Determinants of pastoral youth participation to formal education in Itang Special District, Gambella Region, South-Western Ethiopia

Abstract

There is a lack of nomadic youth participation in education in Itang District. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the factors that influence pastoral youth participation in formal education in the study area. This study used a multi-stage sampling technique to choose the participants. Similarly, the primary data was collected through focus group discussions and household interview schedules. Meanwhile, this study applied descriptive data (frequency, percentage, and chi-square), a binary logistic regression model, and thematic analysis methods. The result indicated that 40.8%, 37.6%, and 21.6% of youth have participated in mobile, multi-grade, and basic education, respectively, in the study area. In the same way, the result showed that about 44.8% of respondents have participated in formal education in the study area. Moreover, the binary logit model found that perceptions of education, mobility, parent occupation, parent education, livestock holding size, distance to school, and insecurity significantly influenced participation in education. As a result, many factors influenced the participation of nomadic youth in formal education. Therefore, the concerned organizations should provide capacity-building training, boarding schools, and school feeding programs to improve pastoral youth participation in formal education.

Keywords:

• Formal education
• participation
• pastoral youth
• Itang District

Reviewing Editor:

• Arif H Kabir, School of Education, Deakin University School of Education, Australia

Subjects:

• Adult Education and Lifelong Learning
• Education Policy and Politics
• Inclusion and Special Educational Needs
• Multicultural Education
• Primary/Elementary Education

1. Background

Education is crucial and important for young people in modern society (Debebe, 2014). In the current time, all children need to receive a high-quality education in order to become engaged members of society (Galabawa & Alphonse, 2005). The importance of education has recently risen to both national and international levels. According to the United Nations’ standards on human rights, everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their age, gender, or socioeconomic background (Woldesenbet, 2014). Subsequently, education is significantly contributing to raising citizens’ living standards (Liu, 2004).

However, pastoralists in Ethiopian regions lack access to educational opportunities. There is limited development of education in pastoralist areas (Dufera, 2006; Roschanski, 2007). Most of the time, pastoral youth stands out among societies with poor educational opportunities (Tolosa, 2013). In the context of Ethiopia, there are discrepancies in participation in the educational system between regions (Woldesenbet, 2015). The pastoral communities are one of the most disadvantaged and unappreciated populations in the nation in terms of education. Obviously, pastoralists have the lowest academic standing and the lowest levels of education (Murale & Ayenew, 2019). For instance, there is a low enrollment rate, a high rate of dropout, and a low rate of completing class (MoE, 2014; OEB, 2014).

As a result, the Itang Special District was selected for a variety of reasons in the Gambella region. First, the pastoral communities from the Gambella region dominate the district. Similar to that, three ethnic groups, mainly Naath/Nuer, Anywaa, and Oppo, are settling in the district. Likewise, the district is among the most flood- and conflict-prone in the Gambella, making it challenging to successfully develop schools in rural areas. Additionally, it is the district in the Gambella region with the lowest enrollment of pastoral youth in formal education.

2. Statement of problem

There is low student participation in school in Ethiopia (Woldesenbet, 2014). In rural areas, the pastoralist communities are uneducated and illiterate (Murale & Ayenew, 2019). As evidenced, the pastoralist regions have much lower participation and enrollment rates when compared with the average of the country (Murale & Ayenew, 2019; UNICEF, 2019). In view of that, many studies have recognized that the main characteristics of nomadic youth participation in education are low enrollment, masculine bias, high dropout rates, and cultural restrictions (Murale & Ayenew, 2019; Pact Ethiopia, 2008). The study by the South Omo Zone Education Bureau (2016) found that the gross enrolment rate (GER) for pastoralists’ primary-age children in Nyangatom is 42.77%, while it is 48% and 73% in the Afar and Somali regions (UNICEF, 2019). This suggests a variation in participation in education in Ethiopia.

Accordingly, there are numerous factors contributing to the participation of nomadic youth in formal education. For example, poor education, limited economic opportunities, and sociocultural limitations were the primary factors influencing pastoral youth participation in formal education (Woldesenbet, 2014). Similarly, early marriage, lack of interest in school, perception, level of parental education, mobility, child labor, poverty, and limited access to finances are affecting the participation of pastoral youth in formal education (Moges, 2017). Besides, dispersed settlement patterns, bride prices, and peer pressure influenced participation in formal education in Ethiopia (Murale & Ayenew, 2019). Furthermore, the frequent conflicts lead to high school dropouts in the pastoral areas.

Nevertheless, limited studies were conducted on pastoral youth participation in formal education in Itang district. Across Ethiopia, many of the studies have not focused on pastoral youth participation in formal education. As evidence, some of the studies focused on the education of specific children (Boru, 2020; UNICEF, 2019) and certain pastoralists (Elisabeth, 2015; Fact Ethiopia, 2008; Murale & Ayenew, 2019; Petors, 2014; Tolosa, 2013; Woldesenbet, 2014, 2015). There were insufficient studies about the determinants of pastoral youth participation in formal education in Ethiopia. As a matter of fact, many youth do not attend formal education compared to those who lead sedentary lifestyles.

Consequently, not studying the participation of pastoral youth in formal education becomes detrimental. Without this knowledge, it can lead to ineffective policies and interventions in pastoral youth education. Additionally, the well-being of the people in the region will continue to suffer. This lack of understanding could perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality in the educational sector, particularly in pastoral areas. Then, nomadic youth find it exceptionally difficult to take advantage of an educational service. The absence of research on the determinants of pastoral youth participation in formal education may hinder the identification of opportunities for sustainable development in education.

In general, it is crucial to prioritize the study of participation in formal education and its determinants to ensure inclusive and informed decision-making that benefits both pastoralists and the wider community. The provision of quality and equitable primary education is crucial to all societies (Murale & Ayenew, 2019). For example, the study of participation in education can provide valuable insights and guidance for promoting inclusive and sustainable education development in the region. This benefits the livelihoods of pastoralists and contributes to the resilience and stability of the region. Also, by understanding the unique needs of pastoral youth, policymakers can develop targeted interventions and policies that better support their way of life. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from studying pastoral youth education can inform broader development efforts. Thus, this study attempted to examine the determinants of pastoral youth’s participation in formal education in the study area.

3. Objectives of the study

The main aim of this study was to assess the determinants of pastoral youth participation in formal education in the study area. The specific objectives of the study were:

• To assess the status of pastoral youth participation in formal education

• To examine the factors affecting the pastoral youth’s participation in formal education

4. Methodology

4.1. Area description

This study was carried out in Itang district, which is located 45 kilometers away from the regional city of Gambella. This district is exactly located at 8′015' N latitude and 34′010' E longitude within the Gambella regional state. The Itang special district is found between 350 and 480 m above sea level, where the terrain is normally flat. Likewise, it is situated in a tropical agro-climatic zone. By the same token, the district has a total area of 2188 km². Similarly, the average annual temperature and rainfall are 27.40 °C and 933 mm, respectively. Ultimately, the total population of this district is 42,000 for individual counts and 8744 for households (Alemseged, 2014).

In the pastoral areas, the main economic activity is livestock production across the district. Livestock-based farming has become the primary source of income for many people (Gatdet et al., 2021). In Itang district, there are many common livestock activities, particularly fishing, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, beekeeping, etc. This livestock production system is traditional in Itang Special District. The pastoralists practice free-range production, where livestock move everywhere for grazing (Gatdet, 2023). Similarly, fishing and beekeeping are not sustainably practiced through the use of improved technologies. As well, there are many water sources, natural trees, wild animals, fish, etc. in the district. However, these pastoral areas are overlooked in terms of policy. There is a lack of project interventions and developmental services. There are insufficiencies in education, health, roads, telecommunications, and so forth. As a result, many pastoral youth failed to participate in formal education. The youth are still busy herding cows, shoats, calves, oxen, bulls, heifers, etc.

4.2. Sample size and sampling techniques

4.2.1. Sampling techniques

Sampling techniques are an essential tool for gathering accurate and representative data for research purposes. By using various sampling methods, researchers can ensure that the findings are reliable and applicable to a larger population. In this study, multistage sampling techniques were employed to choose the study areas and the research participants. This sampling technique involves the use of two or more sampling methods during the study (Sedgwick, 2015). This study used purposive sampling to choose the Itang special district. Also, the two lowest administrative units were chosen using the systematic sampling technique. Furthermore, pastoral youth were chosen from the sample frame using stratified sampling based on herding livestock and proximity to the town. The study participants were then selected using a simple random sampling technique.

4.2.2. Sample size determination

The sample size determination of quantitative research varies from study to study and researcher to researcher. There is a need for accurate numbers of respondents in this study. As a result, many strategies can be used to find out the sample size. According to this study, the formula method was applied to determine the sample size. This study used n = $\frac{0.25}{\mathit{\text{SE}}2}\mathit{ }$95% confidence interval and 2% level of precision (SE) as the sample size determination (Arsham, 2007). In that formula, 125 respondents were chosen.

4.3. Data collection methods

This study used a mixed research approach, mainly qualitative and quantitative data collection. There are many methods for data collection (De Leeuw, 2012). Some of the main methods used for data collection comprised households’ interview schedules and focus group discussions. The households’ interview schedule was used to collect primary data from 125 respondents. This method was used to gather data from households with access to literacy. The questionnaires were first written in English for clarity and then translated back into the local languages. Meanwhile, two enumerators with diplomas were used. As well, the researcher was also involved in the field, thereby observing the process of collecting data.

In addition, the focus group discussion was used to collect the qualitative data from the field. This method is usually applied to cross-check the survey data (Hennink, 2013). So, two focus group discussions were held in the two kebeles that were chosen as the lowest administrative units for the study. The group discussion involved seven participants, including youth, women, elders, and kebele chairpersons. The participants in the group discussion were selected based on the assistance of development agents and the school director. Those people were chosen based on their knowledge of education and willingness to participate.

Additionally, this study collected secondary data to substantiate the primary data. These data were collected through document analysis to gain a comprehensive understanding of participation in formal education (Johnston, 2014). A review of existing literature was conducted to understand the current conditions for youth participation in formal education. The sources used to compile this data were published ones. These data were downloaded from journal papers, government reports, conference proceedings, and theses relating to pastoral youth education. The abstract, research, and conclusions of each paper were critically assessed and appraised to improve the findings.

4.4. Methods of data analysis

Methods of data analysis play a crucial role in understanding and interpreting the information gathered for sustainable development planning (Sandelowski, 2000). In this regard, several methods of data analysis were used to explore the conditions of participation in formal education using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), version 20. Meanwhile, this study used frequency, percentage, and chi-square to summarize the pastoral youth’s participation in formal education in the study area. Similarly, the binary logit model was used to analyze the factors influencing the participation of youth in formal education.

Substantially, the results of the focus group discussions were analyzed thematically. Thematic analysis is a useful method for analyzing qualitative data, involving six steps: familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing, defining, labeling, and writing up, ensuring analysis is free from confirmation bias. Following this process can help you avoid confirmation bias when formulating your analysis. The findings of this qualitative method were conducted through note taking (Guest et al., 2011). This study closely examines the data to identify common themes, and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly. Thus, the themes of this study were organized into participation to education and factors influencing participation to education. Based on each theme, the codes were developed. For instance, the main coding for participation to formal education are forms of education (basic, mobile and multi-grade schools), and status of participation to education. Similarly, the coding for factors influencing participation to education is factors. So, the findings were reported accordingly.

4.5. Variable hypothesis

The participation of youth in formal education was the outcome variable, and it was mostly comprised of participants and non-participants. Youth who participated in education were coded as 1, while those who did not participate were coded as 0. So, around 13 explanatory variables were planned as the main factors affecting pastoral youth participation in formal education (Table 1).

Table 1. Independent variables of study.

Variables name	Nature	Sign	Description of variables
Marital status	Dummy	+	1 = Married, 0 = Single, 2 = Divorce, 3 = Widow/widower
Age	Continuous	+	Year
Parent occupation	Dummy	+/–	1 = Trader,2 = Farmers, 3 = Government/NGO employee
Parent educational status	Dummy	+	1 = No formal education, 0 = Attended Formal education
Distance to school	Continuous	+	KM
Credit access	Dummy	–	1 = yes, 0 = no
Sex	Dummy	+/–	1 = Male, 0 = female
Government Support	Dummy	+	1 = yes, 0 = no
Perception to education	Dummy	+	1 = Positively, 0 = Negatively
Income	Continuous	+	ETB
Insecurity	Dummy	+/–	1 = None, 0 = Less, 2 = Moderate and 3 = High
Livestock holding size	Continuous	–	TLU
Mobility	Dummy	+	1 = Yes, 0 = No

5. Results

5.1. The pastoral youth participation to formal education

5.1.1. The formal education

The pastoral youth’s involvement was first seen in terms of education enrolled in the study area. In the district, there are basic, multi-grade, and mobile schools. A survey result showed that about 70.7%, 12%, and 17.3% of the youth were engaged in mobile, multi-grade, and basic schools, respectively, in Pulkod kebele (Table 2). By the same token, around 14.9%, 59.7%, and 25.4% of the youth were involved in mobile, multi-grade, and basic schools, respectively, in the Achua kebele (Table 2).

Table 2. Forms of education.

Kebele	Mobile		Multi-grade		Basic		χ^2 p value
	F	%	F	%	F	%
Pulkod	41	70.7	7	12	10	17.3	3.43 0.004 1.87 0.002
Achua	10	14.9	40	59.7	17	25.4

(Source: Own Survey, 2021).

5.1.2. Formal education

The research found that the forms of schools play a crucial role in the participation of youth in education. For example, six participants showed that pastoral youth preferred mobile schools in Pulkod Kebele. Perhaps the nomadic youth don’t participate in basic and multi-grade schools. This situation becomes more prevalent when communities engage in mobile settlements. Moreover, the four participants indicated that pastoral youth participated in multi-grade and basic schools in Achua Kebele. The youth are regularly involved in such education to achieve their academic goals. These youth access the basic and multi-grade schools where there are permanent settlements.

5.1.3. Status of participation to formal education

The participation of pastoral youth in formal education varies in different study areas. In actuality, the level of nomadic youth participation in formal schooling is low. According to a survey, roughly 68.7% of pastoral youths have attended school in Achua Kebele (Table 3). On the other hand, 17.2% of the pastoral youth have participated in formal school in Pulkod Kebele (Table 3). This indicates that the majority of young people do not attend formal school in Pulkod Kebele. The results showed that about 82.8% and 31.1% of the youth have participated in formal education in Pulkod and Achua Kebele, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3. Youth participation.

Participation status	Achua Kebele		Pulkod Kebele		χ^2 p value
	F	%	F	%
Participants	46	68.7	10	17.2	5.42 0.050 3.12 0.000
Non-participants	21	31.3	48	82.8

(Source: Own Survey, 2021).

5.1.4. Status of participation to formal education

The state of pastoral youth participation in formal education was qualitatively described in Itang district. In formal education, six participants showed low youth participation in the study area. There is a limited enrollment rate, high dropout rates, and poor attendance in school. Besides, some participants revealed that the availability of schools, the mobility of pastoral communities, conflict, and the wrong perception of school in the pastoral area contribute to poor participation. Likewise, three participants have indicated that the flood and an unsuitable mode of education contributed to low participation in formal education in the study area.

5.2. Factors of pastoral youth participation to education

Some of the explanatory variables were postulated to determine the participation of nomadic youth in education. About 13 explanatory variables were anticipated to have an influence on the participation of pastoral youth in formal education. The model result found that the size of the livestock holding, distance to school, mobility, insecurity, perception of education, and occupation of parents have negatively influenced the participation of nomadic youth in formal education (Table 4). Furthermore, the education of parents has positively influenced the participation of nomadic youth in formal education (Table 4). Thus, the details of the results are shown in Table 4 presented below.

Table 4. Binary logit model output.

Variables	B	SE	Wald	Sig	Exp (B)
AGHH	0.020	.076	.456	.748	4.876
LHSIZE	−.043	.012	.378***	.002	.320
IC	.076	.073	.126	.544	.732
PAED	.025	.807	2.237**	.006	.563
MAST	.048	.092	1.111	.210	.054
SEHH	.768	.000	3.732	.475	.743
MOBI	−.036	1.00	1.234***	.001	.700
PAOC	−.108	.000	2.287**	.003	.684
CRA	−.054	.803	.000	.922	.784
DISCH	−.123	.062	.571***	.001	.239
GOSU	.324	.027	.560	.276	.45
INSE	−.065	.289	1.621***	.001	.342
PEDU	−.809	.100	4.765***	.002	.92
Constant	−.190	.653	.021	.104	.000

LR χ² (14) = 146.5, p value = 0.000.

Hosmer Lemshow χ² (7) = 5.43, p value = 0.439.

Number of observation = 125.

5.3. Factors of pastoral youth participation to education

Qualitative data on the factors influencing nomadic youth participation in formal education was collected. The participants described the significant influence of the explanatory variables on the participation of nomadic youth in formal education. As was the case, the results of six participants revealed that the failure of nomadic youth participation in formal education was not an individual fault. For example, the four participants stated that demographic and cultural factors strongly influenced participation in education. Similarly, five participants advocated that economic, social, and institutional factors influence participation in formal education in Itang District.

6. Discussion

6.1. Participation to education

There are many different types of education available in the Itang District. These types of schools are essentially movable, multi-grade, and basic. In pastoral areas, basic, mobile, and multi-grade modes of schooling were found to be in use (Tolosa, 2013). As a result, many pastoral adolescents have started attending mobile schools throughout the district. This implies that youth have used mobile schools because they are close to their destinations across the district. This is attributed to the nature of mobility among pastoral communities in the district. The financial, cultural, and human abilities of pastoral youth are strongly related to formal education. Murale and Ayenew (2019) found that pastoral communities embrace mobile schools in Nyangatom. On the other hand, some youth preferred multi-grade schools in the district. This suggests that youths living close to cities used multiple grades. This has a connection with youth whose parents pursue sedentary lifestyles. According to Woldesenbet (2015), multiple grades is a popular strategy for integrating and maintaining students from sparsely inhabited areas in schools.

Similarly, pastoral youth have different needs for seeking educational models. Pastoral youth are constrained from participating in formal education. This suggests that many young people have not consistently attended formal education in pastoral areas. According to Tolosa (2013), pastoralists’ children have a poor enrollment rate. This implies that nomadic youth do not usually seek educational options. The main reason for this is the widespread mobility of the pastoral communities. Generally, pastoral communities perceive schools negatively. Murale and Ayenew (2019) found that pastoralists’ mobility prevents children from participating in primary education.

6.2. Factors influencing participation to education

Several factors affected the pastoral youth’s participation in formal education in Itang District. For instance, the size of the livestock holdings determined the participation of pastoral youth in formal education. The result showed that the livestock holding size negatively influenced the participation of nomadic people in formal education at 1% (p value = 0.002). This suggests that the increase in livestock holdings decreases participation in education. As estimated, increasing the tropical livestock unit by one unit would reduce participation in education by 32%. This indicates that the increasing numbers of livestock do not encourage youth involvement in education. The youth can look after the sheep, goats, calves, and cows in the district. According to Krätli and Dyer (2009), livestock has a negative impact on participation in formal education.

Similarly, parental education influenced their participation in formal education. The results show that parental education positively influenced participation in formal education by 5% (p = 0.006). This indicates that parents’ increased education increases their participation in formal education. The results revealed that increasing parental education by one class increased the decision of pastoral youth to participate in formal education by 56%. This shows that nomadic youth with educated parents have better participation in formal education. Educated parents are aware of the importance of education for youth and children. Moges (2017) demonstrated that parental education levels determine children’s participation in formal education in rural areas.

In addition, insecurity determines the participation of pastoral youth in education. The results indicated that insecurity negatively influenced the participation of pastoral youth in formal education by 1% (p = 0.001). This means that an increase in insecurity by one unit would decrease pastoral youth’s participation in formal education. The estimate showed that increases in insecurity could decrease participation in education by 34%. This suggests that young people living in conflict-affected areas do not participate in formal education in different locations. This indicated that pastoral youth fear being attacked on the road to school. Krätli and Dyer (2009) found that insecurity reduces access to education in pastoral areas.

Moreover, distance to school determined the participation of pastoral youth in education. The results showed that distance to school negatively influenced participation in formal education by 1% (p = 0.001). This justifies the fact that an increased distance to school decreases the participation of nomadic youth. The results showed that increasing the distance to school by one kilometer would decrease youth participation in education by 24%. This finding verifies that pastoral youths do not prefer learning in distance schools. The presence of animals, attacks, thirst, and human abductors prevents the youth from participating. Murale and Ayenew (2019) found that distance to school influences pastoralists’ decision to participate in formal education.

In addition, parental occupation influences the participation of nomadic youth in formal education. The results showed that the occupation of parents negatively influenced the participation of youth in education by 5% (p = 0.003). This indicates that an increase in parent occupation of livestock decreases youth participation in education. The assessment revealed that a one-unit increase in the amount of labor required by pastoral household heads to raise animals would decrease participation in education by 68%. This result indicates that fewer pastoral youths would participate in formal education when their parents’ main occupation was herding animals. This is related to the fact that cattle owners frequently make their young children take care of the cattle around the district. Tolosa (2013) disclosed that the work of parents determined the participation of children in formal education.

Similarly, perception of education influenced the participation of pastoral youth in formal education. The results showed that the perception of education negatively influenced participation in education by 1% (p value = 0.002). This implies that increases in negative perceptions of education decrease the participation of nomadic youth in education. The estimate showed that an increase in negative perceptions of education would decrease youth participation in education by 92%. This demonstrates that negative perceptions limit youth participation in education. This is associated with a lack of awareness about formal education in pastoral settings. Moges (2017) showed that the perception of education reduced the pastoralists’ participation in education.

Furthermore, the mobility of the pastoral communities determined the participation of the youth in education. The result showed that mobility negatively influenced the participation of youth in education at 1% (p value = 0.001). This implied that the increases in mobility decrease the pastoral youth’s participation in formal education. The result proved that increases in mobility would decrease participation in education by 70%. This means that changing locations reduces the participation of youth in education. At the time of Ethiopian education, the pastoral communities migrated to different areas. This makes it difficult for youth to attend the regular class. Krätli and Dyer (2009) revealed that mobility affected active participation in education in pastoral areas.

7. Conclusions

The growth of the pastoral communities in the Gambella region depends on formal education. The finding showed that the nomadic pastoralists mostly employ the mobile mode of education. Besides, sedentary youth use multi-grade and basic modes of education. However, there is a low level of youth participation in formal education. Many factors determine the participation of the nomadic youth in formal education. The main influencing factors are perception of education, mobility, distance to school, parent occupation, size of livestock holding, insecurity, and education of the parent.

As a result, some of the intervention strategies are needed in pastoral areas. In the first place, the government and NGOs should prioritize training on education and peace building in the pastoral areas. Moges (2017) has proven that the program to educate people about the benefits of education and dialogue for peace is important. Also, the pastoralist community needs to be made aware of children’s rights to education (Boru, 2020). Moreover, there is a need to strengthen mobile schools throughout pastoral areas. Hence, establishing a mobile school with movable facilities for teaching can make children learn in an environment where they are present at a given time (Woldesenbet, 2015). Likewise, it is strongly advised that boarding and feeding schools be recognized in pastoral areas. Accordingly, the provision of boarding and school feeding in the pastoral areas is paramount (Pact Ethiopia, 2008).

Acknowledgement

Thank you to the enumerators, district lowest administrators, district chief administrator, focus group discussion participants, and survey respondents.

Disclosure statement

The author declared that there was no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chayot Gatdet

Chayot Gatdet is a PhD candidate at the University of Gondar in Rural Development and Food Security. He earned his M.Sc. Degree in Rural Livelihood and Food Security at the same university. He is a lecturer in the Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension at Gambella University. His research areas are livelihood, food security, agricultural extension, sustainable development, and pastoralism. Thus, the author has participated in many Ethiopian national research conferences and published eleven journal articles and one book from 2021 to 2022. He is a reviewer in some refutable journals, and hence, he has received the credit certificates as well.