RELATION IN SCHOL RESULTS AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDENTS IN THE PRIMARY SCHOOL WITH BEHAVIOUR DISORDERS

(1)

SOCIJALNO - ANDRAGO[KI - ASPEKTI

socijalno - andrago{ki - aspekti social and adult aspects

RELACII ME\U U^ILI[NIOT USPEH I KARAKTERISTIKITE NA

SEMEJSTVOTO KAJ U^ENICI SO POREMETUVAWE VO ODNESUVAWETO VO OSNOVNITE U^ILI[TA

Ranko KOVA^EVI] [a}ira ME[ALI]

Univerzitet vo Tuzla

Edukacisko-rehabilitaciski fakultet, Tuzla

RELATION BETWEEN SCHOOL RESULTS AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDENTS WITH BEHAVIOURAL

DISORDERS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Ranko KOVAČEVIKJ Schachira MESCHALIKJ

University in Tuzla

Education-Rehabilitation Faculty, Tuzla

Rezime

Abstract

Celta na ovoj trud be{e da se ispitaat re-laciite na u~ili{niot uspeh i karakte-ristikite na semejstvata, odnesuvaweto vo osnovnite u~ili{ta kaj u~enicite so naru-{uvawa vo odnesuvaweto. Vo trudot se trgna od hipotezata vo koja u~enicite so polo{ uspeh imaat nepovolni semejni ka-rakteristiki vo odnos na u~enicite so po-dobar u~ili{en uspeh. Primerokot od is-pitanici se sostoe{e od 112 u~enici od 6 osnovni u~ili{ta na podra~jeto na op{ti-na Tuzla. So hi-kvadrat testot izolirani se tri varijabli koi se poka`ale statis-ti~ki zna~ajni i toa: obrazovanieto na majkata, obrazovanieto na tatkoto, i socio-ekonomskiot status na semejstvoto. Dobienite rezultati poka`uvaat deka obrazovnata inferiornost na roditelite i poslabata socio-ekonomska situacija vo semejstvoto imaat vlijanie vrz u~ili{ni-ot uspeh.

The aim of this paper is to examine relations of the school results and family characteristics of the students in the primary school with behaviour disorders. This paper begins with the hypothesis which shows that students with bad school results have very poor family characteristics compared to students with better school results. The sample consisted of 112 students from 6 primary schools, within the municipality of Tuzla. Chi-square test showed three variables statistically important: mother's education, father's education, and socio-economic conditions in the family. The achieved results have shown that the educational inferiority of the parents and the poor socio-economic situa-tion of the family have big influence on the school results.

Klu~ni zborovi: u~ili{en uspeh, semejni sostojbi

Key Words: school results, and family conditions

Adresa za separatite: Address requests for reprint to:

Ranko KOVA^EVI], [a}ira ME[ALI] Ranko KOVAČEVIKJ, Schachira MESCHALIKJ

Edukacisko-rehabilitaciski fakultet Univerzitetska 1, 75000 Tuzla

Bosna i Hercegovina E-mail: ranko_74@hotmail.com

Education-Rehabilitation Faculty Univerzitetska 1, 75000 Tuzla Bosna i Hercegovina

(2)

SOCIAL AND ADULT ASPECTS

Voved

Introduction

Dokolku vo centarot na istraùva~kiot interes e deteto-u~enikot i negoviot sev-kupen razvoj vo pravec na zdrava, sre}na i konstruktivna li~nost, faktori koi ne moàt da se zaobikolat vo toj proces se semejstvoto i u~ili{teto kako neposredni elementi na direktno vlijanie na socija-lizacijata (Koller-Trbovich, 1991). U~ili{-teto po semejstvoto e najzna~ajna socijalna grupa vo koja deteto vleguva. Glavna cel na u~ili{teto e da im ovozmoì na svoite u~enici usvojuvawe na pogolem kvantum na znaewa i naviki, da im ovozmoì {irok dijapazon mo`nosti, za da vo mladata li~-nost se vsadat i razvijat moralnite, eti~-kite, kulturnite, rabotnite i drugi pozi-tivni sposobnosti, bez koi mladite ne bi moèle celosno i uspe{no da se vovedat vo ìvotot. Isto taka, moè da naglasime deka so u~ili{teto se pro{iruva intelek-tualniot horizont na deteto, steknuva sis-tematizirani znaewa, novi iskustva, go zbogatuva re~nikot. Istraùvawata vo podra~jeto na u~eweto i ocenuvaweto, zna~i dokimolo{kite istraùvawa, kako {to naveduva Uzelac (2003) gi pokaàle rezultatite koi po mnogu elementi ja os-vetluvaat vistinata za kompleksnoto pra-{awe za varijablata, koja naj~esto se nare-kuva u~ili{en uspeh, a se istraùva so numeri~ki kategorii, naj~esto na skala od 1 do 5. Rastojanieto na ocenkite od eden do pet, me|u drugoto, gi deli u~enicite na dve grupi: neuspe{ni i uspe{ni. Ova e pot-rebno da se ima predvid dokolku so ocen-kite za op{toto znaewe pri u~eweto vo dadeniot vospitno-obrazoven proces mu se dade i po{iroko zna~ewe. Mnogu u~enici ne se vo sostojba da go zadovolat toa bara-we na soodveten na~in. Istraùvawata pokaàle deka takvite u~enici mnogu ~es-to izrazuvaat razli~ni formi na nepri-fatlivo odnesuvawe vo i nadvor od u~i-li{teto(Uzelac,MiksajTodorovich, 1991).

If in the center of the research is the

child-stu-dent and its development and its healthy, happy

and constructive characteristics of a personality,

the most important factors in that process are the

family and the school as elements of direct

influ-ence on the socialization (Koller-Trbović, 1991).

Besides the family, the school is the most

signifi-cant social institution in which the child enters.

The main aim of the school is to enable students

to gain knowledge and develop their habits, so

that young individuals develop moral, ethic,

cultural and work habit as well as other positive

abilities, without which young individuals could

not enter into the real life successfully. School

also develops children's intellectual horizon,

chil-dren gather systematic knowledge, new

experi-ences and improve their vocabulary. The

re-search in the area of learning, evaluation and

grading, i.e. docimology research, as written in

Uzelac (2003) has already examined results

which explain complex questions of a variable

which is called school success, and is shown

with numeric categories mostly on the scale from

1 to 5. These marks from one to five scales

di-vide students into two groups: successful and

unsuccessful. This should be considered as a

great significant in marking and evaluating in

education process. One of the most important

assignments of the students in school is learning

and studying of the school curriculum. A lot of

students cannot do that. The research shows that

those students have different stages of

unaccept-able behaviour in and outside the school (Uzelac,

(3)

No, kako {to istaknuvaat ovie avtori, ovie oblici na odnesuvawe moè da imaat razli~na geneza koja istovremeno vlijae vrz slabite rezultati vo u~eweto. Pokraj bio-psiho-socijalnata geneza pove}eto na-ru{uvawa vo odnesuvaweto se pod vlijanie na semejnite slu~uvawa. Semejnite odnosi se prvite op{testveni odnosi za deteto. Semejstvoto se javuva kako pozitiven ili negativen faktor na razvoj na deteto, no vo sekoj slu~aj kako neodminuva~ki fak-tor za negoviot razvoj (Milosavljevikj, 1982). Za da moè da gi identifikuvame fakto-rite na razli~nosti na semejstvata na u~ili{nite deca (na odredena vozrast) po-trebno e nekoe vreme da se sledat ìvot-nite uslovi na semejstvoto ({to e naj-dostapno na nastavnicite). Deteto-u~enik s¢_{u{te e najmnogu povrzan so ~lenovite na}

semejstvoto (roditelite, nivnite supsti-tuti, bra}ata, sestrite i drugite ~lenovi), pa site okolnosti od ìvotot vo semej-stvoto imaat direktno vlijanie vrz deteto i negoviot razvoj. Toa vlijanie, za àl ~esto moè da bide neadekvatno vo odnos kon decata i mladinata so naru{uvawa vo odnesuvaweto. (Basic, 1991).

Ovoj trud ima cel da ja utvrdi vrskata na semejnite uslovi za `ivot na u~enikot so naru{uvawe vo odnesuvaweto i negoviot u~ili{en uspeh. Na takov na~in se nas-tojuva da se identifikuvaat onie semejni faktori koi vo najgolema mera vlijaat na uspehot vo u~ili{te.

Vo trudot se razgleduva op{tata hipoteza spored koja u~enicite so polo{ u~ili{en uspeh imaat ponepovolni semejni priliki, vo odnos na u~enicite so podobar u~ili-{en uspeh.

But, as the authors point out, these forms of

be-haviour can have different genesis which has

influence on poor learning results. Besides

bio-psycho-social genesis the disorders in behaviour

are influenced by the family circumstances. The

family relationships are the first social

relation-ships which children experience. The family is

positive or negative factor in child's development

but very important (Milosavljević, 1982). To

identify factors of family diversities with school

children (at particular age) it is necessary to

ob-serve the child's life conditions in the family for

some time (which is available to the teachers).

Child-students is still connected to the members

of the family /parents, their substitutes, brothers,

sisters and other family members) so all these

circumstances of life have direct influence on a

child and his/her development. Very often, the

influence can be inadequate in relation to

chil-dren and youth who have behaviour disorders

(Bašić, 1999).

The aim of this paper is to find the connection

between family life circumstances of the students

and their school success. In that way, family

factors which mostly influence on child’s success

at school can be identified.

The paper presents the general hypothesis

ac-cording to which students with worse school

success have less favourable family

circum-stances than students with better school success.

Metodi na rabota

Method of the work

Ispituvaweto e izvr{eno na primerok od 112 u~enici, vo 6 osnovni u~ili{ta. U~i-li{tata se izbrani po metodot na slu~aen izbor.

The research has been done on a sample of 12

students in 6 primary schools. The schools have

(4)

Vo izborot se vlezeni site u~enici od pr-vo do osmo oddelenie za koi nastavnicite procenile deka manifestiraat naru{uva-we vo odnesuvanaru{uva-weto.

Vkupniot broj na primerokot iznesuva 42 u~enici od prvo do ~etvrto oddelenie i 70 u~enici od petto do osmo oddelenie. In-formaciite za ispitanicite se sobrani so pomo{ na posebno konstruiran pra{alnik za taa namena koj gi sodrè{e slednive varijabli: 1. oddelenie (1. prvo-~etvrto, 2. petto-osmo); 2. Dali deteto ìvee so svoi-te rodisvoi-teli (1. da, 2. ne); 3. Uslovisvoi-te za ìveewe na u~enikot (1. vo sopstvenoto semejstvo, 2. drugo semjstvo, 3. vo dom); 4. So kolku ~lenovi od semejstvoto u~enikot ìvee (1. eden, 2. dva, 3. tri, 4. ~etiri, 5. pet i pove}e); 5. Obrazovniot status na majkata (1. nk, 2. sss, 3. v{s, 4. vss); 6. Obra-zovniot status na tatkoto (1. nk, 2. sss, 3. v{s, 4. vss); 7. Socio-ekonomskiot status na semejstvoto (1. nad prosekot, 2. pro-se~en, 3. pod prose~en); 8. Dali roditelite se begalci (1. da, 2. ne); 9. Koj se griì okolu odgleduvawe na deteto (1. dvajcata roditeli, 2. edniot roditel, 3. babite i dedovcite, 4. rodninite, 5. drugi li~-nosti); 10. U~ili{niot uspeh na deteto (1. nedovolen, 2. dovolen, 3. dobar, 4. mnogu dobar, 5. odli~en) .

Procenata na sostojbata vo semejstvoto ja vr{ea oddelenskite nastavnici koi se naj-dobri poznava~i na deteto i slu~uvawata vo semejstvoto. Klu~nata varijabla koja be{e koristena vo istra`uvaweto e u~i-li{niot uspeh na krajot od u~ili{nata godina. Sobranite podatoci se obrabo-teni so pomo{ na Hi-kvadrat testot, so koj se testira povrzanosta me|u dve vari-jabli. Ovaa metoda isto taka opfa}a pres-metuvawe na apsolutnite i relativnite frekvencii za kategoriite od site vari-jabli. Kako kriti~na vrednost za statis-ti~kata zna~ajnost e zemena verojatnosta za gre{ka pomala od 5% (p<0.05).

The research includes all students from the first

to the eight grades which are considered by the teachers that have problems in behaviour.

The total number of the sample was 42 students from year the first to the fourth grade and 70

students from the fifth to the eight grades.

The information on the subjects included in ex-amination was taken from a special constructed

questionnaire which had the following variables: 1. grade (1. from 1 to 4; 2. from 5 to 8); 2. Do students and parents live together? (1. Yes; 2. no); 3. Where do students live? (1. in their own families; 2. with another family; 3. orphanage); 4. How many members are in the family? (1. one; 2. two; 3. three; 4. four; 5. five and more);

5. The mother’s education level (1. unqualified; 2. highschool degree; 3. college degree; 4. uni-versity degree); 6. The father’s education level (1. unqualified; 2. highschool degree; 3. college degree; 4. university degree); 7. Socio-economic status of the family (1. good; 2. average; 3.

poor); 8. Are the student's parents refugees (1. yes; 2. no); 9.Who takes care of the child? (1. both parents; 2. one parent; 3. grandparents; 4. relatives; 5. other people); 10. School results of the students (1. insufficient; 2. sufficient; 3. good; 4. very good; 5. excellent).

The assessment of the circumstances in the families was performed by the head teachers who know the students and their families, best. The key variable used in the research was the one

(5)

Rezultati i diskusii

The result and dis cus ion

Tabela 1. Relacija me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i oddelenieto

Table 1._{Relations between school success and school} grade

1-4 5-8 vkupno (total)

nedovolen (insufficient) 21 (50%) 21 (50%) 42 (100%)

dovolen (sufficient) 8 (44,4%) 10 (55,6%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 14 (37,8%) 23 (62,2%) 37 (100%)

mnogu dobar (very good) 5 (55,65%) 4 (44,4%) 9 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 4 (66,7%) 2 (33,3%) 6 (100%)

vkupno (total) 52 (46,4%) 60 (53,6%) 112 (100%)

Hi-kvadrat test (Chi-square) = 2.631

Stapki na sloboda/degree of freedom (df) = 4

Verojatnost za gre{ka / probability of an error(significant) = .621

Oddelenie

-

Relacijata u~ili{en uspeh i oddelenieto vo koe deteto ja sledi nastava-ta e prikaàna vo nastava-tabela 1. So analiza na rezultatite vidlivo e deka ne postojat sta-tisti~ki zna~ajni razliki me|u u~enicite od prvo do ~etvrto oddelenie i u~enicite od petto do osmo oddelenie vo ostvaruvawe-to na u~ili{niot uspeh. Zna~i, bi moèle da zaklu~ime deka u~enicite so naru{uva-we vo odnesuvanaru{uva-weto i vo poniskite i vo po-visokite oddelenija imaat priblièn u~ili{en uspeh.

The school grade

-

Relations of the school grade

and the students’ success are shown in Table 1.

The analysis of the results has shown that there

are no statistically significant differences between

the students from 1 to 4 grade and the students

from 5 to 8 grades in achieving the school

suc-cess. Thus, we can conclude that students with

behaviour disorders have very similar school

suc-cess in all school grades.

Tabela 2. Relacija me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i zaedni~kiot `ivot na roditelite

Table 2._{Relations between school success and parents} living together

da (yes) ne (no) vkupno (total)

nedovolen (insufficient) 24 (57,1%) 18 (42,9%) 42 (100%)

dobar (good) 25 (67,6%) 12 (31,4%) 37 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 5 (83,3%) 1 (6,7%) 6 (100%)

vkupno (total) 71 (63,4%) 41 (36,6%) 112 (100%)

Stapki na sloboda / degree of freedom (df) = 4

Verojatnost za gre{ka / probability of error (significant) = .510

Dali roditelite na u~enikot `iveat

zaedno?

Do parents and students live together?

Zaedni~kiot ìvot na roditelite e pret-postavka za uspe{no odgleduvawe i obra-zovno deluvawe vrz deteto. Ova obele`je na strukturata dobiva polna smisla ako se nabquduva vo semejna atmosfera. Samo po sebe, ova moè da ukaè na eventualnite problemi vo semejstvoto.

(6)

Vrz osnova na vrednosta na hi-kvadrat tes-tot me|u ovie varijabli ne postoi statis-ti~ka povrzanost. Spored toa, mo`e da se konstatira deka zaedni~kiot `ivot na ro-ditelite ne e primaren faktor koj vlijae vrz uspehot na deteto vo u~ili{teto. Hipo-tezata za ovoj del ne e potvrdena.

According to values of chi-square test there is no significant statistical connection between these variables. Thus we can conclude that parents living together with their children are not the prime fac-tor which affects child's success in the school. This hypothesis has not been confirmed yet.

Tabela 3. Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i us -lovite za `ivot

Table 3._{Relations between school success and parents} living together

sopstvena ku}a (own house)

stan (appartment)

potstanar (orphanage)

vkupno (total)

nedovolen (insufficient) 22 (52,4%) 9 (21,4%) 11 (26,2%) 42 (100%)

dovolen (sufficient) 7 (38,9%) 3 (16,7%) 8 (44,4%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 24 (64,9%) 5 (13,5%) 8 (21,6%) 37 (100%)

mnogu dobar (very good) 3 (33,3%) 5 (13,5%) 1 (33,3%) 9 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 4 (66,7%) 2 (33,3%) 6 (100%)

vkupno (total) 60 (53,6%) 24 (21,4%) 28 (25%) 112 (100%)

Stapka na sloboda/ degree of freedom(df) = 8

Verojatnost za gre{ka / probability of error(significant) = .078

Uslovi za `ivot vo koi `ivee deteto

Where do students live?

@ivotnite standardi na semejstvoto treba

da se razgleduvaat od aspekt na funkcijata na odgleduvawe. Nepovolnite uslovi za ì-veewe se pojavi koi gi sledat niskiot socio-ekonomski, obrazoven i op{testven status na semejstvoto, so {to se zgolemu-vaat negativnite aspekti za ìvot. Nitu vo ovaa, kako i vo prethodnata tabela ne se dobieni statisti~ki zna~ajni razliki. Moè da konstatirame deka na u~ili{niot uspeh na u~enikot so poremetuvawe vo od-nesuvaweto uslovite za ìvot ne se od pri-marno zna~ewe.

The living standard of the family should be con-sidered from the aspect of the upbringing function. Unfavourable living conditions of the family are occurrences which go with the low socio-eco-nomic, educational and social status of the family, which enhance the negative aspects of life. Neither in this table nor in the previous one there have been statistically significant differences. We can conclude that the living conditions of the students with the behavioural are not of prime importance for the students’ school success.

Tabela 4.Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i broj na ~lenovi od semejstvoto

Table 4._{Relations between school success and number} of the members in the family

(one)

ва

(two)

и

(three)

Ч и и

(four)

и в ќ

(five and more)

вк

( otal)

nedovolen (insufficient) 2 (4,8%) 6 (14,3%) 3 (7,1%) 10 (23,8%) 21 (50%) 42 (100%)

dovolen (sufficient) 1 (5,6%) 4 (22,2%) 2 (11,1) 3 (16,7%) 8 (44,4%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 1 (2,7%) 6 (16,2%) 18 (48,6%) 12 (32,4%) 37 (100%)

mnogu dobar (very good) 3 (33,3%) 3 (33,3%) 3 (33,3%) 9 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 1 (16,7%) 1 (16,7%) 3 (50%) 1 (16,7%) 6 (100%)

vkupno (total) 4 (3,6%) 14 (12,5%) 12 (10,7%) 37 (33,0%) 45 (40,2%) 112 (100%)

Stapki na sloboda/ degree of freedom(df) = 16

(7)

So kolku ~lenovi od semejstvoto

u~eni-kot `ivee?

How many members are in the family?

So analiza na rezultatite prika`ani so abelata 4. vidlivo e deka ne se dobieni statisti~ki zna~ajni razliki me|u razgle-danite varijabli. Rezultatite od trudot govorat za faktot deka `ivotot vo semej-stvo so pogolem ili pomal broj ~lenovi ne e od primarno zna~ewe za u~ili{niot us-peh. Nitu vo ovaa, kako i vo prethodnata tabela hipotezata ne e potvrdena.

From the results of the analysis shown in Table 4.

it is obvious that there are no statistically

signifi-cant differences between examined variables. The

labour results show the fact that life in a family

with a bigger or a small number of family

mem-bers do not affect the school success. The

hypothe-sis in neither this Table nor in the previous one has

been confirmed.

Tabela 5. Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i ob -razovniot status na majkata

Table 5. _{Relations between school success and} mother's educational status

nk (unqualified)

sss (highschool degree)

v{s (college degree)

Vss (university

degree)

vkupno (total)

nedovolen

(insufficient) 30 (71,4%) 12 (28,6%) 42 (100%)

dobar (good) 23 (62,2%) 12 (32,4%) 1 (2,7%) 1 (2,7%) 37 (100%)

mnogu dobar (very

good) 5 (55,6%) 4 (44,4%) 9 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 1 (16,7%) 3 (50%) 1 (16,7%) 1 (16,7%)

vkupno (total) 73 (64,9%) 35 (30,6%) 2 (1,8%) 2 (1,8%) 112 (100%)

Verojatnost za gre{ka / probability of an error (significant) = .032

Obrazovniot status na majkata

Mother's educational status

Uviduvaj}i gi rezultatite prika`ani vo tabela 5. vidlivo e deka postoi statisti~-ki zna~ajna razlika me|u razgleduvanite varijabli. Rezultatite poka`uvaat deka majkite na u~enicite so nedovolen i do-volen uspeh se bez nekoe zanimawe, dodeka u~enicite so podobar u~ili{en uspeh ima -at majki so kvalifikacii. Isto taka, u~e -nicite ~ii majki imaat vi{ obrazoven sta -tus imaat re~isi dvapati podobar u~ili-{en uspeh. Od celiot primerok re~isi e mal brojot na u~enici ~ii majki imaat vi -sok obrazoven status.

Considering the results shown in Table 5, it is

obvious that there are statistically significant

dif-ferences in the variables. The results show that

mothers of students with insufficient and

suffi-cient success are mostly unqualified, while

moth-ers of the students with better school success are

with qualifications. It is also shown that students,

whose mothers have higher educational status,

have twice better school success. Within the

whole sample there are only a few students whose

(8)

Tabela 6.Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i obrazovniot status na tatkoto

Table 6._{Relations between school success and father's} educational status

nk (unqualified)

sss (highschool degree)

v{s (college degree)

vss (university

degree)

vkupno (total)

dobar (good) 12 (32,4%) 24 (64,9%) 1 (2,7%) 37 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 2 (33,3%) 3 (50%) 1 (16,7%)

vkupno (total) 57 (50,9%) 53 (47,3%) 1 (0,9%) 1 (0,9%) 112 (100%)

Stapka na sloboda /degree of freedom (df) = 12

Verojatnost za gre{ka/probability of an error(significant) = .001

Obrazovniot status na tatkoto

Father's educational status

Kako i vo prethodnata tabela vidlivo e

postoeweto na statisti~ka zna~ajnost. Tat-kovcite na u~enicite koi imaat pomal us-peh se pove}eto nekvalifikuvani, dodeka u~enicite so podobar u~ili{en uspeh ima-at tima-atkovci koi imaima-at sredna stru~na podgotovka. Pove}e od polovina od u~eni-cite od celiot primerok imaat roditeli bez kvalifikacija. No, sporeduvaj}i gi ovie rezultati so prethodnite, vidlivo e deka od celiot primerok, tatkovcite na u~enicite imaat povisok obrazoven status otkolku majkite. Mo`e da konstatirame deka hipotezata vo delot koj se odnesuva na obrazovniot status e potvrdena.

As in the previous table there are statistically

significant differencies. Fathers of the students

with low success are mostly unqualified, while

fathers of better students have mostly highschool

degrees. More than a half of the students within

the whole sample have parents with no

qualificiations. But, comparing these results with

the previous ones, it can be seen that fathers are

with better educational status than mothers. We

can conclude that the hypotesis, as far as education

is concerned, has been conffirmed.

Tabela 7. Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i socio-ekonomskiot status na semejstvoto

Table 7._{Relations between scholl success and} socio-economic status of the family

nad prosekot (above the average)

prose~no (average)

pod prosekot (bellow the average)

vkupno (total)

dovolen (sufficient) 1 (5,6%) 6 (33,3%) 11 (61,1%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 1 (2,7%) 15 (40,5%) 21 (56,8%) 37 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 5 (83,3%) 1 (16,7%)

vkupno (total) 2 (1,8%) 45 (40,2%) 65 (58%) 112 (100%)

(9)

Socio-ekonomski status na

semejstvoto

Socio-economic status of the family

Podatocite za socio-ekonomskiot status se dobivaat od razli~ni podatoci. Me|u naj-va`nite se visinata na prihodot na semej-stvoto, vrabotenosta na nejzinite ~lenovi, vidot na rabotata, standardot vo mestoto na `iveewe.

Voo~uvaj}i gi rezultatite od tabela 7. vid-livo e deka u~enicite so polo{ uspeh glav-no ìveat vo semejstva so potprose~en so-cio-ekonomski status, dodeka onie so podo-bar uspeh ìveat vo prose~ni socio-eko-nomski uslovi. Od sevkupniot primerok mnogu e mal brojot na ispitanici so nat-prose~en status. I ovde moè da konstati-rame deka hipotezata e potvrdena.

The data about the socio-economic status are gained from different sources. The most important one is the family income, employment of the fam-ily members, the type of work, the level of educa-tion, the living standards etc.

As it is shown in Table 7, students with worse success in school live in families with under aver-age socio-economic status, while students with better success live in families with very good socio-economic position. Within the whole sample there is very small number of students with very high socio-economic status. We can also conclude here that the hypothesis is confirmed.

Tabela 8. Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i raselenost na semejstvoto (begalci)

Table 8._{Relations between school success and refugee} family

da (yes) ne(no) vkupno (total)

dovolen (sufficient) 9 (50%) 9 (50%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 12 (32,4%) 25 (67,6%) 37 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6 (100%)

vkupno (total) 52 (46,4%) 60 (53,6%) 112 (100%)

Dali roditelite na maloletnikot se

begalci?

Are the student's parents, refugees?

Sekoja promena, taka i promenata na ì-veali{teto predizvikuva dopolnitelni te{kotii vo funkcioniraweto na semej-stvoto. Osven toa, mnogu ~esto deteto e prisileno da go menuva u~ili{teto {to moè da dovede do pote{kotii vo adapti-raweto, a seto toa pak da vlijae vrz uspe-hot na u~ili{te. Od tabelata vidlivo e deka ne postoi statisti~ki zna~ajna razli-ka. Moè da se zaklu~i deka raseluvaweto ne vlijae na u~ili{niot uspeh, zemaj}i go predvid toa deka u~enikot mnogu brzo mo-è da se adaptira vo novata u~ili{na sre-dina.

Each change, like the change of the place of living,

causes additional difficulties in the family

func-tioning. Besides that, the child is forced to change

schools which can lead to difficulties in adaptation

and can affect school success. The table shows that

there are no statistically significant differences. It

can be concluded that the change of the place of

living does not affect the school success and that

(10)

Nitu ovde ne mo`e da se potvrdi povenata hipoteza, bidej}i ne e dobiena sta-tisti~ki zna~ajna povrzanost me|u vari-jablite.

The hypothesis has not been confirmed either,

because there is no statistically significant

con-nection between the variables.

Tabela 9. Relacii me|u u~ili{niot uspeh i koj s¢ go odgleduva deteto.

Table 8._{Relations between school success and refugee} family

dvajca roditeli (both parents)

eden roditel (one parent)

babi i dedovci (grandparents)

rodnini (relatives)

drugi (other)

vkupno (total)

nedovolen (insufficient) 17 (40,5%) 19 (45,2%) 2 (4,8%) 4 (9,5%) 42 (100%)

dovolen (sufficient) 8 (44,8%) 6 (33,3%) 2 (11,1%) 2 (11,1%) 18 (100%)

dobar (good) 16 (43,2%) 16 (43,2%) 1 (2,7%) 2 (5,4%) 2 (5,4%) 37 (100%)

odli~en (excelent) 5 (83,3%) 1 (16,7%)

vkupno (total) 51 (45,5%) 46 (41,1%) 5 (4,5%) 2 (1,8%) 8 (7,1%) 112 (100%)

Stapki na sloboda/ degree of freedom(df) = 16

Koj se gri`i za odgleduvawe na deteto? Who takes care of the child’s upbringing? Statisti~kite pokazateli od tabelata 9.

govorat deka u~ili{niot uspeh na u~eni-kot ne e statisti~ki zna~ajno povrzan so toa koj se griì za u~enikot. No sepak, voo~livo e deka u~enikot so podobar uspeh go odgleduvaat dva roditela, dodeka pak onie so nedovolen uspeh glavno gi odgle-duva eden roditel. Kako {to i prethodno navedovme, vakviot rezultat moè da ima pove}e zna~ajnost koga se razgleduva vo relacija so nekoja druga varijabla. Nitu vo ovoj slu~aj hipotezata ne e potvrdena. Analiziraj}i go u~ili{niot uspeh na u~e-nicite so naru{uvawe vo odnesuvaweto vo relacija so oddelni semejni karakteris-tiki vo sklop so hipotezata koja ja defi-niravme, moè da kaème deka postavenata hipoteza gi dade delumno o~ekuvanite re-zultati. Rezultatite od trudot upatuvaat na zaklu~ok deka u~enicite so ponizok u~ili{en uspeh ìveat vo ponepovolni socio-ekonomski uslovi i imaat nekvali-fikuvani roditeli. Od ovie malubrojni podatoci, proizleguva potrebata od inter-venirawe i vo semejstvoto i pomo{ na de-teto-u~enik na u~ili{te.

Statistical indicators of Table 9. show that chil-dren's school success is not statistically signifi-cantly connected with the fact who takes care of the child. But it is shown that students who have better success in school live with both parents, while those who are not that good live with just one parent. As we mentioned this conclusion is more significant when it is considered in relations with other variables. This hypothesis has not been confirmed either.

(11)

So toa, socijalno-pedago{kata rabota do-polnitelno bi trebalo da je naso~ime kon onie u~enici so poremetuvawe vo odnesu-vaweto kaj koi e vidlivo deka imaat pos-lab u~ili{en uspeh, so obyir deka nemaat adekvatna obrazovna potpora od samite roditeli.

Osven toa, rezultatite od istra`uvaweto upatuvaat na faktot deka podobrata sora-botka na u~ili{teto so roditelite, so se-mejstvoto na u~enikot se neophodna i ne-zamenliva alka vo celokupniot sistem mer-ki koi se prezemaat vo odnos na u~enicite koi manifestiraat naru{uvawe vo odnesu-vaweto.

Thus, the socio-pedagogical work should

additionally be directed to those students with

behavioural disorders and obvious worse school

results, since they are not given adequate

educational support by their parents.

Apart from this, the results of the research show

the fact that better cooperation between the school

and the parents, i.e. the student’s family, is

neces-sary and indispensable chain in the system of

measures undertaken with students who manifest

behavioural disorders.

L i t er a tu r a / R e f e r e n c e s

1. Ba{i} J. Obiteljske prilike u~enika u Razli~itim razredima osnovne {kole kao faktori razli~nosti razvoja djeteta. Defektologija, Zagreb, 1991; 1:

11-28.

2. Koller-Trbovi} N. Aktuelne karakteristike obitelji djece stare 11 godina u relaciji s mo-dalitetima poreme}aja u njihovo pona{anju.

Defektologija, Zagreb, 1991; 1: 87-106.

3. Milosavljevi} M. Porodica i vaspitna zapu{-tenost dece. Zbornik 15. Institut za pedago{ka

istra`ivanja. Prosveta. Beograd, 1982, 3: 189-195.

4. Uzelac S. Mik{aj-Todorovi} Lj. Osnovna obilje`ja ispitanih oblika pona{anja. Defektologi-ja, Zagreb, 1991; 1: 45-70.

5. Poldruga~ Z. Neke nepromjenjive karakteris-tike obitelji u~enika petog razreda osnovne {kole i modaliteti poreme}aja u njihovom po-na{anju. Defektologija, Zagreb, 1991; 1: 71-86. 6. Uzelac S. [kolski uspjeh i stavovi u~enika o

obrascima pona{anja u socijalnim sukobima.

Kriminologija i socijalna integracija. Zagreb,

1991; 1: 1-12.

(12)