dufera, D., Leka, W., Barrow, K., Leu, E., & Price‐Rom, A. (2006). Ethiopia pilot study of teacher professional development: Quality in education, teaching and learning: Perceptions and practice. USAID.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref37" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bishaw, A., & Lasser, J. (2012). Education in Ethiopia: Past, present and future prospects. African Nebula, 5, 53 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle, S., Brock, A., Mace, J., & Sibbons, M. (2002). Reaching the poor: The 'costs' of sending children to school: a six country comparative study, synthesis report (No. 666‐2016‐45490).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref45" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA). (2021). Population projection. https://<ulink href="http://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/population‐projection">www.statsethiopia.gov.et/population‐projection</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dagnew, A., & Asrat, A. (2016). Teachers' perceptions toward quality of education and their practice: The case of Godar secondary schools, Ethiopia. American Journal of Educational Research, 4 (3), 248 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dustmann, C., & Glitz, A. (2011). Migration and education. In Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 4, pp. 327 – 439). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education. (2023). Education statistics annual abstract.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fekede, T., & Fiorucci, M. (2012). Examining quality issues in primary schools in Ethiopia: Implication for the attainment of the education for all goals. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 5, 129 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garira, E. (2020). A proposed unified conceptual framework for quality of education in schools. SAGE Open, 10 (1), 2158244019899445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gemeda, F. T., & Tynjälä, P. (2015). Exploring teachers' motivation for teaching and professional development in Ethiopia: Voices from the field. Journal of Studies of Education, 5 (2), 169 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbons, S., & Silva, O. (2011). School quality, child wellbeing and parents' satisfaction. Economics of Education Review, 30 (2), 312 – 331.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habtamu, K., Minaye, A., Admas, F., Kotecho, M. G., Tibebu, A., Adigeh, Y., & Zeleke, S. (2021). Exploring potential intervention strategies to reduce unsafe youth migration in Ethiopia: A mixed methods study. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 22, 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luong, M. P., & Nieke, W. (2014). Conceptualizing quality education from the paradigm of recognition. Journal of Education and Practice, 5 (18), 178 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malamassam, M. A. (2022). Spatial structure of youth migration in Indonesia: Does education matter? Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 15 (4), 1045 – 1074.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menna, O., & Tesfaye, S. (2000). Determinants of decision to leave or stay in the teaching profession. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, 20 (1), 1 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minaye, A. (2012). Trafficked to the Gulf states: The experiences of Ethiopian returnee women. Journal of Community Practice, 20 (1–2), 112 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MoE. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap, 2018–2030. Ministry of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Negash, T. (2006). Education in Ethiopia: From crisis to the brink of collapse. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noman, M., & Kaur, A. (2015). Parents' perception of dimensions of quality K‐12 schools in Bangkok, Thailand. International Journal of Management in Education, 9 (4), 396 – 410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pankhurst, R. (1974). Education language and history: An historical background to post‐war Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, 7 (1), 75 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4 (1), 69 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, M. E. (2011). Human capital and the quality of education in a poverty trap model. Oxford Development Studies, 39 (1), 25 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sayed, Y., & Ahmed, R. (2015). Education quality, and teaching and learning in the post‐2015 education agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 330 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1 (1), 61 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., & van Ravens, J. (2011). Measuring educational quality by means of indicators. In Perspectives on educational quality: Illustrative outcomes on primary and secondary schooling in the Netherlands (pp. 35 – 50). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low‐income countries. Comparative Education, 47 (1), 1 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2009). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low‐income countries. EdQual Working Paper No. 18. University of Bristol.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low‐ income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 (1), 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, 2nd august 2015. United Nations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2005a). EFA global monitoring report 2004/2005: Education for all: The quality imperative. UNESCO. <ulink href="http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading‐the‐international‐agenda/efareport/reports/2005‐quality/">http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading‐the‐international‐agenda/efareport/reports/2005‐quality/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2005b). Education for all: The quality imperative. EFA global monitoring report 2005. UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wils, A., Carrol, B., & Barrow, K. (2005). Educating the world's children: Patterns of growth and inequality. Education Policy and Data Center.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Fantahun Admas; Abebaw Minaye; Kassahun Habtamu; Seleshi Zeleke; Abera Tibebu; Mesay Gebremariam Kotecho; Yohannis Adgeh and Habtamu Getnet</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1434555
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Quality of Education in Migration Hotspot Areas in Ethiopia: Input-Process-Outcome-Context Approach
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fantahun+Admas%22">Fantahun Admas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3748-0434">0000-0003-3748-0434</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abebaw+Minaye%22">Abebaw Minaye</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kassahun+Habtamu%22">Kassahun Habtamu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Seleshi+Zeleke%22">Seleshi Zeleke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abera+Tibebu%22">Abera Tibebu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mesay+Gebremariam+Kotecho%22">Mesay Gebremariam Kotecho</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yohannis+Adgeh%22">Yohannis Adgeh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Habtamu+Getnet%22">Habtamu Getnet</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Opportunities%22">Educational Opportunities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Migration%22">Migration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Effectiveness%22">School Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Poverty%22">Poverty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Size%22">Class Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attitudes%22">Educational Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethiopia%22">Ethiopia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12662
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: While the lack of educational opportunities limits the future of most people in Ethiopia, they pose dire consequences to young people in migration hotspot areas. Using input-process-outcome-context-education quality framework, this study investigated the quality of education in eight migration hotspot areas of Ethiopia and its association with migration. A random sample of 1,187 participants (793 students, 262 teachers and 132 parents) completed a survey. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that participants' overall rating of education quality was low. Over a third of participants perceived that input, process and outcome components of education in migration hotspot areas have a quality problem. Over 80% of the participants believed that poor quality of education could be a cause for migration. More specifically, a significant portion of the participants (37%) reported that there was no pedagogical centre in their respective schools; continuous assessment was practiced rarely (36%); and creativity and discovery among students was almost non-existent (40%). The participants' ratings indicated that the top five factors that contribute to the poor quality of education are low level of teacher competence, poor student motivation, poverty, value attached to education and large class size.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1434555
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1434555
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12662
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Opportunities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Migration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Poverty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethiopia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Quality of Education in Migration Hotspot Areas in Ethiopia: Input-Process-Outcome-Context Approach
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fantahun Admas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abebaw Minaye
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kassahun Habtamu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Seleshi Zeleke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abera Tibebu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mesay Gebremariam Kotecho
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yohannis Adgeh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Habtamu Getnet
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1