Relationship Between Students’ Home Background and Their Academic Performance: A Case of Some Selected Senior High School Students in Rural Districts in Ashanti Region,Ghana

Abstract

This study was primarily designed to find out the relationship between students’ home background and their academic performance. The study was conducted largely in senior high schools in rural districts in Ashanti Region, Ghana. The study used the ex-post facto correlation design. Multistage sampling technique was used to select 275 senior high school students. Questionnaire was used to collect the data from the respondents. Percentages and correlations were used to analyze the data. The family size was found to be highly correlated with the academic performance of students (coefficient = .711, p value = .002). Parent found it difficult in paying school fees and other levies of their children as a result of parents’ income (ρ = .669, p value = .004) in rural Ghana. The study also revealed that the educational background characteristics of parents had a significant correlation with the academic performance of students (coefficient = .711, p value = .002). Following from the findings, the Government of Ghana (Ministry of Education) should stick to its mandate of ensuring the provision of free quality secondary school education premised on the principle of inclusivity and equity to bridge the gap between the students from rich and poor homes. Such government intervention programs like the free education should favor the poor and low-income families most.

Keywords

ex-post facto correlation design students’ home background students’ academic performance standard deviation senior high school students

Introduction

Academic performance is a major goal in education, and thus continues to interest educational researchers and practitioners alike (UNICEF, 2011). As a result, the downward trend of academic performance of Senior High School (S.H.S.) students has raised several concerns. Meanwhile, several factors have generally been identified to be affecting academic performance of students, particularly in the developing world. It is instructive to note that the success or failure of students in terms of academic performance can be attributed to various factors, ranging from the type of educational system being practiced, student’s health, family background, the school environment itself, the expectations that teachers have for each individual student, as well as the student’s own ability to learn (UNICEF, 2011; Adana, 2013). Although other reasons could be advanced for students’ academic achievement in school, the home, in particular, is where all learning begins (Acemoglu & Pischke, 2001). One does not only acquire knowledge from a teacher, rather one learns or receive knowledge from a parent, family members, and home environment too. Therefore, family background plays a considerable role in the academic performance of students (Kreider et al., 2007; Mapp, 2004). According to Adana (2013), family background is a collective terminology comprising of social class/status, economic status, family size, family structure, parents’ educational level, occupation, and parental involvement in school activities. However, family background in the context of this study would refer to family structure, parents’ occupation, income, parents’ level of education, and parents’ involvement.

Parent’s educational background has been found as one of the socioeconomic factors to be associated positively with academic performance of students. As evident, Adzido et al. (2015) and Grissmer (2003) opined that parents’ level of education is the most important factor affecting students’ academic achievement. This is not different from Musgrave (2000), who also states that a child that comes from an educated home would like to follow the steps of his or her family and by this, work actively in his or her studies. Similarly, several studies in different jurisdictions have posited that the higher the parents’ educational background, the better the academic performance of the children (Aremu, 2000; Flick & Lederman, 2005; Kaplan et al., 2001; Kreider et al., 2007; Mapp, 2004; Majoribanks, 2003; McEwan, 2003; Reay, 2004; Teese, 2004; Tudge et al., 2006). All their findings were significant enough to support the association between parents’ education and their involvement in their children’s education. These studies justified that parents’ level of education has a great influence on the involvement of them in their children’s education and by extension the academic performance of their children.

Furtherance, income is another determinant of students’ academic performance. According to Twum & Osei-Owusu (2015) and Alisa and Gregg (2010), student’s test scores are lower when poverty persists across the generations, and highest when material advantage is long-lasting. Similarly, Akanle (2007) identified parental income in his work to be a cogent factor upon which the academic success of secondary school students lies. He found parental income to be sufficient to sustain the academic and personal social life of the student in subrural school areas. This to a large extent affects the psychological balance or homeostatic balance in the classroom, which causes low concentration, low perception, frustration, sickness, and emotional disability in academic performance of the students (Kakuru, 2003; Kasente, 2003). Therefore, when a student is deprived of the essential needs, the student may be found to perform poorly in school work. Johnston et al. (2005) and Boateng (2003) also found that in urban areas, most low-income families can hardly afford the cost of water, resulting in students from low-income families being sent on long treks in search of water, often having to stand in long queues and consequently being late or absent from school. Therefore, from their point of view, students’ welfare at school is a determinant of child retention and academic performance.

From a different perspective, Bjorkman (2005) and Adzido et al. (2016) depicted the correlation between parents’ incomes in students’ enrollment as follows: for low levels of income very few female students attended education and there is a large gap between male and female student’s enrollment. According to Baidoo-Anu (2017) and Bjorkman (2005), a negative income shock has two effects on the female student’s performance: marginal females will be withdrawn from school than males and the resources (food) provided will fall more for females than for males. As such only brighter females reach Grade 7. On the contrary, as females are provided with less resources within the household or have to spend more time on domestic work as compared with males, causes females to perform worse on the test as compared with opposite sex (Baidoo-Anu, 2017; Benner & Mistry, 2007; Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Rouse & Barrow, 2006).

The size of families has some effect on academic performance of students. Rouse and Barrows (2006) indicate that the smaller a family structure is, the more success recorded by the children as regards the academic pursuit. The reason for this is that more concentrations are given by parents to fewer children than the families where the children are many. Some studies have also posited that the nature of family from which a child belongs has a lot of influence on the general life pattern of the child especially on his or her academic performance (Angrist et al., 2005; Black et al., 2005; Dalton & Glauber, 2005). These studies assume that large families spread their resources: economic, cultural, and effectiveness more thinly than do families with fewer children. This suggests that parents who have many children invest less money, time, emotional and psychic energy, and attention on each child. The argument is that parents of many children cannot afford to divide quality time with their children (Baidoo-Anu, 2017; Sharma, 2004). Although value added quality time is hard to set aside to oversee the academic aspect of the children, parents with two to three kids can afford the time to develop their children academic capabilities because their time is only shared with less number of children (Dalton & Glauber, 2005). To sum up, students who come from larger families tend to have lower levels of achievement and lower levels of secondary graduation, on average than children who come from smaller families.

Moreover, solid research evidence has also revealed that children achieve more when schools and parents work together and parents understand what the school is trying to achieve and how they can help (Gratz 2006). Kamau (2013) propounds that parental involvement is empowerment which brings about greater academic performance of students. More broadly, parental involvement in education has been defined as parents’ interactions with schools and with their children to promote academic success. Such interactions extend beyond the engagement with schools, to the home life and the expectations and values for education that are communicated directly and indirectly to children (Kamau (2013)). These conceptualizations focus on individual students and their families. All that is needed perhaps is the meticulous adoption of models of parental involvement with adaptations to ensure that education managers do not view such interventions as meddlesome, a threat to their professional autonomy and integrity and an intrusion in their professional domain and sovereign institution (Rich, 2000). To be more specific, a child benefits when parents show a great involvement in his or her education; and when the parents have every confidence in helping their child to be successful in school.

The literature on students’ academic achievement has consistently shown that home background is important in predicting children’s performance (Morakinyo, 2003). In general, family process models (Ajila & Olutola, 2007; Linver et al., 2002; Yeung et al., 2002) have examined how parenting behaviors, such as the structure of the home environment, influence children’s achievement outcomes. Others have focused on specific behaviors such as harsh parenting, nurturing, and warmth (Bansal et al., 2006; Conger et al., 2002; Mistry et al., 2002). Notwithstanding, the influence of home background on students’ academic performance in the context of Ghana and by extension West Africa has not been well studied. Therefore, this study seeks to examine the influence of home background on S.H.S. students’ academic performance in rural districts of Ghana, West Africa.

Materials and Methods

The Theoretical Framework of the Study

The household production theory

This theory states that families are both producers and consumers of goods. In an effort to maximize utility, families attempt to efficiently allocate time, income, and all collection of goods and services they both use and produce. Although the idea of household production theory encompasses a broad spectrum of domestic economics, in this research, it is used specifically to look at the available educational attainment of children based on their parental and familial socioeconomic factors. The household production theory, which is the basis of this study, is an outgrowth of two theories, the human capital theory and the theory of allocation of time (Becker, 1993). Although these two theories view education as an investment rather than consumption, the household theory takes on a narrower viewpoint on investments dealing solely with the household.

Household economics considers the family as not only a consuming unit but also as a producing unit. This theory states that a combination of time and resource inputs produce different types of commodities (Becker, 1993). To produce what Becker calls “quality children” parents must spend time at home and devote real resources to foster an environment that promotes and provides formal education. As families differ, time and money spent on investments will vary, as will attitudes that may be conducive to children’s ability and willingness to learn.

This theory is important to our study because parents are one aspect in the household theory. Parents are the resources in the household theory. Parents’ educational level and income status which are the resources affect the children’s academic performance. Also, this theory is relevant to our study because, it suggests that an increase in the parents’ income or resources, educational background, family size, and parental involvement are associated with an increase in the academic performance of students as illustrated in the conceptual framework in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Home background and academic performance response framework

Research design

The research design for this study is the ex-post facto correlation design. This design reveals the relationship between two events and tries to ascertain the existence of such relationships, their strength, and their direction (Simon & Goes, 2013). The study sought to determine whether there is a relationship between family background (parent’s income, parents’ educational background, parental involvement, and size of the family) and academic performances of students in S.H.S.

In the ex-post facto design, the researcher does not have direct control over independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred or because they cannot be inherently manipulated (Cohen et al., 2000; Simon & Goes, 2013). Therefore, the researchers examined the association between these family background characteristics (independent variable) and academic performance (dependent variable). The correlation research design, in spite of its strengths, has some weaknesses as well. For instance, errors due to the use of questionnaire or interview guide can distort the research findings (Cohen et al., 2000). However, good organization and systematic presentation of data led to the arrival of valid and accurate conclusions.

Sample and sampling technique

Krejcie and Morgan (1970) formula table was used to select 375 respondents for the study. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), between 10% and 30% of a given population can be used for a study. Therefore, the study chose the minimum of 10% (375) sample size from 3,750 students. To ensure that each form gets an equal number, 92 students were randomly selected from each of the year groups. A multistage sampling procedure (simple random, stratified, purposive, and convenience sampling techniques) was adopted in the study. The researchers used the stratified sampling technique to divide the students into three, that is, Form 1, Form 2, and Form 3. The simple random and convenience sampling techniques were used to sample 92 students from Schools A and B and 91 students from School C making 275 in total. In selecting from each strata, the lottery method was adopted. A “Yes” and “No” responses were written on separate slip of papers and placed in a container, and the container was shaken, each time a slip is picked by a student. Those who picked the “Yes” were involved. The simple random sampling technique was used for sampling because it ensures that every possible member of the population group to be sampled has an equal opportunity of being selected as part of the sample. In addition, purposive sampling technique was used to select key informants (headmaster and teachers).

Data collection process and tools

The researchers informed the headmasters about their intentions of carrying out a study that had to do with students, teachers, and parents on the effects of family background on students’ academic performance. The respondents were assured of confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Based on the assurances given, the student worked on their questionnaire the same day. This was done with the aid of some of the teachers who volunteered to assist in the process. About the parents, their questionnaires were given through the Parents–Teachers Association (PTA) to be given to them in the house, and when they completed them after a week, they returned them for the analysis. The researcher used structured questionnaires to gather information from respondents.

Kerlinger (1973) observed that the questionnaire is widely used for collecting data because it is very effective for securing factual information about practices and conditions and for inquiring into opinion and attitude of the subject. All of the items were close-ended. The rest of the sections of the questionnaires dealt with issues related to each research question.

Data analysis tools

All data collected were first grouped and edited for consistency and clarity of expression. Afterwards, a coding format was adopted and used to effect the variable view input in the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22. In the meantime, all the individual questionnaire had been coded with same responses having the same code numbers. All items meant to answer a particular research question were analyzed as such using percentages and correlation.

Results and Discussion

This section consists of two main parts. The first part looks at the descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the respondents. The second part presents the relationship between students’ home background and their academic performance.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

This section deals with the demographic characteristics of respondents. These include their age, sex, form, and gender on the part of the teachers, occupation and marital status on the part of the parents. Table 1 presents the results of the data obtained.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.

Variables	No. of respondents	Percentage (%)
Age of respondents
12–15 years	121	44.0
16–20 years	141	51.3
20 years and above	13	4.7
Total	275	100
Gender
Male	178	64.7
Female	97	35.3
Total	275	100
Status of students
Day	69	25.1
Boarder	206	74.9
Total	275	100
Number of siblings of students
One	20	7.3
Two	33	12
Three	96	34.9
More than three	126	45.8
Total	275	100
Occupation of parents
Teacher	14	20.3
Trader	20	29.0
Farmer	25	36.2
Other	10	14.5
Total	69	100
Educational background of parents
Primary school	20	29.0
J.H.S./middle school	25	36.2
Secondary/O level	10	14.5
Tertiary level	14	20.3
Total	69	100
Marital status of parents
Married	30	43.5
Single	12	17.4
Divorced	18	26.1
Widow/widower	9	13.0
Total	69	100
Monthly income brackets of parents (Ghana Cedis)
100–250	30	43.5
260–500	18	26.1
510–750	6	8.7
More than 750	15	21.7
Total	69	100
Gender of teachers
Male	14	70
Female	6	30
Total	20	100

Source. Field Data, 2017.

Results from Table 1 indicates that 121 (44.0%) of the students were between 12 and 15 years of age and 141 (51.3%) of the students were also between 16 and 20 years of age. Finally, 13 (4.7%) of the students were 20 years and above. The concentration of most students’ ages between 16 and 20 years could be attributed to the change in Ghana’s educational system from the middle school system to the secondary school system in the year 1987 (1987 educational reform). This change saw the average number of pretertiary schooling years reduced from 17 to 12 years. As a result, most students graduate from the secondary school between the ages of 18 and 20 years.

Table 1 again showed that the number of the male students (178, 64.7%) was almost a double of that of the female students (97, 35.3%). Similarly, the male teachers (14, 70%) were more than the female teachers (6, 30%) as shown in Table 1. The disparity between the number of male and female students and teachers can be traced to the cultural values of Ghanaian societies where more emphasis is placed on male child education than female child education. Results from Table 1 again indicate that the majority of the students (206, 74.9%) were boarders and the rest of the students (69, 25.1%) were day students. Again, analysis on the number of siblings of students indicates large family sizes. From Table 1, 20 (7.3%), 33 (12%), 96 (34.9%), and 126 (45.8%) of the respondents indicated they had one, two, three, and more than three siblings, respectively. These figures are very alarming as almost half of the respondents have more than three siblings which may have negative implications on the family finances, parental attention, and control.

Furtherance, results from Table 1 revealed that (25, 36.2%) parents were farmers. Closer to the farmers were traders constituting (20, 29.0%) of the parents of the students. Besides, 14 (20.3%) of the parents were teachers. Finally, 10 (14.5%) of the parents indicated other occupations. This may be attributed to the rural natural nature of the district in which the study was undertaken. These occupation types of parents commensurate with the income bracket of parents as 30 (43.5%), 18 (26.1%), 6 (8.7%) and 15 (21.7%) of the respondents indicated a monthly income brackets of 100 to 250, 260 to 500, 510 to 750, and more than 750 Ghana Cedis, respectively. These income brackets may be due to the fact that many residents of the district are engaged in the informal sector. The implication is that most of the parents of the students had a low-income background which may have repercussions on students’ academic performance. Concerning educational background of parents, 20 (29.0%), 25 (36.2%), 10 (14.5%), and 14 (20.3%) of the respondents responded that they had attained primary school, J.H.S./middle school, secondary school, and tertiary levels of education, respectively. The educational levels of parents have effect on the academic performance of students as educated parents always guide their children to improve academically. With regard to marital status, 30 (43.5%), 12 (17.4%), 18 (26.1%), and 9 (13.0%) responded married, single, divorced, and widow/widower respectively. What this means is that most parents of students are single parents, and that students from such family structures are likely to face difficulties in their educational pursuit.

Family Size and Student’s Academic Performance

A Pearson product moment correlation was calculated for family size and students’ academic performance. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to test for any significant relationship between the family size and students’ academic performance. The coefficient r was used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables. A .05 level of significance was used as a determination of a significant relationship between the family size and students’ academic performance. The test shows a significant relationship between family size and students’ academic performances. Table 2 illustrates the information concerning the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the family size and students’ academic performance.

Table 2.

Relationship Between Family Size and Students’ Academic Performance.

Variables	Family size	Academic performance
Family size
Pearson correlation	1	.711
Sig. (two-tailed)		.002
N	69	274
Academic performance
Pearson correlation	.711	1
Sig. (two-tailed)	.002
N	275	69

Source. Computed from Field Data, 2017.

Note. p < .05 means there is a statistically significant relationship.

From Table 2, the Pearson correlation coefficient of .711 shows that there is a strong positive relationship between the size of a family and the academic performance of students (p value =.002).

Parent’s Education Background and Student’s Academic Performance

A Spearman rank-order correlation was calculated for parent’s educational background and students’ academic performance. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to test for any significant relationship between parent’s educational background and students’ academic performance. The coefficient rho was used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables. A .05 level of significance was used as a determination of a significant relationship between parental income and students’ academic performance. Table 3 illustrates the information concerning the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient between parent’s educational background and students’ academic performance.

Table 3.

Relationship Between Parents Educational Background and Students’ Academic Performance.

Variables	Academic performance	Parents education
Spearman’s rho
Academic performance
Correlation coefficient	1.000	.790
Sig. (two-tailed)		.035
N	275	69
Parents education
Correlation coefficient	.790	1.000
Sig. (two-tailed)	.035
N	69	69

Source. Computed from the Field Data, 2017.

Note. p < .05 means there is a statistically significant relationship.

The Spearman’s rank-order correlation that was run to determine the relationship between parent’s educational background and students’ academic performance showed a strong, positive correlation which was statistically significant (ρ = .790, p value = .035). It can therefore be concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship between parent’s educational background and academic performance of students.

Parent’s Income and Students Academic Performance

A Spearman rank-order correlation was calculated for parental income and students’ academic performance. The coefficient rho was used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables. A .05 level of significance was used as a determination of a significant relationship between parental income and students’ academic performance. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to test for any significant relationship between parental income and students’ academic performance. Table 4 illustrates the information concerning the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient between the parents’ income and students’ academic performance.

Table 4.

Relationship Between Parents Income and Students’ Academic Performance.

Variables	Academic performance	Parents’ income
Spearman’s rho
Academic performance
Correlation coefficient	1.000	.669
Sig. (two-tailed)		.004
N	274	69
Parents’ income
Correlation coefficient	.669	1.000
Sig. (two-tailed)	.004
N	69	69

Source. Computed from the Field Data, 2017.

The Spearman’s rank-order correlation that was run to determine the relationship between parental income and students’ academic performance showed a strong positive correlation (ρ = .669, p = .004). It can therefore be concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship between parental income and academic performance of students.

Parental Involvement and Students Academic Performance

A Pearson product moment correlation was calculated for parental involvement and students’ academic performance. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient r was used to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables. A .05 level of significance was used as a determination of a significant relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic performance. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to test for any significant relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic performance. Table 5 illustrates the information concerning the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the family size and students’ academic performance.

Table 5.

Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Students’ Academic Performance.

	Parental involvement	Academic performance
Parental involvement
Pearson correlation	1	.191
Sig. (two-tailed)		.117
N	69	274
Academic performance
Pearson correlation	–.191	1
Sig. (two-tailed)	.117
N	275	69

Source. Computed from the Field Data, 2017.

Note. p < .05 means there is a statistically significant relationship.

From Table 5, the pearson correlation coefficient of .191 shows that there is a weak positive relationship between parental involvement and the academic performance of students. As the significance value .117 is greater than the p value it means there is no statistically significant relationship between the parental involvement and students’ academic performance.

Discussion of Results

This study investigated the relationship between students’ home background and their academic performance in some selected rural schools. The study found that the majority of the students came from poor homes as pertains in many rural communities in Ghana. Generally, the study found a positive correlation between students’ home background and their academic performance. The study found that many of the students came from large homes. As a result, their parents had problem with adequate income to be able to provide for their educational basic needs (text books, exercise books, school fees, extra-tuition fees, etc.). This may be attributed to the ethos of rural dwellers with respect to family sizes in Ghana and by extension Africa. Many rural homes in Ghana cherish large family sizes as societal prestige and further use the children as insurance for their old age. In the quest of the parents to have these large family sizes, they end up entangling themselves with the difficulty of sharing the meager family income among their children. This inhibits them from adequately providing for the needs of their children in school. This end up affecting the students’ academic performance negatively. This finding confirms that of Baidoo-Anu (2017) and Twum & Osei-Owusu (2015) that parent’s income is a major determinant of students’ academic performance.

In furtherance, educational background of parents was found to have positive correlation with the academic performance of their children. Students who had educated parents performed academically better than their counterparts from low educated parents. Educated parents were found to be able to institute measures to guide their children in their academic pursuit in terms of assisting them in their homework. This finding is not different from Baidoo-Anu (2017) that parents who are educated understand the dynamics of education and so can support their children in that direction.

Moreover, the study found a positive correlation between parent’s income and students’ academic performance. Generally, parents had problem with payment of school fees and purchasing of text books for their wards as a result of low incomes. This may be attributed to the rural nature of the study area as many rural dwellers in Ghana are associated with low incomes as compared with their counterparts in the urban centers. This is because many rural folks engage in subsistence agriculture as their mainstay. This finding corroborates Akanle (2007) who identified parental income in his work to be a cogent factor upon which the academic success of secondary school students lies. Akanle (2007) further posits that when a student is deprived of the essential needs the student may be found to perform poorly in school work.

Again, parental involvement in students’ education was found to have positive correlation with the academic performance of the latter. The study found that many rural parents did not understand the dynamics of parental involvement in children’s education and its academic ramifications. In view of this, many parents failed to always attend their PTA meetings and also assist the children to do their homework. In furtherance, the inability of parents to visit their children’s school to inquire about them creates a certain vacuum for information flow about their children. As a consequence, so many negative things happen at the blind side of the parent and they also become oblivious of their children’s academic performances. This generally makes the students think that their parents are not interested in their education which demotivate them from studying. Invariably, this discourages the students to learn hard and in turn they perform poorly in their academic pursuit. This supports the findings of Twum & Osei-Owusu (2015) and Gratz (2006) who assert that children achieve more when schools and parents work together and parents understand what the school is trying to achieve and how they can help.

Conclusion and Policy Implication

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between students’ home background and their academic performances. The study found that large families have negative consequences on the students’ academic performances. Most of the students asserted that because they had many siblings they did not get the full attention of their parents/guardians. Students revealed that because they have many siblings their parents/guardians are not able to guide them in their assignments due to divided attention for all the siblings. Again, the study found that students did not have access to educational resources to improve their academic performance due to large family sizes. In general, the respondents agreed that the size of a family influences their academic performance.

The study further revealed that the level of education of parents/guardian influences the academic performance of students. The students from educated parents/guardian claimed that their parents always instilled in them the importance of education and motivated them in their academic pursuit. Similarly, the study revealed that educated parents always motivated their children to learn hard because they had experienced the importance of education and this helped their children to perform well academically.

The study again found income of parents to be an influencing factor in the academic performance of students. From the study most of the students revealed that they faced difficulties in the payment of their school fees due to low income levels of their parents. With this, the study revealed that some of the students were not able to purchase the prescribed text books to read and this makes them perform badly in examinations. It can therefore be concluded that the income levels of parents do influence students’ academic performance. Finally, the study uncovered that parent involvement in their children’s education improves their academic performances. The study found that students perform well when their parents show maximum interest in their education. Parental involvement makes the students realize that their parents are interested in their education and makes them study hard to perform well in examinations.

The Government of Ghana (Ministry of Education) should stick to its mandate of ensuring the provision of free quality secondary school education based on the principle of inclusivity and equity to bridge the gap between the students from rich and poor homes. Such government intervention programs like the free education should favor the poor and low-income families most. This will help reduce some of the burden low-income families face economically in paying fees and other levies for their children’s education because such a burden can hamper educational progress. Again, the Guidance and Counseling Unit in the S.H.S. needs to come up with strategies which are geared toward identifying the various background factors of different students in their schools. This may enable the administration to understand clearly the nature of each student and thus be able to handle them with ease and appropriateness so as not to hamper with their educational progress. Finally, the expertise of the Guidance and Counseling coordinators in the various senior high schools should be improved to be able to manage students from poor home backgrounds to achieve better academic performances.

Footnotes

Author’s Contribution

We wish to state that all the authors have been personally and actively involved in substantive work leading to the research report. All the authors actively took part in the research design and data analysis of the manuscript preparation. We are therefore responsible for the content of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Availability of Data and Material

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

ORCID iD

Simon Boateng

References

Acemoglu

Pischke

(2001). Changes in the wage structure, family income, and children’s education. European Economic Review, 45, 890–904.

Adana

O. L.

(2013). Factors affecting low academic achievement of pupils in Kemp Methodist Junior High School in Aburi, Eastern Region [Master’s thesis, University of Ghana].

Adzido

R. Y. N.

Ahiave

Dzogbede

E. O.

Dorkpah

K. O.

(2016). Assessment of family income on academic performance of tertiary students: The case of Ho Polytechnic, Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Science, 6, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v6-i3/2221

Adzido

R. Y. N.

Dzogbede

Kamasah

V. Y.

Dzineku

W. K.

(2015). Assessing the mutual benefits of investing in staff training and development. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3), 641–656.

Ajila

Olutola

(2007). Impact of parents’ socio-economic status on university students’ academic performance. IFE Journal of Educational Studies, 7(1), 31–39.

Akanle

O. B.

(2007). Socio-economic factors influencing student’s academic performance in Nigeria. Some explanation from a local survey. www.medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=pjssci.2008.319.323

Alisa

Gregg

(2010). Poorer children’s educational attainment: How important are attitudes and behaviour? https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poorer-children%E2%80%99s-educational-attainment-how-important-are-attitudes-and-behaviour

Angrist

J. D.

Lavy

Schlosser

(2005). New evidence on the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. mimeo, Hebrew University Department of Economics.

Aremu

A. O.

(2000). Impact of home, school, and government on primary school pupils’ academic performance. The Exceptional Child, 5(1), 106–110.

10.

Baidoo-Anu

(2017). Perceived factors responsible for poor academic performance of Junior High School Pupils in Asikuma Circuit of Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa District [Master’s thesis, University of Cape Coast].

11.

Bansal

Thind

S. K.

Jaswal

(2006). Relationship between quality of home environment, locus of control and achievement motivation among high achiever urban female adolescents. Journal of Human Ecology, 19(4), 253–257.

12.

Becker

(1993). Human capital revisited: Human capital. University of Chicago Press.

13.

Benner

Mistry

(2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 140–153.

14.

Bjorkman

(2005). Income shocks and gender gaps in education: Evidence from Uganda. https://www.cgdev.org/event/income-shocks-and-gender-gaps-education-evidence-uganda

15.

Black

S. E.

Devereux

P. J.

Salvanes

K. G.

(2005). The more the merrier? The effect of family size and birth order on children’s education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 669–700.

16.

Boateng

A. J.

(2003). Factors affecting academic performance of selected senior secondary students in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. University of Cape Coast.

17.

Cohen

Manioin

Morison

(2000). Research methods in education. Routledge Falmer.

18.

Conger

R. D.

Ebert-Wallace

Sun

Simons

R. L.

McLoyd

V. C.

Brody

G. H.

(2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193.

19.

Dalton

Glauber

(2005). Parental educational investment and children’s academic risk: Estimates of the Impact of sib-ship size and birth order from exogenous variation in fertility (Working paper 11302). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

20.

Drummond

K. V.

Stipek

(2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs about their role in children are academic learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197–213.

21.

Flick

Lederman

(2005). The undiscovered country. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 105(5), 221–225.

22.

Gratz

(2006). The impact of parents’ background on their children’s education. Harvard University Press.

23.

Grissmer

R. H.

(2003). Beyond helping with homework: Parents and children doing mathematics at home. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14, 120–131.

24.

Johnston

Ganzeboom

Treiman

(2005, May). Mothers’ and “Fathers” influences on educational attainment [Paper presentation]. RC28 Conference, Oslo, Norway.

25.

Kakuru

D. M.

(2003). Gender sensitive educational policy and practice. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146783

26.

Kamau

L. M.

(2013). Relationship between family background and academic performance of secondary school students: A case of Siakago Division, Mbeere North District [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. College of Education and External Studies.

27.

Kaplan

D. S.

Liu

Kaplan

H. B.

(2001). Influence of parents’ self-feelings and expectations on children’s academic performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(6), 360–369.

28.

Kasente

(2003). Gender and education in Uganda: A case study for EFA monitoring report. Makerere University. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146790

29.

Kerlinger

F. N.

(1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

30.

Kreider

Caspe

Kennedy

Weiss

(2007). Family involvement in middle and high school students’ education (ERIC document reproduction service (No. ED497141)). Harvard Family Research Project.

31.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.

32.

Linver

M. R.

Brooks-Gunn

Kohen

D. E.

(2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 38, 719–734.

33.

Majoribanks

(2003). Family learning environments and students outcomes: A review. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27(2), 373–394.

34.

Mapp

(2004). Family engagement. In Smink

Schargel

F. P.

(Eds.), Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention (pp. 99–114). Eye on Education.

35.

McEwan

P. J.

(2003). Peer effects on student achievement: Evidence from Chile. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 131–141.

36.

Mistry

R. S.

Vandewater

E. A.

Houston

A. C.

McLoyd

V. C.

(2002). Economic well-being and children’s social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low income sample. Child Development, 73,935–951.

37.

Morakinyo

(2003). Relative efficacy of systematic desensitization, self-statement monitoring and flooding on students test anxiety [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Ibadan.

38.

Musgrave

C. B.

(2000). Environmental factors affecting attitude towards science and mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 382–394.

39.

Reay

(2004). Education and cultural capital: The implications of changing trends in education policies. Cultural Trends, 13(2), 73–86.

40.

Rich

(2000). Beyond the classroom: How parents influence their children‘s education (CIS Policy Monograph 48). Centre for Independent Studies.

41.

Rouse

C. E.

Barrow

(2006). U.S. elementary and secondary schools: Equalizing opportunity or replacing the status Quo? The Future of Children, 16(2), 99–123.

42.

Sharma

K. R.

(2004). Effect of early home environment on the mental development of down syndrome infants. Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85(1), 39–44.

43.

Simon

M. K.

Goes

(2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation success, LLC.

44.

Teese

(2004). Staying on at school: Improving student retention in Australia. Centre for Post Compulsory Education and Life Long Learning, University of Melbourne.

45.

Tudge

J. R. H.

Odero

Piccinini

C. A.

Doucet

Sperb

T. M.

Lopes

R. S.

(2006). A window into different cultural worlds: Young children’s everyday activities in the United States, Brazil, and Kenya. Child Development, 77(3), 1446–1469.

46.

Twum

A. E.

Osei-Owusu

(2015). Determinants of academic performance among senior high school (SHS) students in the Ashanti Mampong Municipality of Ghana. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 3(3), 33–48.

47.

UNICEF (2011). Humanitarian Action for Children 2011. Publisher: UNICEF ISBN: 978-92-806-4572-9.

48.

Yeung

W. J.

Linver

M. R.

Brooks-Gunn

(2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73, 1861–1879.