Why Children Leave School: A Field-Work Case Study of Dropout Drivers among Class 6–9 Students in a Bengaluru Ward

Why Children Leave School is a BSW family-and-child-welfare field-work project that studies the reasons children in Classes 6–9 stop attending school in one urban ward of Bengaluru. It is designed for concurrent field work with an NGO that runs bridge-course, community-learning or child-protection programmes, and it is written up as a case-study report for field-work evaluation.

The project goes beyond the usual checklist of "poverty, migration, lack of interest". Through 8–10 family case studies, it looks at how several pressures combine in one household — a parent's illness, an older sibling's marriage, a younger child who needs minding, a teacher's remark, a long walk past an unsafe stretch, the lure of daily wages at a garment unit or a construction site. Each family's situation is drawn as an ecomap and a genogram, then compared.

Evidence comes from interviews with children (with assent) and parents (with consent), key-informant interviews with a teacher, the anganwadi worker and a School Development and Monitoring Committee (SDMC) member, and an anonymised review of school attendance records with the headteacher's permission. Everything is recorded in a field diary and summarised in Excel.

Because the participants are children, the bundle includes a clear child-protection protocol: no names or identifiers, no questions that push a child to disclose trauma, and any protection concern escalated only through the agency supervisor to Childline 1098 or the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 frames the recommendations.

Abstract

Children dropping out in the upper-primary and early secondary years is a persistent concern in low-income urban neighbourhoods. This field-work case study examines the drivers of dropout among Class 6–9 children in one Bengaluru ward using family case studies, key-informant interviews and anonymised school records. It identifies combinations of family, school and community factors that push or pull children out of school, and suggests practical re-enrolment and retention measures for the field-work agency, the school and the SDMC.

Introduction

The RTE Act, 2009 guarantees free and compulsory elementary education for children aged 6–14. Yet social workers in urban settlements regularly meet children who have stopped attending school around Classes 6 to 9 — often without any formal record of leaving. Some shift to work, some to sibling care, some drift away after repeated absence. The transition from primary to upper-primary and secondary levels is a known point of risk.

Existing understanding and gap

Large surveys identify economic reasons, lack of interest and domestic work as leading causes of dropout. What they rarely show is how these causes interact within one family, and how a school's response to early absence can either pull a child back or confirm the exit. A small set of family case studies in one ward can make those interactions visible and give the agency concrete points for intervention.

Objectives in brief

To identify children who have dropped out or are at risk, understand the family, school and community factors in each case, map support systems, and propose retention and re-enrolment measures.

Method in brief

Qualitative multiple-case design; purposive selection through the agency; interviews, ecomaps and genograms; key-informant interviews; anonymised school-record review; thematic analysis.

Feasibility

The agency already works with families in the ward and can introduce the student. All tools are paper-based. The study fits within six weeks of concurrent field work, with weekly supervisory conferences to review ethics and progress.

In low-income neighbourhoods of Bengaluru, NGOs and teachers report that some children quietly stop coming to school between Classes 6 and 9. Their names may remain on the rolls for months, and by the time anyone follows up, the child is working, caring for siblings or has moved away. Each case is usually explained with a single label — "poverty" or "not interested" — which offers little guidance on what could have kept the child in school.

Field workers need a clearer, family-level understanding of how economic stress, household responsibilities, school experience, safety and peer influence combine to push a child out, and where the school, the SDMC and the agency could intervene early. This field-work project studies 8–10 families in one ward to document these drivers through case studies, key-informant interviews and anonymised attendance records, within a strict child-protection protocol, and translates the findings into practical retention and re-enrolment suggestions consistent with the RTE Act, 2009.

In scope

• 8–10 families with a child in Classes 6–9 who has dropped out or has been absent for over a month, in one Bengaluru ward.
• Interviews with children (with assent) and parents (with consent); key-informant interviews with a teacher, anganwadi worker and SDMC member.
• Anonymised review of class attendance registers with the headteacher's permission.
• Recommendations for the agency, school and SDMC.

Out of scope

• Statistical estimation of dropout rates for the ward.
• Therapeutic counselling or legal intervention by the student.
• Collection of Aadhaar, SATS IDs, phone numbers or photographs of children.
• Direct contact with employers of working children (any labour concern goes to the agency).

Research design

A qualitative multiple-case-study design using family case work methods, carried out during concurrent field work under supervision.

Selection of cases

Purposive selection with the agency's community workers and the school: children aged roughly 11–15 in Classes 6–9 who have not attended for over a month or have formally left in the current or previous academic year. Aim for variety — boys and girls, different reasons suspected, some re-enrolled and some not.

Tools

• Child interview guide (15–20 minutes, conversational, in the child's language): favourite and least favourite things about school, a typical day now, who they talk to, what would make returning easier. No questions about abuse or trauma.
• Parent/guardian interview guide: family composition, work and income pattern, migration, health events, schooling of siblings, expectations for the child.
• Genogram — three generations, showing education and work patterns.
• Ecomap — the family's links with school, anganwadi, employer, relatives, NGO, health centre, ration shop, strong or weak.
• Key-informant guides — teacher (attendance follow-up, learning gaps), anganwadi worker (younger siblings, family context), SDMC member (school response, enrolment drives).
• School-record sheet — for each case child, monthly attendance for the last academic year, using a code instead of the name.

Analysis

Write up each visit the same day in the field diary. Code notes under themes: economic, household care, health, school experience, safety, peers, migration. Build a case-by-theme matrix in Excel to see which factors cluster. Write each case as a short profile with genogram and ecomap, then a cross-case analysis.

Timeline (6 weeks, 2 field days a week)