PRESS RELEASE

04-11-2009

Keeping pupils at high risk aboard?

Comparative study in ten European countries on inclusion and education

DOCA Bureaus has reported that Germany, France and The Netherlands are excluding their high-risk pupils comparatively often from mainstream education. They do not keep them aboard as much as seven other countries do. Their scores on seven exclusion indicators from mainstream education outnumbered those of the seven other European countries. The countries were investigated on assignment for the European Commission.[1]

Contact: George Muskens, T 0031164686755, E info@docabureaus.nl

The aim of the study was to assess the measures that should offer a place and perspective to high-risk pupils in mainstream education. High-risk pupils are those pupils that apparently failed or threaten to fail in mainstream education. Or those pupils who disturbed or threatened to disturb education practice in mainstream schools. It regards failure related to social and cultural disadvantages, e.g. as children of immigrant or Roma descent, or to severe physical or mental disabilities. Disturbing behaviour regards absenteeism, bullying, being very troublesome. In the extreme it regards criminal acts in and around school as well as the intimidation and harassment of teachers and schoolmates. These severe risks may apparently be beyond what schools can do to keep high-risk pupils aboard. However, countries and schools showed obvious differences with regard to keeping these pupils in or placing them out.

The seven indicators for keeping pupils in or placing them out are:

1. Disadvantaged target groups deserving priority measures. All ten countries have set out priority measures and policies to enhance the educational chances of their disadvantaged groups and to improve intercultural relations in schools and classes. Many interesting and good practices have been reported and revealed. Point of consideration is that their assessment and wider application is questionable because of unique local circumstances as well as missing convincing analyses of their feasibility and effects in most cases. Strongest and most convincing success factor appeared to be teacher and school commitment to the quality of education, learning gained during the school career of the disadvantaged pupils, and good intercultural relations.

2. The reduction of early school leaving. In the Lisbon Declaration, issued by the European leaders of government in 2000, the EU Member States agreed, among others, to halve early school leaving in their countries between 2000 and 2010, i.e. from 17,2% down to 8,6%. Seven countries have insufficiently met with this challenge until now: their reduction pace since 2000 was unclear or insufficient for that declared aim. Slovenia and Poland were already very low in 2000, and they realised an additional 40% reduction since then. Sweden and Hungary balanced around 10%. The other countries started at a very high level (Italy, Spain) and/or reduced early school leaving insufficiently (France, Germany, The Netherlands, UK). The Netherlands reported a promising attack on early school leaving since 2005, with appropriate measures in combination with the prolonged compulsory education and qualification rules (see under at 4).

3. The structure of lower secondary education: is the structure differentiated of comprehensive? åComprehensiveπ education represents the inclusive system and differentiated education the (more) exclusive one. Comprehensive lower secondary education is keeping all pupils together in the same school up to the age of 15 years. Differentiated education is sorting the pupils out between different and levelled school types under that age. Among the ten countries, Germany and The Netherlands are differentiating and tracking the pupils at the age of 10 (Germany) and 12 (The Netherlands) The other countries keep the pupils together for a longer period.

4. The age of compulsory education. Prolonged compulsory education is enforcing continued participation of high-risk pupils in education, while early compulsory education offers extra time for preventive action such as learning the language of instruction to e.g. pupils with another home language. In The Netherlands, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, compulsory education is both long and early, starting under the age of 6 and continued beyond that of 16.[2] In the UK, the start age is young. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden did not introduce compulsory education for pupils under 6 or above 16.

5. Participation in pre-school education. In six countries (France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK), participation of pre-school education at the age of 4 and 5 is (almost) 100%. It reinforces the chances of early training in the languages and other skills as needed for a good school career. In Germany, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, participation is not åfor allπ.

6. Repeated classes and/or outplacement. A repeated class is disrupting the inclusion of the pupils involved from their classmates, as does outplacement, e.g. in a rebound arrangement. However needed these measures may be for other reasons, from the perspective of keeping the pupils together it is a contra-indicator. It regards the most important reason for national policies and school practices to discourage the repeated classes and further outplacements of young pupils. Therefore, the countries that were comparatively high on repeated classes and/or outplacement were indicated as being comparatively exclusive. These were France, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain, compared to Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

7. The option of special education for disabled pupils. France, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden offer both special schools for pupil with disabilities, on the one hand, and adapted places, streams and tracks in mainstream schools, on the other. The other countries, i.e. Italy, Spain and the UK (particularly Scotland) keep to the educational philosophy of åinclusiveπ education as promoted e.g. by UNESCO. Their schools are åinclusiveπ for all disabled pupils, unlessä. Their percentage of pupils in special education is low or very low, i.e. under 2%, while the percentage is 5% or even higher in the other countries. Research in these countries and in Canada showed that åinclusiveπ education is feasible without loss of quality, neither for disabled pupils nor for the others, under the provision of appropriate teacher qualification, school support and family support.

For the latter reason it was concluded that åinclusiveπ education is feasible and presumably effective, taking into consideration success factors such as teacher qualification, and the commitment of schools and teachers to their pupils at high-risk.

In a discussion of the comparative research outcomes, the leading researcher, Dr. George Muskens of DOCA Bureaus, has made a number of recommendations to the European authorities. The two most radical ones regard the role of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers with regard to two exclusion issues, being early school leaving and special schools or classes for Roma pupils and other discriminated minority groups.

For early school leaving, Muskens recommended that åEuropeπ should take the responsibility of requiring and controlling appropriate measures on behalf of the Member States to reduce early school leaving sufficiently, in line with the Lisbon Declaration that has failed at this point, and a new European agreement as urgently needed.

With regard to special Roma schools and classes and/or other discriminatory special schools and classes, he recommended that the Commission should take responsibility against unlawful discrimination, following the landmark judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, as ruled on 13 November 2007. The national report on Slovenia is offering interesting policies and practices to enhance Roma inclusion in mainstream education. The Hungarian report is doing so too, but it is also referring to ongoing national debate.

DOCA has submitted fourteen research reports to DG Education and Culture of the European Commission, including a comparative analysis, recommendations concerning inclusion measures in education, and ten national reports. All reports are available on the web-site www.docabureaus.nl

Further information:

Link to the summary report in English, French and German: http://www.docabureaus.nl/1.%20Summary.pdf

DOCA Bureaus,

Dr. George Muskens

Kerkstraat 27

4664 BN Lepelstraat

T 0031164686755

M 0031620760996

E info@docabureaus.nl

W www.docabureaus.nl

France: Prof. Danielle Zay, E danielle.zay@wanadoo.fr

Germany: Prof. Ingrid Gogolin, E gogolin@uni-hamburg.de

Hungary: Prof. P·l Tam·s, E h8756tam@ella.hu, tamas@socio.mta.hu

Italy: Prof. Francesca Gobbo, E francesca.gobbo@unito.it

Poland: Prof. Michal Federowcz, E federowi@ifispan.waw.pl

Slovenia, Prof. Albina Necak L¸k, Prof. Sonja Novak Lukanovic, E albina.necak@ff.uni-lj.si, sonja.lukanovic@gmail.com

Spain: AuniÛn Borreguero. Juan Antonio, JAAunion@elpais.es

Sweden: Dr. Elena Dingu-Kyrkland, E edk@email.com

UK: Prof. Rae Condie, E rae.condie@strath.ac.uk

---

[1] Contract 2007-2094/001 TRA-TRSPO concerning strategies for supporting schools and teachers in order to foster social inclusion. The projectπs start date was 16-12-2007, and submission date 15-08-2009. Its budget was § 165.000. It was carried out by a research consortium led by Dr. George Muskens of DOCA Bureaus, The Netherlands, in co-operation with research teams in France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Fourteen final reports were delivered, including ten national reports, a comparative report and a report with the discussion and recommendations concerning inclusion and education in European countries. The reports are available on www.docabureaus.nl.

[2] In The Netherlands, compulsory education is up to the age of 18, while jobless young people under 27 have the duty to re-qualification and additional qualification if their level is not sufficient for a successful entry on the labour market, according to national and international norms. In combination with the national attack on early school leaving, the prolonged compulsory education and qualification are interesting measures to reduce early school leaving.