school dropout research paper

• Corpus ID: 157875263

Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research

• S. Lim , R. Rumberger
• Published 7 November 2008

650 Citations

Dropping out of high school: prevalence, risk factors, and remediation strategies, understanding why students drop out of high school, according to their own reports, risk factors for dropping out of high school: a review of contemporary, international empirical research, do we know who will drop out: a review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: precision, sensitivity, and specificity, a second chance at education for early school leavers, effect of school culture on student dropout in public secondary schools in vihiga county between 2011 and 2014, examining the multiple trajectories associated with dropping out of high school: a growth mixture model analysis.

• Highly Influenced
• 11 Excerpts

Mentoring Students Back On-Track to Graduation: Program Results From Five Communities

Dropping out: why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it, evaluating high school dropout indicators and assessing their strength, 295 references, high school dropouts: a review of issues and evidence, staying back and dropping out: the relationship between grade retention and school dropout, student transition to high school and persistence: highlighting the influences of social divisions and school contingencies, why students drop out of school and what can be done, american educational research association getting tough the impact of high school graduation exams, influence of high school size on dropout rate, dropout rates after high-stakes testing in elementary school: a study of the contradictory effects of chicago’s efforts to end social promotion, higher standards, more dropouts evidence within and across time, predictors of early high school dropout: a test of five theories., when work matters: the varying impact of work intensity on high school dropout, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Psychol Med
• v.34(4); Oct-Dec 2012

School Dropouts: Examining the Space of Reasons

Arun n. r. kishore.

Consultant Psychiatrist, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex, United Kingdom

K. S. Shaji

1 Department of Psychiatry, Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India

Background:

Dropping out of school is a worldwide phenomenon with drastic mental health consequences for children, families and society.

Aim and Materials & Methods:

This study examines school dropouts in one district in Kerala with an emphasis on looking at multiple reasons for the problem.

The most common “reason” was various Physical disorders (80, 21.8%) followed by Mental Retardation (77, 20.9%). Child labour (Employment) came last (30, 8.1%) as a “reason” while financial issues constituted 50 (13.6%). Family issues accounted for 63 (17.1%) and School-related issues 68 (18.5%).

Conclusion:

This study highlights the need to examine a space of reasons for this phenomenon with active involvement and coordination of multiple agencies to examine and support getting children back to school and prevent dropouts.

INTRODUCTION

Every year, a large number of students drop out of school worldwide. A significant number of them go on to become unemployed, living in poverty, receiving public assistance, in prison, unhealthy, divorced, and single parents of children who are likely to repeat the cycle themselves.[ 1 , 2 ]

In 1993, 27 million children entered school in Class 1 in India but only 10 million (37%) of them reached Class 10 in 2003. Dropout rates peak in the transition between Class 1 and 2 and again in Classes 8, 9 and 10. Dropout rates have remained negative between Classes 4 and 5. The state of Pondicherry improved its performance with regards to school dropouts from the fourth place in 1991 to the first in 2001, displacing Kerala as the best performing state. The states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh perform poorly in this ranking.

Government data indicate improvement in the rates of school enrolment. However, there may be problems in looking at enrolment data without attention to attendance and retention rates. Thus, the actual rates of dropout from schools may be much higher than those depicted.[ 3 ]

School dropouts in Kerala

Kerala has the unique distinction of having few school dropouts. Educational standards are reported to be high within the state. Several reasons have been quoted for Kerala's high educational achievement. Historically, social movements against the caste system, the pioneering efforts made by Christian missionaries and the educational focus of the princely states served to set a good base for education. Later, investment on education, provision of free education supported by the state, access to schools, female literacy and education, good transport facilities and remittances from abroad have added to these factors.[ 4 ]

Kerala-rates of school dropout in different classes

This graph [ Figure 1 ], based on data from the annual economic report brought out by the Government of Kerala on school dropouts,[ 5 ] shows that trends have remained the same through the years 2005 to 2009 with the overall rate remaining fairly constant. The rate in Lower Primary has hovered between 0.42% and 0.6%, Upper Primary from 0.4% to 0.52% and High School from 1.2% to 1.4%. Of late, there has been growing interest in studying and tackling the problem of school dropouts by governments.[ 6 ] There is paucity of recent published research in this area from India.

Kerala – rates of school dropout in different classes

Lack of interest in studies, poverty, poor quality of education and failure in examinations have been frequently cited as explanations for dropping out of school.[ 7 ] Child developmental factors are thought to play a role in mediating the link between dropout from school, poor scholastic performance, and poverty.[ 8 ]

Dropping out of school is a good example of an issue where a biopsychosocial perspective could be useful; where there is a confluence of biological (various neurodevelopmental issues), psychological (cognitive issues and issues connected to intelligence and learning), and social (issues of poverty, social opportunities, health provisions) factors that come into play.[ 9 , 10 ] Unfortunately, health systems have not taken this into account and have not formed partnerships with social services or Government departments.[ 2 ] School dropouts should be seen as a public health issue. There is a need for partnerships between the sectors of mental health, education, and public health to address this complex issue. This paper emphasises this by looking at the problem through different lenses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was done in Thrissur District, Kerala, as part of a programme titled “Total Primary Education” conducted by the District Administration. The aim was to identify all children who had been enrolled in government schools but failed to attend class over the past year to identify reasons for their dropout and attempt remediation. There was collaborative effort from the departments of education, revenue, health, police and a medical team. Psychiatrists from the Department of Psychiatry, Medical College Thrissur and Special educators from the NGO, ALDI (Association for Learning Disabilities, India) formed the “Medical Team.”

Stage 1: Children who had failed to attend class in the past year were identified by school teachers and Block Education units. Children above the age of 14 years were screened out, since they did not fall under the remit of the programme. Rigorous efforts were made to contact parents of those below the age of 14 years. Teachers and the parents identified a predominant “reason” for dropout (see diagram below). These “reasons” were identified from review of literature examining factors correlated with school dropout.

Stage 2: 368 children attended camps held in various panchayaths in the district with their parents or care takers. The medical team assessed children using a proforma to gather information focusing on developmental issues and assigned a diagnosis if relevant. This sometimes resulted in a reassignment of the “reason” for dropout if a medical or psychiatric disorder had been missed in the first screening by teachers. Psychosocial issues were examined in detail with the assistance of social workers.

A management and follow-up plan was outlined following discussions between the various departments. The outcome of the interventions was followed up by local Block Educational Officers.

Stage 3: Children assigned to the categories of “Physical problems,” “Mental Retardation,” “School issues,” and “Family issues” were referred to the outpatient department at the Medical College. 52 attended and were assessed and investigated in different departments within the medical college. Qualitative data were gathered from them. The flow chart for the study is given below [ Figure 2 ].

Flowchart of the study

Of the 781 school dropouts, 159 (20%) were above the age of 14 years and hence excluded from the programme. 253 (33%) children could not be traced. The rest 368 (47%) were seen in the camps in Stage 2. Of these, 246 were boys and 122 girls.

Age at dropout

The maximum number of dropouts occur between the ages of 12 and 14 years [ Figure 3 ] which is well in keeping with State and National data (Kerala State Planning Board 2005-09, NCERT 2005).

Reasons for dropout stage 2

The reasons correlated with dropouts are depicted in Figure 4 . It was difficult to categorise children under one “reason” as we often found multiple “reasons” operating at the same time. “Financial” reasons often played a role in most cases and there was overlap between “School issues” and “Family Issues.” In such cases the predominant “reason” was decided by the team and the child was then classified under that. This was done during Stage 2 when the Medical team assessed the children.

Reasons for drop out at Stage 2

The most common “reason” was various Physical disorders (80, 21.8%) followed by Mental Retardation (77, 20.9%). Child labour (Employment) came last (30, 8.1%) as a “reason” while financial issues constituted (50, 13.6%). Family issues accounted for 63 (17.1%) and School related issues 68 (18.5%).

Physical disorders leading to dropout

Several children had one form of physical disorder or another, often severe enough to prevent them from attending school [ Figure 5 ]. Disability due to cerebral palsy and post polio paralysis were the reasons in 33%. Some, who used a tricycle to get to school stopped attending when this broke down.

About 12% were mentally retarded and had physical mobility problems in addition. They had been placed in the Physical disability category in Stage 1 and were reassigned to the category of Mental Retardation in Stage 2. 21% of the children were deaf and attended special school. 10% of students were blind; some attended special schools.

Children with severe, some congenital, cardiac problems were kept at home on the recommendation of their doctors. One child who had diabetes attended the local primary care clinic for insulin injections twice a day and missed school.

4% had severe skin lesions (psoriasis), considered as contagious by the family and teachers and hence missed school.

Lack of money for treatment, poor parental literacy, and a general lack of alternatives could be cited as adding on to this “reason” for dropout.

Mental Retardation: Most had moderate or severe mental retardation with additional problems such as cardiac disorders and epilepsy. A few among these children had severe behavioural problems often repetitive behaviours such as rocking, head banging, and aggression.

Family issues

There were several strands in the narrative around family issues and dropout from school [ Figure 6 ]. Parental separation and ill heath often led to the need for girl children to work or stay back at home to care for younger siblings. Older boys dropped out to find work. Children who were orphans found foster homes with relatives. However, these were often short lived with the children being moved from home to home. Education was the loser in these cases. Alcohol abuse, dependency, and illicit brewing of alcohol by the parents were issues in some. The outcome was family bickering, quarrels, and the development of problems in children. A few children were from families who led a nomadic existence, moving from place to place seeking employment resulting in the child moving from school to school.

Issues related to school

Some families pointed out issues such as an inability to buy textbooks and a lack of transport to attend school. Several had failed a class and dropped out of school in subsequently. Some were moved to a different school and later stopped attending. There was reason to suspect academic backwardness in most of these children. All of them were given an opportunity to attend the outpatient department of the medical college for a more detailed evaluation. 14 attended and 9 of them were thought to have Specific Developmental disorders of Scholastic skills. This could not be confirmed since all of them had poor opportunities for schooling and a general deprivation making the diagnosis uncertain.

This constituted the largest group amongst reasons given for dropout at Stage 1 of screening. In Stage 2, financial issues fell to the fifth place (13.6%) as a reason for school dropout. This occurred because another, more proximal and predominant, “reason” was found for the dropout. However, it must be stated that financial issues remained significant in most cases of dropout.

This remained a significant reason for dropout accounting for 17% of the cohort. The problem was commoner in older males (girls accounted for less than 20%). Dropout occurred at a later age as compared to other groups.

Change in “reasons for dropout”

In Stage 2 of the programme, children were assessed by the Medical team. As a result, 51 (13.9%) children were reassigned other “reasons” [ Figure 7 ].

Reassignment of “reasons” for dropping out

The darker line (Stage 1) in Figure 7 shows “reasons” assigned in the first stage of the programme and the lighter grey line (Stage 2) shows reassigned “reasons” after assessment by the Medical team. The net “losers” were Financial (−36%), Family (−3%), and Physical (−5%) while the net “gainers” were Mental Retardation (+31%), Employment (+25%), and School (+17%).

A total of 341 children were readmitted to school [ Figure 8 ]. Children who were diagnosed with Mental Retardation were given a choice of admission to a special school or a local government school. The decision was based on the degree of retardation, presence of behavioural problems, and accompanying physical disability.

Children with predominant physical problems were directed to the relevant departments at the Government Medical College, Thrissur. Those with mobility issues were given assistance by the social services department.

Those who were employed were screened and readmitted to school.[ 5 , 11 , 12 ] Cases were registered against the employers under the CLP Act. Those with Financial problems were given assistance as well as advice, as deemed appropriate, by the Revenue officials. Children with problems at school and those with family-related issues were referred for further assessment to the Department of Psychiatry at the Government Medical College, Thrissur.

This study formed a part of a social programme aimed at returning children back to school by helping remediate what was perceived as the predominant reason for dropout. There was a great degree of overlap between parents' and teachers' perception on “reasons” at Stage 1. In Stage 2, 51 (13.9%) had a reassignment of these “reasons.” It would be important to unpick this. Of these 51, 25% were in employment, a fact that had been hidden from teachers at stage 1. Most parents feared reprisal and action by law enforcement agencies. Some were ashamed to admit that their children were working to supplement family income.

31% were diagnosed with Mental Retardation in the mild category in Stage 2. This had not been recognized by teachers or parents. 17% with school-related issues were children who were suspected to have some form of learning difficulty. Children in these two groups reported recurrent failures in examination though they were not retained in a class. This led to truancy and finally a refusal to go to school. Some of these children had been reenrolled in schools for mentally retarded children later. A small number of children who were in the mild category dropped out due to an inability to cope with the curriculum in mainstream schools.

Various developmental disorders have been implicated as a reason for dropout from school.[ 3 , 8 ] In the NFHS III survey (IIPS 2007),[ 13 ] “lack of interest” was cited as the most common reason for dropping out of school (36% boys and 21% girls). In an earlier NSSO survey (1998), 24.4% of respondents gave this as a reason for dropping out of school.[ 12 , 14 ] In this study, we had combined the two “reasons”—“problems at school” and “lack of motivation” of which the latter is similar to “lack of interest.” This study has shown that lack of motivation is determined by complex dynamics beyond sociodemographic factors. The role of poor academic achievement related to learning difficulties, poor physical health, exclusion due to perceived “slowness in learning,” and nutrition would need to be elucidated further.[ 15 – 17 ] The PROBE[ 18 ] survey suggests that if a child is unwilling to go to school, it is often difficult for the parents to overcome her reluctance (just as it is hard for a child to attend school against his parents' wishes). The fact that school participation is contingent on the motivation of the child is another reason why various aspects of “school quality” are likely to matter.

Physical disorders of various types accounted for the largest amongst the “reasons” for dropout and this calls for action from health departments and social service agencies. A third of children, though capable of attending, could not because of mobility issues. Children with specific disabilities of vision or hearing benefitted from special schools.

The link between child labour and dropout from school has been studied from different perspectives. It is thought that children drop out of school due to a need to supplement family income through work.[ 19 ] In Kerala, children prefer less arduous work and choose ones they believe will get them some skills such as diamond polishing or gold smithy.[ 20 ] Thus, this “reason” for dropout is more complex than a direct connection between child labour and school dropout. Basu and Van argue that the issue of poverty and child labour needs to be disaggregated. Otherwise, poverty alleviation alone would be seen as a solution. Lack of finances combined with a lack of access to credit when faced with a need to buy books, uniforms, and pay school fees could lead to dropout from school. This in turn could lead to child labour. On the other hand, once a child drops out of school, poor parental motivation combined with lack of perception of the benefits of accruing literacy and numeracy, could lead to child labour. These findings imply that easier access to credit could help reduce child labour and improve school attendance.[ 21 ] Dreze and Kingdom[ 22 ] considered parental decision making and the household situation to play an influential role in sustaining school access for the child. When children do not want to attend school, parents find it difficult to make them continue. Often, there is no cost benefit analysis of the benefits of attaining cognitive skills. The best available alternative is often chosen (girl children looking after a younger child, boys earning money through employment).

In this study, financial “reasons” though seen as predominant in 13.6% of children, actually ran as a common factor in most of the other “reasons.”

Issues in families accounted for 17% in this cohort. The narrative around this points to an intimate link between issues in families, financial issues, and child employment, calling for action from health and social sectors.

Thus, one could argue that school dropout is a phenomenon or symptoms which could be explained based on a variety of “reasons,” none of which are watertight compartments. There is relatively little research into determining the reasons why so many children drop out of schools in India. This in turn leads to a tendency to highlight single causes or explanations.[ 3 , 23 – 25 ] In Kerala, attention to pedagogical factors has increased retention of children in schools and it is perhaps time to look at other approaches to reduce dropouts further.

It might be better to think of “proximal mediating risk factors” as associated with school dropouts.[ 8 ] We would advocate that in examining the causes for dropping out of school, a “space of reasons” is examined. In this “space of reasons,” we would include poverty and lack of finances being associated with childhood developmental factors (such as learning difficulties, intellectual disorders, ADHD) and school pedagogical factors (access to school, irrelevant curricula, and poor parental perception of these issues). Thus, one would need to approach the issue from different angles or through many lenses. A multipronged approach would work better.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research

This report was prepared for the California Dropout Research Project. The authors would like to thank Jeremy Finn and Stephen Lamb for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report, and Beverly Bavaro and Susan Rotermund for their editorial assistance.

Related Papers

Alice E Donlan

Zohreh Eslami

European Journal of Science, Innovation and Technology

Francis Thaise Cimene, PhD

This study aimed to identify factors affecting students dropping out of school through multiple lenses. It employed a qualitative research design with the key informant interview as the mode of data collection. Data were obtained from 25 key informants and they primarily fall within the age range of 18 to 19, 20 to 21, and 21 and above, indicating that the study focuses on young adults who dropped out of school. There is a fairly even distribution of male and female key informants, suggesting that both genders are represented in the study. The majority of key informants dropped out of school during their senior high school years, particularly in Grade 12. Moreover, the study identifies several key factors contributing to school dropouts, including the need to work and help the family, teenage pregnancy, difficulty coping with academic demands, bullying incidents, lack of motivation, and parental influence. These findings align with the principles of self-determination theory (SDT), which emphasizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in motivating and retaining students in educational settings. The study highlights how external factors, such as the need to work and parental influence, can limit students' autonomy and motivation, potentially leading to disengagement and dropout. It also underscores the impact of academic struggles on students' competence and motivation, indicating that persistent academic challenges can erode confidence and motivation to continue their education.

Youth & Society

Elizabeth Stearns

Research on school dropout extends from early 20th-century pioneers until now, marking trends of causes and prevention. However, specific dropout causes reported by students from several nationally representative studies have never been examined together, which, if done, could lead to a better understanding of the dropout problem. Push, pull, and falling out factors provide a framework for understanding dropouts. Push factors include school-consequence on attendance or discipline. Pull factors include out-of-school enticements like jobs and family. Finally, falling out factors refer to disengagement in students not caused by school or outside pulling factors. Since 1966, most nationally representative studies depicted pull factors as ranking the highest. Also, administrators in one study corroborated pull out factors for younger dropouts, not older ones, while most recent research cites push factors as highest overall. One rationale for this change is a response to rising standards ...

Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Pete Bylsma

Youth & Society

Petra Kožljan

We assessed how high school dropouts in Croatia interpret their school experiences and life circumstances, using semi-structured interviews of 20 young people, M ( SD) = 18.4 (1.23) years, 63.6% male, based on questions following a chronological life course from elementary to high school. Using qualitative content analysis and cluster analysis, we yielded a typology of high school dropouts. Four high school dropout types were identified based on the factors leading to dropout: (a) the poor academic achievers, (b) the quiet dropouts, (c) the maladjusted dropouts, and (d) the stressed dropouts. Our findings confirm the previously reported role of poor academic achievement and externalizing problems in high school dropout and additionally highlight the importance of internalizing problems and highly stressful life events for dropout risk.

Ramon Alvarado

Dropping out is a serious problem because it denies individual students their fundamental human right to education. The study aims to find out the reasons why students drop out of school and the factors that contribute to 'the high dropout rate in order to provide a programme design to identify mode of interventions to address the problem. It is a descriptive-correlational and comparative type of research. Descriptively, results revealed that financial resources were the major reason why students drop out of school. Inferentially, result showed significant differences in terms of policies and practices, student-teacher relationship, financial resources and academic performance except the nature of the curriculum which shows no significant difference by the number of times the students dropped from school year 2010-2011 to school year 2012-2013, while age, civil status and sources of tuition payment are contributory factors that lead students to drop out of school.

Dr. Petar Valkov

Donna Crouch

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Review of educational research

Bosco Beli Emmanuel Porfirio

American Educational Research Journal

Judith Stein

Cynthia Kelly

The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability: Annual Review

Daniel Cote

Kate Sirota

Rodi Satriawan

Remedial and Special Education

Larry Kortering

Journal of Transformative Leadership & Policy Studies

Katrina Pimentel

International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS)

Daniel Nascimento-e-Silva

Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Tarbiyah

Mohammad Omar AL-Momani

Frances Hunt

Steven Meeker , Stacey Edmonson

Aaron Pallas

David Burkam

Educational Research Review

Wim Groot , Sofie Cabus

Santa Barbara, CA: …

Margaret BRIDGES

Social Psychology of Education

Anne Lessard , Lynn Butler-Kisber , Pierre Potvin

National Dropout Prevention Center Network

Cathy Hammond , J. Smink

http://indusedu.org/

Indus Foundation International Journals UGC Approved

Todd Fennimore

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

The Socio-Economic Profile of the Khabarovsky Krai – 2020

• Author & abstract
• Related works & more

Corrections

• Ruslan Gulidov

(Federal Autonomous Scientific Institution «Eastern State Planning Center»)

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

The Potential of the Khabarovsk Krai, Jewish Autonomous Region and the Amur Oblast for Fluorite Mineralization

• Published: 02 August 2023
• Volume 17 , pages 364–376, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• A. A. Cherepanov 1 &
• N. V. Berdnikov 1  

39 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The available data on the fluorite potential of the Khabarovsk krai, the Jewish Autonomous Region and Amur oblast have been synthesized. Fluorite deposits and occurrences were ascribed to the rare-earth–fluorite, beryllium–fluorite, fluorite–tin-ore, base-metal–fluorite, and fluorite mineralization types. Fluorite also occurs in the ore and phosphorite deposits of the fluorite-bearing mineralization type. The features of their localization in different tectono-stratigraphic areas of the region are shown. Fluorite-bearing districts were identified and their economic potential was assessed. Most promising fluorite occurrences are located along the periphery of the Siberian platform and in the southern part of the Bureya massif. Inferred fluorite resources were calculated and the prospects for their industrial development were estimated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Fluorite Deposits

Geochemical characteristics of the qahr-abad fluorite deposit, southeast of saqqez, western iran.

Mineralogical-Technological Characteristics of the South-Western Lupikko Fluorite Occurrences, Republic of Karelia

N. V. Gorelikova, B. I. Semenyak, P. G. Korostelev, V. I. Taskaev, F. V. Balashov and V. A. Rassulov, “Rare earth minerals in the rare-metal greisens of the Verkhnee Deposit in the Khingan–Olonoisky District of the Amur Region, Russia,” Russ. J. Pac. Geol. 16 (6) 608–623 (2022).

V. A. Gur’yanov, Geology and Metallogeny of the Ulkan District (Aldan–Stanovoy Shield) (Dal’nauka, Vladivostok, 2007) [in Russian].

Google Scholar  

I. I. Egorov, I. P. Ovchinnikov, and K. A. Nikiforov, “New type of fluorite ores,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 9, 13–18 (1966).

A. A. Ivanova, “Prediction of fluorite mineralization based on formation classification,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 7, 12–18 (1977).

A. A. Ivanova, Yu. I. Mikhailova, and S. A. Novolinskaya, “Fluorite,” Criteria for Forecasting Assessment for Solid Minerals (Nedra, Leningrad, 1986), pp. 610–628.

A. V. Koplus, “Fluorspar,” Methodical Guide on the Assessment of Predictin Resources of Solid Minerals (Moscow, 1989), Vol. 4, pp. 119–151 [in Russian].

A. V. Koplus, “Mineral-Raw Base of the World and Russia: state, development, and prospects. Fluorspar,” Mineral Raw Material. Geological-Economic Series (VIMS, Moscow, 2000), No. 5.

A. V. Koplus and A. G. Romanov, “State, problems, and prospects of mineral-raw base of fluorspar in Russia,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 6, 36–42 (2012).

P. G. Korostelev, B. I. Semenyak, S. B. Demashov, et al., “Some compositional features of ores of the Khingan–Olonoy area,” Ore Deposits of Continental Margin (Dal’nauka, Moscow, 2000), Vol. 1, pp. 202–225 [in Russian].

I. I. Kupriyanova and E. P. Shpanov, Beryllium Deposits of Russia (GEOS, Moscow, 2011) [in Russian].

M. V. Martynyuk, A. F. Vas’kin, A. S. Vol’skii, et al., Geological Map of the Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Region. 1 : 500 000: Explanatory Note (Khabarovsk, 1988) [in Russian].

Methodical Guidebook on Assessment of Prediction Resources of Solid Minerals. Fluorspar , (Kazan’, 1986), Vyp. A, pp. 134–151 [in Russian].

M. I. Novikova and N. N. Zabolotnaya, “Beryllium-bearing feldspathic metasomatites of the Mesozoic activation zones,” Sov. Geologiya, No. 12, 92–100 (1988).

D. O. Ontoev, Geology of Complex Rare-Earth Deposits (Nedra, Moscow, 1984) [in Russian].

D. O. Ontoev, “Complex rare-earth deposits as new sources of barium, strontium, and fluorine,” Sov. Geologiya, No. 4, 33–42 (1988).

M. D. Ryazantseva, “Fluorite deposits of the Khanka median massif,” Geology and Genesis of Fluorite Deposits (Vladivostok, 1986), pp. 98–107 [in Russian].

L. V. Tausov, Geochemical Types and Ore Potential of Granitoids (Nauka, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].

A. A. Frolov and Yu. A. Bogdasarov, “Carbonatites as a new genetic type of fluorite deposits,” Razved. Okhr. Nedr, No. 7, 6–8 (1968).

A. A. Cherepanov, N. K. Krutov, M. D. Ryazantseva, and G. G. Arkhipov, “Fluorite mineralization of the Far East and USSE Norteast, Tr. Assots. Dal’nedra (Khabarovsk, 1991), Vol. 1, pp. 170–189.

A. A. Cherepanov and N. V. Berdnikov, Stratiform Fluorite Mineralization in the Surrounding of the Siberian Platform and Russian East (Khabarovsk, 2022) [in Russian].

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kosygin Institute of Tectonics and Geophysics, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, 680000, Khabarovsk, Russia

A. A. Cherepanov & N. V. Berdnikov

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. V. Berdnikov .

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Recommended for publishing by A.P. Sorokin

Translated by M. Bogina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cherepanov, A.A., Berdnikov, N.V. The Potential of the Khabarovsk Krai, Jewish Autonomous Region and the Amur Oblast for Fluorite Mineralization. Russ. J. of Pac. Geol. 17 , 364–376 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1819714023040024

Download citation

Received : 12 January 2023

Revised : 10 March 2023

Accepted : 24 March 2023

Published : 02 August 2023

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S1819714023040024

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• metallogenic provinces
• fluorite-bearing mineralization types
• fluorite deposits
• Amur oblast
• Jewish Autonomous Region
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research