Inclusion and Education in European Countries - Recommendations

8/7/2019 Inclusion and Education in European Countries - Recommendations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/inclusion-and-education-in-european-countries-recommendations 1/44

Inclusionandeducationin

Europeancountries

INTMEASReportforcontract–2007‐2094/001TRA‐TRSPO

Final report: 3. Discussion and recommendations

George Muskens

Lepelstraat

August 2009



This is an independent report commissioned by the European Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily represent the official position of the European Commission.

The main author of this report is George Muskens, research director at DOCA Bureaus andleader of the European research consortium INTMEAS that has carried out the present re-

search assignment. Drafts of this report benefited from comments and advice from the con-sortium’s reference group members and from other experts in this field.

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

The electronic version of this report is available at:http://www.docabureaus.nl/INTMEAS.html

Available INTMEAS-reports:

1. Summary/sommaire/Zusamenfassung2. Comparative conclusions3. Discussion and recommendations

4. France 5. Germany6. Hungary7. Italy8. The Netherlands9. Poland10. Slovenia11. Spain12. Sweden13. UK

14. Experts and PLA

INTMEAS Reference Group

George Muskens, project leader

Jaap Dronkers, expert adviser

José Ramón Flecha, expert adviser

Jill Bourne, expert adviser

Danielle Zay, leader French research team

Ingrid Gogolin, leader German research team

Pál Tamás, leader Hungarian research team

Francesca Gobbo, leader Italian research team

Michał Federowicz, leader Polish research team

Albina Neçak Lük, Sonja Novak Lukanovic, leaders Slovenian research team

Mariano Fernándes Enguita, leader Spanish research team

Elena Dingu Kyrklund, leader Swedish research team

Rae Condie, leader UK research team



TABLEOFCONTENTS

1 THEEU’SRESPONSIBILITYFORINCLUSIONANDEDUCATION ...........................................11.1 STATUTORYORPOSSIBLYSTATUTORYRESPONSIBILITIESOFTHEEU ...........................................1

1.1.1 HalvingearlyschoolleavingintheEU,LisbonStrategy2000‐2010.....................1 1.1.2 TheGrandChamber’sruleconcerningRomaschools ..........................................3

1.2 THECOMMISSION’SOPENMETHODOFCO‐ORDINATION .........................................................4 1.2.1 Openmethodsofco‐ordinationthroughPLA‐clusters .........................................41.2.2 Improvedopenmethodsofco‐ordination............................................................5

1.3 CURRENTFUNDSANDPROGRAMS .......................................................................................8 1.3.1 TheLifelongLearningprogram ............................................................................ 91.3.2 TheResearchFrameworkprogram .................................................................... 111.3.3 Structuralfunds..................................................................................................12 1.3.4 DAPHNE,YOUTHandCULTURE..........................................................................13

2 THERESPONSIBILITIESOFNATIONAL,REGIONAL,LOCALANDEDUCATIONAL

AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 THESTATUTORYRESPONSIBILITYOFTHEAUTHORITIES ..........................................................15 2.2 THEOPENMETHODOFCO‐ORDINATION.............................................................................15 2.3 RELEVANTEUPROGRAMS ...............................................................................................17

3 SUPPORTINGSCHOOLS,TEACHERSANDTRAINERS ........................................................193.1 KEEPINGPUPILSABOARDINMAINSTREAMEDUCATION .........................................................19 3.2 TEACHERSUPPORTMEASURES ..........................................................................................20

3.2.1 Additionalstaff...................................................................................................20 3.2.2 Teachertraining ................................................................................................. 21

3.3 POINTSTHATMAYDIVERTTHEATTENTION ..........................................................................21 3.3.1 Inappropriateforceandtop‐downcommunication ...........................................223.3.2 Workloadandoverload......................................................................................23

3.3.3 Outplacement.....................................................................................................23 3.3.4 Theownresponsibilityofparentsandpupils ..................................................... 253.3.5 Changingtheteachers .......................................................................................263.3.6 Non‐educationaldisciplines,prioritiesandpreferences.....................................27

3.4 FINALREMARK...............................................................................................................28

4 REDUCTIONOFEARLYSCHOOLLEAVING:DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS ........304.1 WHATDATAWERETOBEUSED?.......................................................................................30 4.2 FURTHERRESEARCH:TYPES,NUMBERS,APPROPRIATEMEASURES,WEAKCOUNTRIES .................30 4.3 NORATIONALEARLYSCHOOLLEAVING ...............................................................................31 4.4 WHATMEASURESFORPUPILSANDGROUPSAT (HIGH)RISK ...................................................33 4.5 FOCUSONACCEPTABLESCHOOLS,PEDAGOGYANDCONDITIONS .............................................33 4.6 INVOLVEMENTOFTHESOCIO‐ECONOMICSECTOR ................................................................34

5 PUPILSBELONGINGTOTARGETGROUPSAT(HIGH)RISK ...............................................355.1 INCLUSIVEEDUCATIONMEASURES .....................................................................................36 5.2 PRIORITYEDUCATIONMEASURES ......................................................................................36 5.3 SAFEEDUCATIONMEASURES ............................................................................................37

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 39



1

1 TheEU’sresponsibilityforinclusionandeducation

1.1 StatutoryorpossiblystatutoryresponsibilitiesoftheEU

ThestatutorytasksoftheEUwithregardtoeducationaresettledin article149

oftheEuropeanTreatyandtheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion.Accordingtoarticle149,theCommunityshouldcontributetothedevel‐opment of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member

States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action. The

Community aims specifically to develop the European dimension in educationandtheexchangeofinformationonissuescommontoeducationsystemsinthe

Member States. The Charter is referring at several points to the fundamentalrightsinrelationtoyouthandeducation,namelytherightof(compulsory)edu‐

cation(article14),therightofnon‐discrimination(article21),respectforcul‐

tural,religiousandlinguisticdiversity(article22),equalityofmenandwomen(articles23),therightsofthechild(article24),therightofintegrationforper‐

sonswithdisabilities(article26).

NofurtherEU‐legislationwasapparentlyneededforarticle149orfortherel‐

evantarticlesintheCharter.TheMemberStatesandtheireducationalauthori‐tiesareexpectedtosettleandarrangeeducationetc.accordinglyandappropri‐

atelyin theirConstitutionandlaws.TherolesoftheEuropeanCommissionand

otherEuropeanagentsandinstitutionswerethereforetoberestrictedtosup‐port,predominantlyintheframeoftheopenmethodofco‐ordinationthatwas

developedinlinewiththeLisbonStrategy.

However,thereisgoodreasontoreconsidertherestrictedroleoftheEUandits

institutionattwopoints.Thereasonswillbeexplained.TheEU’staskcouldbe‘statutory’, forcing the EUand its institutions totakeup a more directive role,

beyondtheopenmethodofco‐ordination.

Thefirstpointregardsthehalvingofthenumberofearlyschoolleaversbetween

2000and 2010, asagreed bythe EUMember States in the Presidency’s state‐

mentontheLisbonStrategyof23‐24March2000.1

The second point regards landmark judgment of the Grand Chamber of theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsagainstspecialRomaschoolsintheCzechRe‐

publicof13November2007.

1.1.1 HalvingearlyschoolleavingintheEU,LisbonStrategy2000‐2010

In the Lisbon Strategy Document (Presidency of the European Council, 2000

March),theEuropeanCouncilhasstatedthattoomanyyoungpeople,whoenter

thelabourmarket,havenotpassedthelevelthatisrequiredforEuropeasthemostcompetitiveknowledgeeconomyintheworld.Thelevelshouldbeatleast

that of a qualified worker with the proved capacities of ISCED‐level 3C. The

1InrecentdocumentstheCommissionisreferringtoareductionofearlyschoolleavingto10%

in2010,inrelationtothelowreductionpacebetween2000and2007(EuropeanCommission,2008). It is 2.4% above the original target. For matters of convenience we will keep to theoriginaltargetof‘halving’inthetext.Oneshouldread:reductionto10%.



2

numbers, identified as early school leavers by the European Commission and

EUROSTAT,weretobehalvedinthedecadebetween2000and2010.AsstatedinPresidencyconclusion26:“TheEuropeanCouncilaccordinglycallsuponthe

MemberStates,inlinewiththeirconstitutionalrules,theCouncilandtheCom‐missiontotakethenecessarystepswithintheirareasofcompetencetomeetthe

followingtargets:

‐ (….)

‐ the number of18 to24 yearsolds with only lower‐secondarylevel education

whoarenotinfurthereducationandtrainingshouldbehalvedby2010;

‐ Etc.”2

Inthatsense,halvingearlyschoolleavingisdeclaredtobeatop priorityinEurope.

The wording and the signature of the Presidency and all Heads of State were

clearandreferredtoabindingtargetfortheEUMemberStates.Thefurtherde‐claration and itscontext in2000embedded the priorityin a widersetofaims

andtargets,buttheEUwouldnottakedirectstatutoryresponsibilityforit.The

direct statutory responsibility wasleftto theMember States. TheEU’sinstitu‐tions would support the Member States by the open method of co‐ordination,

whichwillbediscussedbelow.

However,thewordingandthestateofthereductionattwothirdofthetimeline

mayleadtoanotherposition.In2007,thereductionwasstillfarbelowthelevelneededforhalvingearlyschoolleavingin2010(seefinalreport,chapter2for

thedetails).Itwouldneedaclearre‐assuranceonbehalfoftheMemberStates

andmoredirectiveresponsibilityoftheEU’sinstitutionstoreachthetargetofhalvedearlyschoolleavingin2010,orshortlythereafter.

FromhisindependentpositiontheauthorrecommendstheEUanditskeyinstitu tions to accept a more statutory responsibility for the reduction of early school

leavinginthenearestfuture,takingintoconsiderationtheLisbontargetofhalvingearlyschoolleavingbetween2000and2010,ontheoneside,andthelowachieve

ments in most Member States since 2000, on the other. He also recommends to

givingspecialattentiontotheskeweddistributionofearlyschoolleavingbetweencountriesandregions.

Thetargets,paceandthedevelopmentandimplementationofappropriatestrat‐egiesandactionplansforthereductionofearlyschoolleavingweretoberecon‐

firmedbythePresidencyandtheMemberStates.Therelevantnational,regionalandeducationalauthoritiesshoulddevelopandimplementstrategiesandaction

plans. The strategies and action plans were to be reported to the European

Commission.TheCommissionshouldholdtheauthority toadaptinappropriatestrategies and plans, representing the statutory responsibility of the EU for

halvedearlyschoolleaving.ItwouldgobeyondEuropeanco‐operationandac‐

tionintheframe of the openmethod ofcoordination, ontheoneside, and the

2InrecentdocumentstheCommissionisreferringtoareductionofearlyschoolleavingto10%

in2010,inrelationtothelowreductionpacebetween2000and2007(EuropeanCommission,2008). It is 1.3% above the original target. For matters of convenience we will keep to theoriginaltargetof‘halving’inthetext.Oneshouldread:reductionto10%.



3

applicable mid‐term EU programs such as the educational program Lifelong

Learningandthestructuralfunds,ontheother(seeunder).

Forfurtherdiscussionandrecommendationsconcerningthereductionofearly

schoolleaving,seechapter4.

1.1.2 TheGrandChamber’sruleconcerningRomaschools

Recently,theEuropeancountrieswerechallengedwhethertherightofnon‐dis‐criminationwasguaranteedornot.AlthoughintheframeoftheCouncilofEu‐

rope, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reached a

landmarkjudgmentagainstspecialRomaschoolsintheCzechRepublic(Councilof Europe,European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, 2007 November

13). The Court ruled that outplacement and segregation of Roma students in

special schools is a form of unlawful discrimination that violates fundamentalhumanrights.FortheCommissionstaffitwastooearlytoassesstheimpactof

the consequences of the Grand Chamber’s judgment (Commission staff, 2008July).Inthenationalreportsofe.g.Hungarywehaveseenthatnationalpolicies

of segregating Roma students into special schools has been changed, step by

step,and that interesting measureswere taken toencourage and enhance theinclusionofRomastudentsinmainstreameducation.

Maybe it is still too early to assess the consequences of the Grand Chamber’sjudgment,butisto betakenintoconsiderationthattheoutplacementinspecial

schoolsrepresentsunlawfuldiscriminationagainstyoungRomaandtheirfami‐lies.Forthejudgesitmadenodifferencewhethertheoutplacementwasinten‐

tionallydiscriminatoryornot.Studentsandtheirfamiliesshouldhaveaccessto

mainstreameducationandtoappropriatesupportmeasuresinmainstreamedu‐cation.Otherwise,theyareeffectivelysegregatedandthereforediscriminated.

Throughthejudgment,theEuropean institutions arechallenged to take statu‐toryresponsibilityagainsttheoutplacementmechanismstowardsspecialeduca‐

tion. In case of the Roma, the European institutions are presumably forced toforbid suchoutplacement, to counter‐act andto controlpossibleoutplacement

practicesandrulesintheMemberStates.

TheauthorrecommendstheEU’sinstitutionstocometoconclusionsontheimpact

oftheGrandChamber’sjudgment.Theconclusionmayregard,forinstance:

TheformalobligationsoftheMemberStates, TargetedsupportfortheinclusionofRomapupilsinmainstreameducation,

Furtherpromotionofawarenessandknowledgeongoodpoliciesandpractices,

Etc.

Itwouldbelikelythatthesameoracomparablejudgmentmightapplytoothergroupsthatweresegregatedandthereforediscriminatedinanequalorcompa‐

rableway,i.e.byoutplacementinspecialclassesandschools.Pupilsandfamilies

may raise serious complaints against schools and/or authorities whose pre‐dominant practicewasor stillis tooutplacethepupils ina specialclasses and

schoolsonbehalfoftheirgroup‐relatedcharacteristicsandtheirculturaliden‐

tity.Itmayregardchildrenwithahandicap,disabilityorspecialneed,boysorgirls,a nationalminority,childrenfromtravellingor sailingfamilies,immigrant



4

minoritychildrenlabelledas‘coloured’or‘black’,asinTheNetherlands,for‘bad

boys’and‘badgirls’,etc.Itmaythereforeregardallkindsofspecial‘out‐door’classesandschoolsthatwerementionedinnationalreportsandfurtherdocu‐

mentation.

Therefore,theauthoralsorecommendstheEU’sinstitutionsto reconsidertheim pactoftheGrandChamber’sjudgmentonotherpracticesofoutplacement,segre gationanddiscrimination.

Furtherdiscussionandrecommendationswillfollowinthechapters5and6 onpriorityeducationmeasuresandinclusiveeducationmeasures,respectively.

1.2 TheCommission’sopenmethodofco‐ordination

Theopenmethodofcoordination(OMC)hasbeendefinedasaninstrumentofthe Lisbon strategy (Europa Glossary). The open method of coordination pro‐

videda newframeworkforcooperationbetweentheMemberStates,whosena‐

tionalpoliciescouldthusbedirectedtowardscertaincommonobjectives.Underthisintergovernmentalmethod,theMemberStatesareevaluatedbyoneanother

(peer pressure), withthe Commission's role beinglimited to surveillance.TheEuropeanParliamentandtheCourtofJusticeplayedvirtuallynopartintheopen

methodofcoordinationprocess.

Theopenmethodofcoordinationis appliedinareas,whichfallwithinthecom‐

petenceoftheMemberStates,suchasemployment,socialprotection,socialin‐

clusion,education,youthandtraining.

Itisbasedprincipallyon:

Jointlyidentifyinganddefiningobjectivestobeachieved(adoptedbytheCouncil);

Jointlyestablishedmeasuringinstruments(statistics,indicators,guidelines);

Benchmarking,i.e.comparisonoftheMemberStates'performanceandexchangeof

bestpractices(monitoredbytheCommission).

Dependingontheareasconcerned,theopenmethodofcoordinationinvolvesso‐called"softlaw"measureswhicharebindingfortheMemberStatesinvarying

degrees but which never take the form of directives, regulations or decisions.

Thus,inthecontextoftheLisbonstrategy,theopenmethodofcoordinationre‐quirestheMemberStatestodrawupnationalreformplansandtoforwardthem

totheCommission.EducationispartofthedrivetoachievethegoalsoftheLisbonStrategytobe‐

come the most competitive and dynamic knowledge‐based economy in theworld.Inthiscontext,theCommissionhassteppeduppolicycooperationinthe

fieldofeducation,particularlythroughtheopenmethodofcoordination(Europa

Glossary).

1.2.1 Openmethodsofco‐ordinationthroughPLA‐clusters

For educational issues, the peer pressure mentioned above is taking placethroughpeerlearningactivitiesatandaroundpeerclustermeetingsontopical

issues. ‘Peers’ are the above‐mentioned Member States and their representa‐tives.Themeetingsandthelearningiscoordinatedandsupportedbytheeduca‐



5

tionunitsoftheEuropeanCommission.Inrecentyears,peerclustersandpeer

learningactivitiesregarded:

1. InformationandCommunicationTechnology(ICT),

2. AccessandSocialInclusion,

3. KeyCompetences,

4. Makingbestuseofresources,

5. Math,ScienceandTechnology(MST),

6. ModernisationofHigherEducation,

7. RecognitionofLearningOutcomes,

8. TeachersandTrainers.

Reports of their meeting are published on the lifelong learning web‐site

( KnowledgeSystemforLifelongLearning).

Mostrelevantforinclusionissuesineducationwerethemeetingsandreportsof

the PLA‐cluster ‘Access and Inclusion’. Between October 206 and December

2008sevenmeetingshavebeenreported,namely:

1. October2006,Brussels,onpositivediscriminationandmigranteducation,

2. January2007,Dublin,onmeasuresagainstearlyschoolleaving,

3. April2007,Hungary,on(de)segregationineducation,

4. November2007,Paris,onpoliciesforequalopportunitiesineducation,

5. January2008,Ireland,onadultliteracy,

6. October2008,Basquecountry,onlearningcommunities,

7. December2008,Stockholm,onpreschooleducationinSweden.

Themeetingshaveseentheinterventionofhighlevelacademicsandofrepre‐sentatives of relevant stakeholders. The cluster has constituted a key building

blockforthepreparationofthegreenpaperon"Migrationandmobility:chal‐lengesandopportunitiesforEUeducationsystems”,publishedbytheCommis‐sion on 3 July 2008 (Commission of the European Community, 2008 July 03;

Commissionstaff,2008July3).Theworkonearlyschoolleavingwillbesumma‐rizedinaHandbookonthesubject,tobepublishedbyearly2009.

The other most relevant Peer Learning Cluster regards that on Teachers andTrainers,includingitssub‐clusteronVocationalEducationandTraining.

Highest attention inthe reports ofthePeer LearningActivities isgivento twopoints that were listed above as an aim of the open method of coordination,

namely:

1. Jointlyidentifyinganddefiningobjectivestobeachieved,

2. Theexchangeofbestpracticesasrevealedbyinvitedexpertsandnationalrepre‐

sentatives.

1.2.2 Improvedopenmethodsofco‐ordination

TheauthorrecommendstheCommissionandtheMemberStatestotakeintocon

siderationpossibleimprovementsoftheopenmethodofcoordinationinrelationtoinclusionandeducation.

Possibleimprovements mayregard thepoints that have receivedalreadyhighattention,i.e.thepointsoftheobjectivesandthebestpractices,aswellastheat‐



6

tentionpointsthatreceivedlessattentionsofar,i.e.jointmeasuringinstruments

andcomparativebenchmarking.

1.2.2.1 FurtherPLA‐meetingsandPLA‐likemeetings

The Peer Learning Activities have been taken upas the key instrument ofthe

open method ofcoordination inthe fieldof education. Our five key issues andframesofinclusionandeducationwouldbeappropriateandwelcomeissuesfor

special PLA‐meetings or other meetings with experts andnationalrepresenta‐tives.Itwouldregardspecialmeetingson:

Reductionofearlyschoolleaving,

Priorityeducationmeasures,

Inclusiveeducationmeasures

Safeeducationmeasures

Teachersupportmeasures.

Forthecountrieswithadecentralisededucationalsystemandauthority,suchasGermany,SpainandtheUK,thekeyactorsforeducationalpoliciesandstrategiesarenotreacheddirectly.Thekeyactorsaretherepresentativesoftheregional

ministriesofeducation.Theyaretobereachedviathenationalrepresentative,

whoisparticipatingthePeerlearningActivities.Howeverwelltheserepresenta‐tives may disseminate the ‘lessons learned’ to the regions, it would be in line

with the modus operandi of the open method of co‐ordination and the PeerLearningActivitiestoencouragedirectparticipationoftheresponsibleregional

representatives.

Theauthorrecommendsthisdirectparticipationoftheregionsforthecountries,

wheretheeducationalsystem andauthorityhavebeen decentralised,withratherrestrictedresponsibilityforthenationalgovernmentandministry.

It would increase the value of the Peer Learning Activities and the lessonslearnedanditwouldshortenthelinesofcommunicationanddisseminationbe‐

tween‘Brussels’,thecountriesandtheregions.Numbersofparticipantsmayin‐

creaseconsiderably,butnottoanunmanageablelevelonemayassume.

Thereremainsanunsolvedpoint,however.Themechanismofpeerpressureand

pear learning should have a much wider impact than that of the responsiblenationalandregionalauthoritiesintheMemberStates.Itshouldalsoinvolvethe

localauthorities,theeducationalauthorities,theschools,theteachersandotherrelevantandinterestedactorswithregardtoinclusionandeducation.Thispoint

cannotbesolvedbyenormousEuropeanconferences,e.g.ongoodpracticeswith

regardtoinclusionandeducation,organisedbytheEuropeanCommission.TheCommission may sponsor and continue to sponsor such conferences that are

takingplaceonbehalfofinternationalandEuropeanNGOsorassociations,suchastheconferenceofInclusionEuropeon‘inclusiveeducation’inViennainApril

2008.

The author recommends the Commission to sponsor and to continue to sponsor

widerconferencesoninclusionandeducation.



7

ThenationalandregionalparticipantsinthePeerLearningActivitiesmaytake

the initiative for national and regional Peer Learning Activities with local andeducationalauthorities,schools,teachersandotherrelevantorinterestedactors.

Inthesewaysthe‘lessonslearned’shouldbedisseminatedandfindaccesstoallconcerned.

Therefore,theauthorrecommendstheCommissionandtheparticipantsinthePeerLearningActivitiestoextendthisopenmethodofcoordinationtothenationaland

regionallevel.

Byextending the reachof the Peer learningActivities the Commission and the

participantswillimprovethedisseminationofthelessonslearnedoninclusion

andeducation.In thesectionbelowfurtherrecommendationswillfollowonre‐inforcedandimproveddisseminationmechanismsinthefield.

1.2.2.2 Knowledgemanagement

Thedifferentaimsoftheopenmethodofcoordinationandthepeerlearningac‐tivitiesarecloselylinkedtotheacquisitionanddisseminationofrelevantknow‐

ledgeoninclusionandeducation.Thatregards,ingeneralterms,specialisedin‐formation, i.e. information on quite ‘specific’ issues for specifically interested

usersandaudiences,manyofthembeingableandwillingtoprocessinformation

academically. Key functions with regard to specialised information regard theselectionandfindingof relevantmaterials,aswellastheproductionanddistri‐

butionof thesein consumableforms,i.e.formsandformatsthatareapparentlyappreciatedbythetargetedusersandaudiences.Targetedusersandaudiences

fortheCommission’sopenmethodofcoordinationare‘experts’and‘representa‐

tives’inthefieldofinclusivepoliciesineducation.However,amuchwidercircleofusersandaudiencesweretobeservedtoo,suchasgrass‐rootpractitionersin

schools,parentsandpupilsfacedwithearlyschoolleavingorwithexclusionanddiscrimination,etc.Evenifgreyreports,full‐textsitesanddownloadablereports

andbrochureswouldbeappreciatedbyanumberof‘experts’and‘representa‐

tives’,manyofthemaswellasmostotherusersandaudienceswouldappreciateaclearandconvincingselectionofrelevantmaterials,incombinationfeatures,

reports,sites,brochures,etc.thatarewritten,designedandproducedwell.

On behalf of the Commission, the website kslll.net is available as well as the

Europa‐websites for the production and dissemination of relevant knowledge

( Knowledge System for Lifelong Learning). Major ‘pieces’ of relevant researchandknowledgeoninclusionissuesareavailableattheCommission,onbehalfof

Commission assignments. On assignmentof theCommission it regards, amongothers, the report of Friedrich Heckmann on education and migration

(Heckmann, 2008 April) and that of Helen Penn on early childhood education

andcare(Penn,2009June).Thepresentstudyanditsreportsarealsobecomingpartofit.Yet,thesesitesandpublicationscannotcovermorethantheproverbial

tip of the available and relevant iceberg that consists of many (grey) reports,sites,publicationsande‐publicationsthatinterestedactorsinthefieldmayre‐

trieveortowhichtheymayhavesubscribed.

Relevant knowledge and materials from open sources aremanifold. It regardsspecialisedinformation,andthereforeasubstantialpartofitregardsacademic



8

knowledgeandmaterials.Theacademicmaterialsincludenationalandinterna‐

tionalorcomparativeresearch.Further:statisticalmaterials,indicators,reports,etc.Thesehavebeenconsultedforthepresent,study,althoughthereisalways

theriskofamissedreport,publication,orpieceofrelevantinformation,orthatofpublicationswitharestrictedcirculation.Besides,researchisatime‐consum‐

ingeffort,often,meaningthatrelevantknowledgeisnotalwaysavailableinrealtimeorinduecourse.Distributionisscatteredandofteninformal,particularlyforgreyliteratureandreportsaswellasforworkinprogress.

Inaddition,featuresinmassmediaoftenreporton importantpilots,goodprac‐ticesandtrends,somewhereinEurope.Althoughmostmediaarepresentonthe

Internet, it needs still great efforts and local ‘translators’ to keep reasonabletrackofrelevantmediacoverage.

Forthereinforcementandpossiblytheimprovementoftheopenmethodofco‐ordinationanditsknowledgefunctiontheauthorrecommendstheCommission

to ensure that effective measuresandgood practices aretranslated, discussedandpublishedonkslll.net,asannounced,withlinkstoothersites,asappropriate.Further,theproductionanddistributionofbooks,brochuresandothereasy‐ac‐

cessmaterialswithregardtoeffectivemeasuresandgoodpracticesisneeded.

As to ascertain best knowledge management, a specialised European knowledge

centreforinclusionandeducationwouldofferwelcomeaddedvalue.Theauthorrecommendstoestablishingaknowledgecentreforthemanagementofrelevant

knowledgeoninclusionandeducation.Itsfunctionsshouldbetofind,select,pro

cess and sort out the relevantmaterials oninclusion and education, and then toproduce and todistribute these inthe most appropriatewaysfor targetedusers

andaudiences.

Asimilarinitiativeisrecommendedatthenationalorregionallevel,i.e.theestab

lishmentandoperationofnationalandregionalknowledgecentresforinclusionand education. Together with the Europeancentre these centresshould form an

operationalnetworkofknowledgecentresinthefield.

Furtherdiscussionandrecommendationswillfollowinthechapters4,5,6and7

onfourtopicalissuesofinclusionandeducation:reductionofearlyschoolleav‐ing, priority education, inclusive education and safe education. Discussion and

recommendationforteachersupportwillfollowinchapter3.

1.3 Currentfundsandprograms

Withregardtoinclusionandeducation,severalEUprogramsofferopportunitiesfor direct EU funding of projects, measures, innovative action, targeted R&D

and/orreinforcementoftheEuropean dimensionorEuropean co‐operation. ItregardsprogramsthatarepartoftheEU’smid‐termbudgets.Atpresent,itre‐

gardstheEUbudgetfor2007‐2013.Theminorpartofthesubsidiesisallocated

byEuropeanagencies,whilemostoftheseareallocatedbynationalagenciesofthe relevant EU programs in relation to national priorities as agreed with the

Commission.



9

OnbehalfoftheprioritiesandrulesforEUsupportperprogram,ontheoneside,

andsubsidiesasallocated,nationallyorbyEuropeanagencies,ontheother,thefollowingprogramsarerelevantfor‘inclusionandeducation’:

1. TheLifelongLearningprogram,

2. TheResearchFrameworkprogram,3. Thestructuralfunds,

4. DAPHNE,YOUTHandCULTURE,

5. Maybeotherprograms.

1.3.1 TheLifelongLearningprogram

TheLifelong Learning program represents theEU‐program forprojects etc.to

enhance European educational aims. Its overarching priority is the reinforce‐mentofthecontributionmadebyeducationandtrainingtoachievingtheLisbon

goal of making the EU the most competitive knowledge‐based economy. Theprogram counts four sub‐programs, i.e. those for (1) school education

(COMENIUS),(2) vocationaleducationandtraining(LEONARDO DAVINCI),(3)adulteducation(GRUNDTVIG)and(4)tertiaryeducation(ERASMUS).Thestudyon ‘inclusion andeducation’ regards primary and secondary education. There‐

fore, the COMENIUS‐part and the LEONARDO‐part are directly relevant.GRUNDTVIGisrelevantinasfarasitregardse.g.thetransitionformschoolto

work and the latertraining and education ofearly school leavers.Their Euro‐

peanandnationalprioritiesandaims,presentandpast,reflectorcanreflectthedifferentissuesrelatedtoinclusionandeducation,althoughinvaryingdegrees.

Relevant priority areas for action in 2007 were, among others (EuropeanCommission, Directorate‐General for Education and Culture, 2006 December

20):

TostrengthentheroleofeducationandtrainingwithintheLisbonprocess(….),

Toimprovethequalityandattractivenessofvocationaleducationandtraining(….)

andtopromoterecognitionofnon‐formalandinformallearning,

ToimprovethelowlevelsofparticipationinadultlearninginmanyMemberStates

whichareanobstacletoemploymentandpeople’scapacitytoadapttorapidly

changingworkingenvironments,

Topromotegreaterefficiencyandequityineducationandtrainingsystems,particu‐

larlyhigh‐qualityprovisionsforthedisadvantagedandhigh‐qualitypre‐schoolap‐

proaches,

Toimprovethequalityofeducationandtrainingstaff,inparticularofteachersand

trainers.

In2007,specialprioritywasgiventoprojectspromotingtheinterculturaldia‐logue,inrelationtotheEuropeanYearofInterculturalDialogue2008.Intercul‐

turaleducationregardsasetofstrategiesandmeasurestoimprovethecultural

relationsinclassesandschools.Theseareapplied,invaryingdegrees,inthetencountries,aswasdiscussedinthechapteronpriorityeducationofthefinalre‐

port.CasesmentionedthereregardedthoseinItaliancitiesandregions,in par‐

ticular.LifelongLearningprojectsunderthesaidprioritymayhaveofferedandmaycontinuetoofferthefundsneededforinterculturalprioritymeasures.The

Commission’s staff has referred to seven projects in this frame in its working



10

documentof3July2008onmigrationandmobility(Commissionstaff,2008July

3).

PrioritiesofCOMENIUS,LEONARDOandGRUNDTVIGarereferring,directlyor

indirectly, to inclusion strategies, measures and practices. These priorities re‐

gard:

Getting or keeping aboard pupils and young people at risk of exclusion and

discrimination,

Multilingualcompetencies,

Strengtheningthecompetenciesofteachersandstaffwithregardtopupilsatriskof

exclusionanddiscriminations,

Reinforcementoftheaccesstotheteachingprofessionsforstudentsandyoungpeo‐

plefromdisadvantagedgroups,

Support for educational networks for e.g. the involvement of parents, for better

(inclusive) special needs education, for best intercultural education, for strength‐

enedtransitionsbetweenschoolandtheworldofwork,

Keycompetencesoflifelonglearning, Exploring culture and education, promoting interculturalism and supporting

integrationofmigrantsintosociety,

Adulteducationformarginalisedordisadvantagedcitizens.

Itshouldbenoticedthat‘inclusionissues’werenotclearlyindicatedamongthe

prioritiesofLEONARDO.Itsprioritiesreferredto‘mobility’ofstudentsandstaff,

and the transfer and development of innovation. LEONARDO and its targetgroups regard the educational sector of vocational education and training. In

most countries, most young people are prepared for their start on the labourmarketthere,andamongitspupilswehavefoundthelargestnumberofearly

schoolleaversandpupilsatriskofearlyschoolleaving.Theseregardclear‘Lis‐bonissues’.Therefore, clear links betweentheLEONARDO‐part oftheLifelongLearningprogramandthereinforcementoftheLisbonprocesswouldbeneeded,

both atthe European level and at that of European LEONARDO‐networks and

nationalagencies.

Therefore,theauthorrecommendstheCommissionandtheMemberStatestore considertheprioritiesofLEONARDOinrelationtothereinforcementoftheLisbon

processingeneralandthereductionofearlyschoolleavinginparticular.

Apart form the intercultural projects mentioned above, only a few cases and

projects,whichcametoourknowledgeduringthepastresearchproject,havere‐ceived LifelongLearningfunding.One may assume that the program is under‐usedfortheinclusionpurposes.3

3In2009,theCommission’sstafflisted‘schoolpartnerships’for‘employabilitymeasures’inone

country:Hungary.ItlistedprioritymeasuresinBelgium‐FlemishCommunity,Belgium‐German

Community, Estonia, Spain, Hungary, The Netherlands, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia,

Sweden, Norway and Turkey. It listed ‘inclusive’ measures for special needs education in

Belgium‐FlemishCommunity,Latvia,Lithuania,Hungary,TheNetherlands,SloveniaandtheUK.



11

1.3.2 TheResearchFrameworkprogram4

TheResearchFrameworkprogramoftheCommission’sDGforResearchoffers

mid‐termfundingtoexcellentEuropeanresearchprojectsandnetworksinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Theprogram’scallsreferandreferredtoeduca‐

tionalresearchunderthegeneralheadingof CivilSociety.Nineteeneducationalresearch projects have received funding of the Commission since 2001(EuropeanCommission,Directorate‐GeneralforResearch,2009).Amongtheseis

theINCLUD‐EDprojectonStrategiesforinclusionandsocialcohesioninEuropefromeducation,aswellasotherresearchprojectsthatarefocussedoninclusion

andcohesionissues–KATARSIS, 5PROFIT,6EMILIA,7YIPPEE.8Someprojectsare

targeted at knowledge and skills, being the pillars of the Lisbon Strategy tostrengthen theEuropeanknowledge‐basedeconomy,such asREFLEX,9Lifelong

Learning2010,10EUEREK.11Someprojectsaretargetedatcitizenshipingeneraland culture, youth, education and migration, in particular e.g. INTERACT,12

EMILIE,13REDCO,14EDUMIGROM,15EUMARGINS.16Inaddition,tworelevantaca‐

demic networks received support, namely SINCERE17 and TRIPL‐E DOSE.18Beyond the new pathways, theories and methodologies of ‘education science’,

theresearchprojectsandnetworksshouldimproveandenlargetheknowledge

baseregardinginclusionandeducation.Asstatedabove:thisknowledgebaseisa specialised knowledge base, with a high and necessary level of academic

involvement and the involvement of professionals, stakeholders and otherrelevant actors, who apparently need a full academic qualification. Therefore,

best European research projects and networks may represent a necessity for

‘inclusionandeducation’andits(specialised)knowledgebase.19

4InadditiontothecurrentResearchFrameworkprogramfor2007‐2013alsoprojectsthatwere

fundedundertheprecedingprogramsmaydeserveattention,fortworeasons.First,someearlier

projects have a run‐time upto 2011 or 2012. Second,the life‐cycleof scientificknowledge is

assumedtoberatherlong,bothwithregardtothecasestudies,indicatorsandfurtherevidence

that hasbeen delivered on the basis of current research, and with regard tothe clarification,

explanation,interpretationsandunderstandingofrelevantphenomena,incasethoseconcerning

inclusionstrategies,measuresandpracticesineducation.5 Growinginequalityand socialinnovation:alternative knowledge and practice in overcoming

socialexclusioninEurope.6Policyresponsesovercomingfactorsintheintergenerationaltransmissionofinequalities.7Empowermentofmentalhealthserviceusers:lifelonglearning,integrationandaction.8Youngpeoplefromapubliccarebackground:pathwaystoeducationinEurope.9Theflexibleprofessionalintheknowledgesociety.10TowardsalifelonglearningsocietyinEurope:thecontributionoftheeducationsystem.11Europeanuniversitiesforentrepreneurship.12Interculturalactivecitizenshipeducation.13AEuropeanapproachtomulticulturalcitizenship:legal,politicalandeducationalchallenges.14Religionineducation.Acontributiontodialogueorafactorofconflictintransformingsocieties

ofEuropeancountries?15EthnicdifferencesineducationanddivergingprospectsforurbanyouthinanenlargedEurope.16 On the margins of the European Community – Young adult immigrants in seven European

countries.17Supportinginternationalnetworkandcooperationineducationalresearch.18Daysofsocio‐economy:education,employment,Europe.

19Theacademicfeed‐inintheknowledgebaseisnotlimitedtothattheFP6andFP7projectsandnetworks. Apart from these, national and international research centres, at universities, inlearned associations and networks, etc. are giving important andmost valuable contributions



12

Nooronlyafewcasesandprojectsthatcametoourknowledgewererelatedto

wideracademicprojectsandnetworksfundedbytheResearchFramework.

Itwouldnotbeinlinewiththeprogramanditshistorytorecommendoneor

moreEuropeanresearchprogramsthataretobetargetedatinclusionandedu‐

cationonbehalfofsometop‐downassignment.Mostacademicsdonotexpectanoptimalcontributiontotheknowledgebaseonbehalfoftop‐downtargetedre‐search assignments. For them, the optimal contribution is to be reinforced by

academicfreedomincombinationwithqualitycompetition.

Itis apparently a challenge for the academics and the academic community to

leavetheproverbialivorytowerofscience,universitiesandresearchinstitutes.

Some may escape from it through their commitment to action research thatshouldclearlycontributetoimprovedlivingconditionsingeneralandlearning

conditionsinparticularoflocaldisadvantagedordiscriminatedgroups.Othersmay actively participate in progressive associations, nationally or locally, and

participateinpoliticaldebate.Both‘positions’wererepresentedintheINTMEASconsortium,aswerecommitmentsasexpertadvisersandconsultants.

FortheRESEARCHprogram,theCommissionisgivinghighprioritytothedis‐

seminationofresearchoutcomesandpublications.Theconsortiaarerequestedtosetouttheirdisseminationplansaspartoftheirprojectanditsfollowup.The

Commissionmayassignmeta‐studiesoncertainissues,anditisrunningaccom‐panying measures that should ascertain the effective dissemination of project

findingetc.amongwidercirclesandinterestedaudiencesinsociety.TheCom‐

missionendorsedtheparticipationofinterestedgroupsinthefundedprojects–in case: pupils at (high) risk of exclusion, grass‐root practitioners, educational

andlocalauthorities,etc.

TheauthorhasrecommendedtheestablishmentofaEuropeanknowledgecentre

fortheprocessinganddisseminationofrelevantinformationoninclusionandedu cation. One of its functions should beto reinforce and toimprove the processing

anddisseminationofrelevantknowledgefromresearch.

1.3.3 Structuralfunds

ThestructuralfundsoftheEUofferfundingfornationalandEuropeanprograms

thataimatbalancingtheinequitiesofgroupsand/orregionsand/orsectorsof

the economy.For the groups itregards the European Social Fund ESF and therelatedprogramPROGRESS,aswellastheIntegrationFundandtheFundforRe‐

gionalDevelopment.ESFandPROGRESSaretargetedatallgroupsthatappar‐entlysufferofsocialexclusion,particularlyonthelabourmarketandwhohave

stayedapartfromsocietyandthelabourmarketfor(too)longtime.Theseare

thesamegroups,althoughmoreadult,astheonesthataredisadvantagedandatrisk of exclusion and discrimination from education, such as under‐qualified

workers (i.e. early school leavers), Roma, travelling people, minorities, ‘immi‐grant’youth,thesocio‐economicandneighbourhooddisadvantaged,thegender

disadvantaged, handicapped, disabled and special needs people, victims and

too.FP6andFP7areaiming,however,totake aleadingroleinthenewknowledgeas needed.Mostdecisivesynthesisingcontributionsareexpectedtofollowintheyearsahead.



13

perpetrators. For ESF and PROGRESS that are led by DG Employment and

national agencies it regards predominantlyEuropean citizens or third countrynationalswithaperspectiveofpermanentorlong‐stayresidence.TheIntegra‐

tionProgramthatisledbyDGJusticeandnationalagenciesregardsprojectsfortheintegrationofthirdcountrynationals,i.e.immigrantworkers,asylumseek‐

ers,etc.Intermsoftherisksofexclusionanddiscriminationthereisconsider‐ableoverlapbetweenthetargetgroupsofthethreeprograms.Somenationalre‐ports referredto ESF‐funding forthereintegrationof early school leavers and

othergroupsatrisk.Intotal,however,thereturnonaimsandinvestmentwas

nothighasfarasthegroupsatriskofeducationalandpost‐educationalexclu‐sionanddiscriminationwereconcerned.20

Projectsforthedevelopmentandreinforcementofdisadvantagedandbackward

regionsmayreceivefundingfromtheEuropeanFundforRegionalDevelopment.

ThefundhasbeenappliedformeasuresandprojectstointegrateRomacommu‐nities in Hungary in mainstream education. The project(s) were mentioned in

theHungariannationalreportandinapresentationoftheHungarianMinistryofEducationatthePLA‐meetinginBrusselson26June2009.

IncombinationwiththeLifelongLearningprogram,ESF,PROGRESS,theIntegra tion Fund and European Fund for regional Development offer promising oppor

tunities for the EU funding of inclusive strategies, measures and practices for

youngpeopleatrisk.

The funding is to be spent on innovation, European co‐operation and priority

measures, in addition to national resources. At the moment, the share of EU‐fundingofESFprojectsisraisedtemporarilyupto85%,asoneofEuropeaneco‐

nomiccrisis‐measures,whiletimelineshavebeenshortenedforthesamepur‐pose.

Theauthorrecommendsthatthecombinedresourcesforyoungpeopleatriskre mainavailable,thattheirco ordinationisimprovedwhenneededandthatusageis

promoted more widely and effectively if appropriate, e.g. in relation to under

usage.

The author recommends a similar combination for the LEONARDO part and theotherprograms.ItwouldmeanthatLEONARDOshouldtakeupprioritieswithre

gardtoearlyschoolleaversandotherpupilsandyoungpeopleatrisk.Thelatter

werethentobecombinedwiththeprioritiesandresourcesoftheotherprogramswithregardto under qualifiedworkers(i.e.earlyschoolleavers)andotherpupils

andyoungpeopleatrisk.

1.3.4 DAPHNE,YOUTHandCULTURE

DGJusticeleadstheDAPHNEprogram.Theaimofthisprogrammeistocontri‐

butetotheprotectionofchildren,youngpeopleandwomenagainstallformsof

violence.Itdirectlyreferstothesegroups,theirschoolenvironmentandformsofviolence, i.e. to bullying and harassment. DG Education and Culture is leading

20 Wehaveaskedthenationalteamleaders and the consultedexperts forspecialattention tonationalprojectsthatreceivedESFfunding.



14

two separate programs for (1) YOUTH and (2) CULTURE. The first regards

fundingofrelevantprojectsforyoungpeopleandyouthpolicies.Thesecondre‐gards the funding of relevant cultural projects and initiatives. The three pro‐

gramsthereforemayofferfundingforrelevantinclusionprojectsineducation.We have not noticed projects with DAPHNE‐funding, YOUTH‐funding or

CULTURE‐fundingamongthecasestudiesandfurtherprojectsthatcametoourknowledge.

In combination with the Lifelong Learning program, DAPHNE, YOUTH and

CULTUREmayoffer,however,promisingopportunitiesfortheEU fundingofinclu sive strategies, measuresand practicesfor young people at risk. Theauthorrec

ommendsthatthecombinedresourcesforyoungpeopleatriskremainavailable,thattheirco ordinationisimprovedwhenneededandthatusageispromotedmore

widelyandeffectivelyifappropriate,e.g.inrelationtounder usage.



15

2 Theresponsibilitiesofnational,regional,localand

educationalauthorities

2.1 Thestatutoryresponsibilityoftheauthorities

All,oralmostall,statutoryresponsibilityconcerningeducationisinhandsofthenationalauthoritiesand/or,bydelegation,inthatofregional,localandeduca‐tionalauthorities.Theyareresponsiblefortheaims,priorities,rules,measures,

nationalcurriculum,qualityandqualityassessment,examinationandcertifica‐tion,thepublicbudgetallocations,etc.Theyexertthecontrolontheseresponsi‐

bilities.Theysetandadapttherulesandarrangements,takingintoconsideration

nationaldemocraticrulesandprocedures,thenationalconstitution,highorcon‐stitutionalcourtdecisionsandjudgments,andinternationallawandagreements.

Untilnowhardlynosupra‐nationalstatutoryrulesandarrangementsweretobeappliedinthenationalcontext,or,incase,theregionallocaloreducationalcon‐

text.21

InthereviewandrecommendationswithregardtotheEU’sresponsibili‐tiestheauthorhasreferredtotwopossiblestatutoryresponsibilitiesoftheEU,i.e.pointsatwhichtheEUmaytakeuporshouldtakeupstatutoryresponsibility.

ThesepointsregardedthehalvingofearlyschoolleavingintheEUandthenon‐

acceptanceofRomaoutplacementinspecialclassesandschools.

The possible statutory responsibility of the EU for these issues may urge thenational,regional,localandeducationalauthoritiestobringtheirrulesandar‐

rangementsinaccordancewithapplicableEUrulesandarrangements.Itisnot

animmediatepointofattention,but theauthormayrecommendthenational,re gional,localandeducationalauthoritiestoassesstheimplicationsfortheirrules

and arrangements with regard to the reduction of early school leaving and thenon acceptance of Roma outplacement or further minority outplacement, wouldtheserepresentstatutoryEUresponsibilities.

2.2 Theopenmethodofco‐ordination

InlinewiththeLisbonstrategyanditsimplicationforeducationintheEU,theEUisgivingsupporttothenationalauthoritiesthroughtheopenmethodofco‐

ordination.Itisexpectedthatthroughtheopenmethodofco‐ordinationasap‐plied, relevant models and ideas on inclusion and education will reach the

national authorities. For the open method of co‐ordination, the peer learning

processisapplied.ItmeansthatrepresentativesofvolunteeringMemberStatesare invited toparticipate in two‐ orthree‐day conferences. Therethey are re‐

ceivingrelevantinformationonpolicies,casesandmeasuresaspresentedbyex‐perts,localauthoritiesandorganisers.Theyaretakingnoticeofexpertopinion

andknowledgeasrepresentedbyinvitedexperts.Theyarediscussingtheles‐

21 An operational exception regards the national (or regional) obligation to respond to the

monitoringinstrumentsoftheEU’sDGEACandotherinternationalagencies,suchastheOECD,

EUROSTATandagenciesoftheUN.InthereviewandrecommendationswithregardtotheEU’s

responsibilitieswehavereferredtotwopossiblestatutoryresponsibilitiesoftheEU,i.e.pointsat

whichtheEUmaytakeuporshouldtakeupstatutoryresponsibility.A very fundamental exception regards the UN‐rule that all minors should have access toeducation,includingtheminorswithoutpermissionofstayinacountry.



16

sonslearnedconcerning,incase,inclusionandeducationinthedifferentMem‐

berStates,theirregionsandtheirschools.

One may see it as a liaison model between Europe and the authorities in the

MemberStates.Itseffectivenessisdependentonthequalityoftheinputinfor‐

mation, on the one side, and the participants, on the other. For the latter twopointsaremostdecisive,beingtheirexpertiseandcompetence,ontheonehand,and their national ‘network’, on the other. So far, there is no sign of failing

quality,expertiseandcompetencewithregardtotheinputandthenationalpar‐

ticipants in the peer learning process, although improvements are always in‐tendedandmade,stepbystep,e.g.inrelationtotheincreasedknowledgebase

oninclusionandeducation.

Onemay,however,raisedoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofthepeerlearningpro‐

cessanditsliaisonmodel.Actually,thenationaleducationalauthoritiesarecom‐plexdepartmentalorganisations,oreveninter‐departmentalorganisations,with

theinvolvementofMinistriesofEducationandtheirmanydirectorates,aswellasministriesordirectoratesofemployment,youthcare,healthcare,familyis‐sues, culture, immigration, integration, justice, interior governance, etc. It re‐

gardsthemanagementofcomplexnationalrulesandarrangements.Forsingleliaisonsitmayneedstrongbackupnetworksandawidesetonconnectionswith

therelevantdirectorates,officersandpolicymakerstoassurethearrivalofrel‐

evant knowledge, informationand lessons learned atthe rightplaces. This re‐flects a multi‐step or multi‐looped communications model. Since longer times,

communication scientists have discussed the pertinent threats and distortions

thatmayoccurateachsteporlooptowardsthenextreceiver.

Inparalleltotheliaisonsmodel,thedisseminationofrelevantknowledge,infor‐mationandlessonslearnedtowardsallnational,regional,localandeducational

authoritiesthat shouldsharethese,wouldneedfurther accompanyingdissemi‐

nation measures. These accompanying dissemination measures might includeeasilyaccessiblee‐publicationsandsites,aswellaseasilyaccessibleprintedma‐

terials.AsthenodeofittheauthorrecommendedaboveaEuropeanknowledge

centreforinclusionandeducation.Thiscentreistobelinkedtonationalknow‐ledgecentrescoveringtheissueofinclusionandeducation.

TheauthorhasrecommendedtheCommissiontotakeuptheseimprovementsof

theopenmethodofco ordinationanditspeerlearningactivities.Theauthorrec

ommendsthenationalauthoritiestosupporttheseimprovements,withtheaimtoreinforcetheliaisonfunctionandthepeerlearningprocessbetweenEuropeand

theMemberStatesandwiththeaimtoreinforceandimprovethedisseminationof

relevant knowledge and information among the relevant authorities and actors.BoththeCommissionandthenationalauthoritiesshouldassurethatthedissemi

nation regards a two way process between Europe, the Member States and thegrassrootsofeducationinclassesandschools.

Themodelmightbeatdoubleriskofthreatenedandblockedcommunications,wherethenationalauthoritiesmayhavedelegatedtheirnationalresponsibilities

toregionalauthorities.Itmaymeanlongerlinesofcommunicationthanincen‐

tralised Member States. It may need direct involvement of ‘lower’ authorities,particularly in countries with full devolution, i.e. countries where the national



17

authoritieshavedelegatedtheirstatutoryresponsibilitiesfullyornearlyfullyto

regional authorities. Among our ten countries it regarded Germany (Länder),SpainandtheUK.Onemayleavetheeffectivedisseminationofrelevantknow‐

ledgeandinformationbetweennationalauthoritiesandlower,realauthoritiestothenationalauthorities.Fullinvolvementofthelower,realauthoritiesin the

openmethodofco‐ordination,thepeerlearningactivitiesand/orthedissemina‐tionprocess would, however, assure a more effective communicationbetweenEuropeanandthelower,realauthorities,andviceversa.22

Therefore, theauthor recommends theCommission, thenational authorities andthelower,realauthoritiestoinvolvethelower,realauthoritiesdirectlyintheopen

methodof co ordination,thepeerlearningprocessand/orthedisseminationpro cess.

2.3 RelevantEUprograms

Nationalauthoritiesaremoreorlesstheownersandimportantstakeholdersofthe relevant EU programs. These are, among others, Lifelong Learning, the

RESEARCH Framework program, the structural funds, DAPHNE, YOUTH and

CULTURE.Thenationalauthoritiesareconsultedontheaims,meansandpriori‐tiesandtheydecideasMemberStatesontheprioritiesoftheprograms.

Thenationalauthoritiesmay consulttheirregional, local andeducational auth‐oritiesorrelevantactorsinthefield,dependingonnationalrulesandarrange‐

ments.Inthisway,‘lower’authoritiesandrelevantactorsmayexertindirectin‐fluenceontheprioritiesoftherelevantprograms,howeverdistancedandindi‐

rect.

Allauthoritiesmayactasapartnerinanapplicationforthefundingofaproject

inthefieldofinclusionandeducation,althoughitisnotthemostusualpractice.

Mostusualpartnersarerelevantactorsthatwanttotakenewandinnovativein‐itiativestoreduceearlyschoolleaving,toimprovethechancesofdisadvantaged

pupils,tomakemainstreameducationmoreinclusive,totakemeasuresagainstbullying and harassment, to support teachers and staff, etc. It regards usually

specific pilots and possible good practices. These can be that interesting for

national,regional,localoreducationalauthoritiesthattheywanttoparticipateinthepilot,e.g.aspushingandhelpingpartnerinthepreparatoryphaseofan

application, as a co‐funder during the run‐time of a project, as an interested

partner in the follow‐up, after‐care and further dissemination of the ‘lessonslearned’,etc.

Theauthormayrecommendthenational,regional,localandeducationalauthori

tiestofindandsupportpossiblyinterestingapplicationsinthefieldsofinclusion

andeducation,totakeresponsibilityfortheseasaco funderand/ortotakeupre sponsibilityforthefollow up,after careandthefurtherdisseminationofthe‘les

sonslearned’.

22 At points, the Commission has started to refer to the different Belgian communities withregardto education issuesand theLifelong Learning program. Otherinternational institutionsandagenciesdosoalsoforreviewsandmonitors,e.g.withregardtoSpainandtheUK.



18

Theauthoritiesthatwilldosomayeffectivelysupportgoodmeasuresandprac‐

ticeswithregardtoinclusionandeducation.

Nationalandotherauthoritiesmaypromotetherelevantactors toprepareand

submitproposalsthatwouldbeeligibleforEU‐funding.Theytakeanintermedi‐

arypositionbetweenEuropeanditsrelevantprograms,ontheoneside,andtherelevantactorsandstakeholdersinthefield,ontheother. 23Theremightbeara‐ther strong reluctance among a number of national and other authorities, be‐

cause ‘promotion’ might harm their neutralposition in educational minefields.

Butothersarelessreluctantasapplicationsweretoservethenational,regionalandlocaleducationalpolicies,measuresandgoodpracticesthataresupported

widelyanddemocratically.Besides,basicpromotionrepresentsusuallythedis‐tributionanddisseminationofrelevantinformationandschemes.

Therefore,theauthormayrecommendthenationalandotherauthoritiestopro mote the participation inEUprogramsfor projectsin the fields ofinclusion and

education,takingintoconsiderationnationalrestrictionswithregardto informa tionandpromotioncampaigns.Whereappropriate,thepromotionmightbeco or dinatedorevendelegatedtothenationalagenciesfortheEUprograms.

Nationalandotherauthoritiesarenotsupposedtoexertinfluenceon decisionstobe takenon concrete applications for funding. Depending onthe programs’

rules andregulations, committees consistingofrepresentativesof theMemberStatesmaydecideorco‐decideonfinalfundinglists,butthelistsarepreparedby

theCommissionanditsexpertevaluationpanels.

23 National agencies forthe relevant EU programs havea similarintermediary position. Thesehave usually also a clear responsibility for the promotion of the programs and for theenhancementofapplications.



19

3 Supportingschools,teachersandtrainers

3.1 Keepingpupilsaboardinmainstreameducation

Allormostexpertsappeartoagreethatitneedshighcommitmentofschoolsand

teacherstokeepthepupilsaboard,whoapparentlyareat(high)riskofleaving,exclusion, dismissal, discrimination and/or repeated classes. In the French re‐port,twocasestudieshavebeendiscussedextensivelyonwhatitneedsonbe‐

half of schools and teachers. It regardedthe case study on a place, where the

outplacementofdifficultandevenmostdifficultpupilsisnotallowed(Lemoine,Guigue,& Tillard,2009),andtheoneon aFreinetschoolthat isoperatingin a

‘challenging’priorityzone(Reuter,2009).FromtheHungarianandtheSlovenianreportitisapparentlyclearthatisneedshighesteffortsofschools,teachersand

specialised Roma assistants to give Roma pupils a fair chance in mainstream

education.IntheDutchreportattentionispaidtoUSliteratureonkeepingpupilsatriskofearlyschoolleavingaboard,i.e.thereportoftheUSNationalresearch

Councilon ‘engagingschools’(NationalResearch Council,Institute ofMedicine,

2004;Comer,2004).AlsotheexampleoftheMozaiekSchoolinArnhemisworthmentioning(Muskens&Peters,2009).Itshigh‘educationalgain’withpupilsat

riskwasbaseduponhighandpermanentcommitmentandfocusofschoolandstaff, according to the school leaders.24 Also further priority examples in Ger‐

many,Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spainand the UKshowed that commit‐

mentandfocusofschoolsandstaffisapparentlythemostdecisivefactorfortheimprovedchancesof‘immigrant’pupilsandforthecreationofnon‐discrimina‐

toryrelationsineducationandmixedschools.

Therefore,thegeneralrecommendationisjustifiedthatallactors,whoshouldsup

port schools and teachers to keep the pupils at risk aboard, must reinforce andstrengthenthecommitment,effortsandfocusofschoolsandteachers,as,e.g.,el

aboratedinthereportonthe‘engagingschools’andtheFrenchFreinetcase.

Howevergeneral,thisrecommendationappliesto,e.g.:

Theexternalconsultants,curriculumadvisers,teachertrainers,etc.,whomayexert

direct or indirect influence on the schools as well as on the teachers and future

teacherstheyarereachingandwanttoreach,

Producersof curricula, courses,school materials, educational software, etc., taking

intoconsiderationthemanypupilsat(high)riskamongtheend‐usersoftheirpro‐

ducts, Partnersofschoolsfrominternalcareteamsandremedialteaching,youthwork,the

policeand thejudiciary, temporary outplacementcentres,jobcentres, medicaland

paramedicalprofessionsand institutions,etc.,withwhomschoolandteachersmay

sharetheresponsibilityforpupilsat(high)risk,

Thenational,regional,localandeducationalauthorities thatdevelopfutureeduca‐

tionalandschoolstrategies,thatare settingtherulesandarrangementsforeduca‐

tionalpracticesastoberealisedbytheschoolsandtheteachers,andthatallocate

theresourcesasneeded,

24TheFrenchFreinetexample,the‘engagingschool’oftheNationalResearchCouncil,Comer’sstudyandideas,andthecommitmentofschoolandstaffattheMozaiekSchoolinArnhemhavemanypointsincommonwithregardtocommitment,effort,focusonpupilsandtheirfuture,etc.



20

The participants in the Commission’s Open Method of Coordination and the Peer

Learning Activities – they may want to disseminate their conclusion to the stake‐

holderslistedaboveandtoschoolsandteachers,asappropriate,

Thosewhomanagerelevantnationalandinternationalknowledgebases,andthose

whodisseminaterelevantknowledgeoninclusionandeducationprofessionally,

Etc.

Theseandotherrelevantactorsshouldtakethecommitmentofschoolsandteach

ersfortheirpupilsat(high)riskintoconsiderationandtheyshouldpayseriousat tentiontohowtheycansupporttheschoolsandteachersinthisrespect.

Whatwouldsuchsupportmeaninpractice?Itis,muchtoourregret,farbeyondevidence based knowledge to give clear operational guidelines – at least for the

moment.

Thestateofcomparativeresearchdoesnotleadtoclearoperationalconclusions,

as was argued in the methodological annex to the final report concerning re‐

search conclusions. Doubt was also expressed whether full evidence‐basedknowledgewouldbefeasibleatall,nowandinthefuture.However,thenational

andinternationalknowledgebasesandcasestudiesshowinterestingexamplesofhowsomeintendedinclusioneffectswerereachedornotunderspecificcir‐

cumstances.Theeffortwasmadetosynthesisethisbodyofknowledgeforthetencountriesandforfurthercasesasreportedanddocumented.Theseexamples

mayhelpotherschools,teachersandtrainerstoimprovetheirpracticesandto

find new, promising packages and measuresfor keeping their pupils at(high)riskaboard.Theymaylearnformtheexamplesandadaptthepracticestotheir

ownneeds,opportunities,challengesandcircumstances.

Forthisreason,theauthorrecommendstogivehighestprioritytomeasuresfores tablishing functional knowledge centres, both at the national and the Europeanlevel, that will effectively respond to the knowledge needs of schools, teachers,

teachertrainingcentresandteachertrainers.

3.2 Teachersupportmeasures

3.2.1 Additionalstaff

The authorities, the schools as well asotherrelevant institutions may apply a

widevarietyofmeasureswithregardtoextrateachersandsupportstaff.Needs

and necessities are discussed in the chapters below on the reduction of earlyschool leaving, priority education measures, inclusive education measures and

safeeducationmeasures.Howtheadditionalfundingis appliedistobedecided

atthenationalandthelocallevel.

Additionalstafffunctionsincludeanumberofprofessionalrolesforteachersandothers,suchasRomaassistantsandRomafamilyco‐ordinators,casemanagers

intheschools,designatedteachers,counsellors,mentors,tutors,remedialteach‐

ers,etc.Inmostcountriesthesefunctionsarestillbeingdevelopedandimprovedinpractice.

Theauthorrecommendstheschoolsandtheinstitutionsthatareinvolvedtoascer tainappropriatehighschoolanduniversitytrainingandcoursesforthe‘newstaff

professions’ .



21

They should also take appropriate measures to avoid emerging alienation be‐

tweeneducation,schoolsandtheteachingprofessions,ontheoneside,andthe‘newteachingprofessions’,ontheother.Theyshouldascertainfunctionallinks

betweentheteachingprofessionsandthe‘newstaffprofessions’.

3.2.2 Teachertraining

Nationalandregionalprioritieswithregardtoteachertrainingandre‐trainingin

relationtoinclusionmeasurestargetedatpupilsat(high)riskregard:

Initialteachertraining,

In‐servicetraining,e.g.ofyoungandnewteachersorpersonswhodecidetoenter

theteachingprofessionsatalaterstageoftheircareer,

Periodicre‐trainingintheframeofemerging‘inclusionchallenges’,e.g.withregard

totheteachingandguidingofearlyschoolleaversandotherpupilsatrisk.

Theauthorendorsesandrecommendsallactorsinvolvedtoundertakeallappro

priateandnecessarymeasuresforteachertrainingandre traininginrelationto‘inclusionandeducation’ .

Nocaseswerenoticed,inwhichEU‐educationfundsfortertiaryeducationorfor

vocationalandprofessionaleducationwereallocatedsuccessfullyforinclusion‐oriented teacher training and re‐training. Taking into consideration the said

needofappropriateteachertrainingandre‐trainingintheframeoftheemerging‘inclusionchallenges’, theauthorrecommends toassess,whetherandhowdirect

orindirectEU fundingoftrainingandre trainingmeasuresshouldbeencouraged .

Theauthorrecommendsasbalancedtrainingandre trainingmeasuresaspossible .

Inlinewiththegeneralrecommendationforthe(improved)openmethodofco‐ordinationinthefieldinclusionandeducation,theauthorextendstherecommen

dationtofocussedattentionforspecialteachertrainingprogrammes,supportstaffandfundsforadditionalteachersasneeded,i.e.totakethesepointsupthrough:

FurtherPLA meetingsorPLA likemeetings,

Publicationsandwebsites,

Furtherbooks,brochuresandothereasy accessmaterials,

The European and national knowledge centres that are focussed on inclusion and

education.

So,goodpracticeresearchandthedisseminationofgoodpoliciesandpracticesamongteachersandotherstakeholderswillmakeafruitfulcombination.

3.3 Pointsthatmaydiverttheattention

Anumberofpointsmayneedattentioninrelationtosupportforschools,teach‐

ersandtrainers.Itregardspointsthatmaydivertthemfromtheaimofkeepingpupils at (high) risk aboard. The author would like to discuss the following

pointsandmeasuresinrelationtothe(feared)diversions:

Inappropriateforceandtop‐downcommunication,

Workloadandoverload,

Theoutplacementperspective, Theownresponsibilityofparentsandpupils,



22

Non‐educationaldisciplines,prioritiesandpreferences.

3.3.1 Inappropriateforceandtop‐downcommunication

Authorities areentitledto givebinding instructions andorders to schools and

teachers, within the domain of their authority and competence. Experts may

sharetheirexpertviews,knowledgeandargumentswithschoolsandteacher‘excathedra’–theyspeak,whiletheschoolandtheteachershouldlistenandfollow

theiradvice,recommendations,etc.Toacertainextent,forceasexertedbyauth‐

oritiesandviews,orknowledgeandargumentsascommunicatedtop‐downbyexpertsarerealorlikely,sometimesneeded,unavoidableandfunctional.

It regards, however, a rather ‘double Dutch’ issue. The force of an authority

mightbe rejected, for reasons ofpure power conflict, for that of resistance to

change,forgoodreasonorallthreetogether.To‐downcommunicationisknownforitsfrequentineffectiveness,while(smart)representativesfromthefloormay

questiontheexpertviews,knowledgeandarguments.Theymaycomeforward

withconvincingorevenmoreconvincingargumentsandviews,e.g.basedupontheirdailyexperienceandgeneralknowledge.

Theissueisreinforcedbythepositionofschoolsandteachersthemselves.For

the‘real’educationaltasksandfunctions,schoolsandteachershavefullrespon‐

sibilityandtheyholdorshouldholdalldelegatedauthorityforthat.Thisregardsparticularlytheresponsibilityfortheimplementationandrealisationofeduca‐

tioninpractice.Toahighdegree,schoolsthemselvesareknowledgecentresor

centresofknowledge,wheremostworkers,i.e.teachersandfurtherstaff,havetobehighlyqualifiedprofessionals,usuallyonbehalfofarequiredofdesirable

universitydegree.Howeverneededtop‐downauthorityorexpertisemaybe,e.g.underthepressingconditionsoffailingschoolsandweakresultswithregardto

theinclusionofpupilsat(high)risk,schoolsandteacherswilldemandandwill

needtherecognitionoftheirownauthorityandexpertise.

For this reason, many or even most national, regional, local and educational

authorities have tried to reduce their mere exertion of authority and power.Theyhavemovedtothepositionofimprovingthefacilities,resourcesandfeed‐

back for schools and teachers. They are leaving the realisation of general andspecificeducationalaimsandfunctions,e.g.withregardtotheinclusionofpupils

at(high)risk,totheschoolsandtheteachingteams,inco‐operationwithother

partnersasappropriate.Theymoved,asfaraspossible,toapositionsimilartothat oftheEuropean institutions inrelationto the LisbonStrategy, ontheone

hand,andtheMemberStates,ontheother.TheymovedtoapositionofapplyingOpenMethodsofCoordination,moreorless.

Expertshavelearnedorshouldlearntoberesponsivetotheschoolsandteach‐ers for whom their expertise would be useful. ‘Responsive’ would mean that

views and arguments are not communicated ‘ex cathedra’, but that they are

sharedanddevelopedinaninteractiveprocessbetweenlearningpartners.Ex‐perts may represent general and comparative knowledge and views, while



23

schoolsandteachersrepresenttheexperienceof‘real’teachingandtheknow‐

ledgeoflearnedprofessionals.25

Theauthorrecommendsauthoritiesandexpertstotaketheownauthorityandex

pertiseofschoolsandteachersseriouslyintoconsiderationandtobe‘responsive’to

theschoolsandteachers,asfaraspossible.

3.3.2 Workloadandoverload

Insomecountries,teachersandteacherunionsarguethattheyarewithtoolow

numbers for all efforts and demands put upon them. The Netherlands is the

clearest case in this respect (Muskens & Peters, 2009, pp. 43‐44). Under thatconditionitwouldbeimpossibletoaddnewtaskstotheexistingteachertasks,

e.g. with regard to keeping pupils at (high) risk aboard, without appropriate

compensationandadditionalstaff.TheweightrulesasappliedinDutchprimaryeducationsincethe1980‐ieswereakindofcompensationfortheextra‐ordinary

effortsandadditionaldemandsonschoolsandteachersforteachinghighnum‐bersofdisadvantagedpupils.

Inthefollowingcountriesmeasuresandresourcesforworkloadmanagementinrelationtopupilsat (high)risk wereobserved:France,TheNetherlands,Slove‐

nia,SpainandtheUK.Measuresandresourcesforadditionalteachersandsup‐

portstaffwerementionedinFrance,Hungary,Italy(withquestionmark),TheNetherlands,SloveniaandSpain.

Severalexpertshavearguedthatitneedsthebestteachersforthepupilsathigh‐

est risk, who are most demanding in terms of time, effort, commitment and

quality.Additionalrewardscanbeagreathelpforthispurpose,althoughmost

nationalsalaryschemesforteachersarenotadaptedtothispurpose.Thetradi‐tionalschemesgivehighestsalariesandcareerperspectivestoteachersinthe

higheststreamsandtracksof (upper)secondaryeducation.Salaries andcareerperspectives in pre‐school education, in primary education and in vocational

education and training with their concentration of pupils at (high) risk wereusuallynotthebest.

Somecountrieshavesetoutmeasuresandhavemade(some)resourcesavail‐ableforadditionalrewardsfortheteachersofpupilsat(high)risk:Hungary,The

Netherlands,Slovenia,Spain(withquestionmark),UK.Wouldtheissuearisein

othercountriestoo,theauthormayrecommendthesetosetoutcomparablemeas ures and tomake(some) resources available for the teachers ofpupils at(high)

risk.

3.3.3 Outplacement

The option of outplacement is a possible obstacle for inclusive practices and

measuresinschoolsandbyteachers.Itisanobstacleofadifferentorderthan

25Asimilarinteractiveprocessmayfollow,whereviewsandargumentsweretobesharedwith

e.g.parents,neighbourhoodcommittees,minorityorganisations, pupilorganisations,etc.These

groups are relyingon their experiencewith the ‘real’ educational needs of their children andyoung people and their feed‐in regards relevant everyday knowledge, with a good chance ofmissedpoints,alternativeviews,etc.



24

that of inappropriate force, top‐down communication or the overload upon

teachersthatmightfollowfrominclusivepracticesandmeasures.Outplacementcan be seen as the functional alternative for inclusive practices and measures.

Whenout‐placed,pupilsat(high)riskareseparatedfrompupilswithnormalorgoodachievementsandperspectives.Teachersmayoutplacethembydismissing

themfromclassfordisciplinaryreasons.Theymaybedismissedfromschool,foracertainperiodorforever,incaseofmajordisturbanceand(petty)crime.Theymaybeplacedinspecial‘out‐door’classesfor‘slow’pupils,pupilswithlearning

difficulties,languagedeficiencies,etc. They maybe out‐placedintemporaryre‐

boundarrangements.They may beplaced inspecial schools inrelationwithahandicap,disability,specialneed,learningdifficulty,etc.Theymaybeout‐placed

inschoolsrelatedtodetentioncentresincaseofcrime.

In mainstream education, pupils at (high) risk may be ‘down‐placed’ in the

streams and tracks of secondary education with the lowest image, or ‘back‐placed’onthelastbenchaswasthepracticewithRomapupilsinthepast.Itis

againsttheinterestsofthepupilsanddysfunctional,ifthestreamsandtracksareundertheirpotentials,capacitiesandambition.Itiscertainlywrongiftheout‐placement would be implicitlydiscriminatory, representing thetrashingofpu‐

pilsat(high)risk,aswasarguedinthefinalreportonthecomparativeconclu‐sions.

TheexamplesofItaly,SpainandScotlandhaveshownthatoutplacementisnotreallyneededoronlyneededinveryexceptionalcasesasafunctionalalterna‐

tive.Itmeantthattheauthoritiestookadditionalinclusivemeasuresandgave

extrafacilities,suchaspersonalcoachesforpupilswithspecialneedsordisabili‐tiesintheclassroom.There,schoolsforspecialeducationbecameabsentorvery

rare,withapercentageofpupilsinspecialeducationunder1or2%.Theiredu‐cational system is not clearly different from the other countries on the usual

educationalindicators,andnodisproportionaldisturbedclassroomclimatewas

reported. It brought us to the general conclusion that ‘inclusive education’ isfeasible.

Here,thequestionisraisedwhatitmeansthatoutplacementisanoptioninmostothercountries.Fromtheperspectiveofschoolandclassroommanagementand

fromtheperspectiveoftheteacher,whoisinterestedinbestresultsforhisorherpupils,itmaybeeasierandmoresatisfyingtooutplacepupilsat(high)risk.

So,themoredifficultpupilswouldnotneedextraattentionanddisturbanceofclassesandotherpupilscanbestopped.Teachersmaydoubt,whethertheydis‐poseofthecapacitiestobegoodteachersforpupilswithspecialneeds,learning

difficulties, high talents,differentcultures,etc.Schools andteacher maydoubtthepotentials, capacitiesandambitionsofthepupilsconcerned, forreasonable

reasons:lowormoderateperformance,lowormoderateprogress,lowor mod‐

erateculturalcapital,downwardstreamingandtracking‘asusual’,etc.Schoolsandteachersmayfeelforcedtodismisspupilsandtooutplacetheminarebound

arrangement.These may pretendto be temporary, butthefollow‐up mayalso

be:anotherschools,e.g.inspecialeducationforveryhardpupils,indetention,onthestreet,inthelowerstrataofthelabourmarket,etc.Schoolsandteachers

maybeforcedtoleavepupilstojudiciaryoutplacement.



25

The existence of the outplacement optionswill continueand perhaps even re‐

inforceoutplacementpracticesandmeasuresofschoolsandteachers.Itisapo‐liticalchoiceinhowfarschoolsandteachersareallowedtoapplyoutplacement

practicesandmeasures.Thechoiceisthatofthenationalgovernmentandpar‐liamentaswellasthatofthenational,regional,localandeducationalauthorities.

Thechoicefor‘outplacement’mayfindsupportamongparents(“whatwouldbebest for my children?”), the judiciary and the police in case of judiciary out‐placement,medicalandparamedicalprofessionals(leadingfactorshouldbethe

‘disease’andits treatment),andthespecialschoolsandarrangements(“weare

thereintheinterestofthespecialneedschildren”).

Inlinewiththeargumentsinfavourofinclusionineducationtheauthorrecom mends allrelevant actors toreduce the options for schools and teachersfor out

placementasafunctionalalternative.

3.3.4 Theownresponsibilityofparentsandpupils

Therearedifferentopinionsinhowfarschoolsandteachersareresponsiblefor

theinclusionofthepupilsat(high)risk:arethey‘fully’responsibleorarethey

responsiblefortheirkeytasksandfunctions?Thereisapparentandpermanentdebateonitsboundaries,amongallrelevantactors:therepresentativesofthe

schools,theteachers,thepolicymakers,theparents,thepupilsthemselves.Insome cases, judges, the policy makers and the authorities have concluded the

conflict,i.e.inItalyandScotlandwithregardto‘inclusiveeducation’forall,and

attheEuropeanlevelwithregardtospecialRomaclasses.Onotherissues,thedebategoesonandwillgoon,forbetterorforworse.

Theauthormayreferparticularly totheboundariesbetweentheresponsibilityof schools and teachers, on the one side, and that of parent and pupils them‐

selves,ontheother.

Generally spoken, most people agree that thesocialisation of childrenandmi‐

nors represents a parental responsibility. Unavoidably however, primary andsecondary education are sharing this responsibility with them, at least during

schooltime,and,morewidely,attheideologicallevel.Implicitlyorexplicitly,the

schoolcoursesandtheteachingaretransferringmanners,normsandvaluestochildren,minorsandyoungpeople.Amongothersforthatreason,mostschools

and teachers are strongly in favour of close co‐operation and communication

withtheparentsoftheir(future)pupils.Theolderthepupilsare,themoreitre‐gardstheirownresponsibility,uptoyoungadulthoodofmanypupilsinupper

vocationaleducationandtraining,intertiaryeducationandinadulteducation.Incase, the pupils are to be kept self‐responsible for their lack of interest and

achievement, their leaving school too early, their involvement in bullying, ha‐

rassmentandpettycrime,etc.,i.e.fortheirexclusionandexclusionprocesses.

Conflictsmayarisewhatincasetheresponsibilityisofeach‘party’–itmayevenevolveuptojudicialconflict.Schoolsandteachersmayrepresentarestrictedpo‐

sitionthattheyareonlyresponsibleforthequalityofthelearningprocesswith

regardtothescheduleddisciplinesandcoursesduringschooltime.Wouldpar‐

entsorpupilsbeinsufficientlyresponsivetotheschoolandtheteachers,schoolsandteacherswouldbeunabletoservethem.Asfarasneededtheyremainopen



26

to co‐operation and good communication with the parents and the pupils. To

their regret, good communication with quite many parents of pupils at (high)risk is assumed difficult because of e.g. parental language deficiencies or the

strange‘urban’languageofmanyyoungstersortheirappallinglackofinterestandmotivation.Andfurther,someparentsandpupilsmaynotbereasonableat

all.Inthisframe,schoolsandteachersmaynotbeabletoaccepttheirresponsi‐bility for keeping the pupils at (high) risk aboard or for their more generalsocialisation.

One may assume that the debate and related conflicts on‘shared responsibili‐ties’,‘yourresponsibility’and‘menotbeingresponsible’isimmanentandper‐

manent.

Incaseofconflict,theschoolsandtheteachersdeservesupportforafairviewon

theirresponsibilitywithregardtotheinclusionofpupilsat(high)risk,onbehalfoftheauthorities,policymakers,experts,opinionleaders,etc.,aslongastheydonot

violateclearrulesandarrangementsandaslongastheyshowcontinuedcommit mentandeffortswithregardtotheinclusionofpupilsat(high)risk.

Asfarasdebateandconflictarerelatedtoimmigrantorminorityorother‘dif‐

ferent’groupsinandaroundtheschools,itmayneedcontinuedandreinforced‘diversity management’ for schools and ‘diversity training’ for teachers in the

frameoftheschool’s‘diversityplan’.Theseshouldextendtheapplicabletoolsforco‐operationandgoodcommunicationwithimmigrantorminorityor‘different’

parentsandpupils,asfaraspossible.

TheauthormayrecommendtheCommission,theauthorities,theschoolsandthe

teacherstodeveloptheir‘diversityplans’,incaseinconsultationwithlocalculturalorganisations,other‘bridgebuilders’andspecialisedagencies.

Examplesandcaseshavebeendiscussedinchapter4and7ofthefinalreport.

Inadditiontoafairandevenrestrictedpositionofschoolsandteachers,mediation

is recommended with regard to general responsibilityconflicts. It may also havelearningeffectsonhowtoimproveparentalparticipationorpupils’involvement.

3.3.5 Changingtheteachers

Inallcountries,measureswithregardtoteachertrainingandre‐trainingwere

applied,withtheaimtosupportteachersandschoolsonhowtoimprovethein‐clusionofpupilsat(high)risk.Thesemeasuresareself‐evidentandnecessary,askeepingpupilsaboardistobeseenasabasiccapacityrequirementofaprofes‐

sionthatneedsacademicofpara‐academicqualification,andthatneedsa more

orlesspermanentupgradingoftheprofessionalqualifications.

Yet,debateinsomecountrieslearnedthatthenecessarytrainingandre‐training

for keeping pupils aboard is representing ‘an issue’. It may reflect the above‐mentionedtop‐downcommunicationsandchangesthatmayprovokestrongre‐

sistancetochangeamong(some)concernedteachersandteachers’associations.Considerabledoubtmayariseorarosewithregardtotheneedsandaimsofthe

trainingandre‐trainingasrequired.



27

Incase,the concernedteachers andteacherassociationsdeserverespectfortheir

objections. Theauthor recommends the experts aswell aspolicymakers, who in sistedorareinsistingontargetedtrainingandre trainingforinclusionpurposesto

taketheobjectionsseriously,tocommunicatewiththeteachersinaninteractiveandresponsiveway,andtotrytofindwideacceptanceofproposedchangesamong

schoolsandteachers.

Theauthorrecommendstheschoolandtheteacherstotakecareofthenecessary

qualificationswithregardtotheirpupilsat(high)risk,andtoclarifytheirneeds,

e.g.intheframeoftheireducationalplanningandattheoccasionofindividualre viewsorteamreviews.

3.3.6 Non‐educationaldisciplines,prioritiesandpreferences

Atthepointsaboveitwasreferredtonon‐educationalauthorities,organisationsand professionals, being responsible for youth at (high) risk too, apart from

schools andteachersor parents.Measures forhelping andcorrecting youth at(high)riskisalsoaresponsibilityofe.g.:

Thepoliceandthejudiciary,

Youthworkinallitsvariantsfromstreet‐cornerworkviascoutingtosportsand

arts,

Youthcare,

Physiciansandothermedicalorparamedicalprofessionals,

Jobcentres,

Etc.

Theauthoritiesinthesefieldsthataresettingoutthepriorities,targets,rules,

proceduresandarrangementsforalltheserelevantdisciplines.Theircaseman‐agersaretakingcareofindividual‘clients’.Oneormorecasemanagerswillbearthe burden of the co‐ordination of all relevant disciplines, organisations and

professionals.Thelatterco‐ordinationcanbemosturgenttakingintoconsider‐

ation the occurring low level of cooperation between the different disciplines,theincapacitytounderstandeachother’sprofessionallanguageandcompetence,

and the reluctance of sharing the burden of cooperation and co‐ordination intermsofoverhead,timeandcosts.

Schoolsandteachersareoftenthefirsttoreceivethesignalsofemerging(high)risksamong youngpeopleintheir school age. When facedwith it, schoolsand

teachershavethreeoptions.

Thefirstandmostidealoneisthatthepupilwillreceivethefullattentionand

helpasneededfromallrelevantdisciplines,whiletheschoolandtheteachersare fully involved in the cooperation and co‐ordination as needed. Because of

theirpermanentandintensecontactwithmostyoungpeopleconcerned,schools

andteachersareapttotakethefirstleadinstartingupthecooperationandco‐ordination,e.g.viaaschoolcareteam,remedialteachers,confidantteachers,de‐

signatedteacher,etc.

Thisideal approach isto bereinforced and supported,asit promisesto keepthe

linestopupilsat(emerging)risksopenandshort.Theauthorrecommendsthatthefirstsignallingfunctionandthestart upfunctionofschoolsandteachersforhelp



28

ing the pupils at(high) risk isrecognised. Therefore,schooland teachersshould

keeporgetaleadingpositionintheearlywarningnetworksastheseexistatthelocallevelandtheymaytakeandgettheleadingcasemanagementpositionincase

ofindividualtrajectories,includingthetrajectorythatshouldkeepthemaboardinschool.Forthelatterrecommendationtheclearexceptionsregardjudicialinter

ferenceandinstitutionalmedicaltreatment.

The othermodelsareless ideal. Schools and teachersmaytry toavoid the co‐

operationandco‐ordinationasneeded,eitherbytakingallburdenuponthem‐

selves,orbyout‐placingtheburdenandthepupilsat(high)risktootherorgani‐sations and professionals. However understandable these mechanisms might

seemtobe,e.g.fromtheperspectiveofavoidingteacheroverload,theyareusu‐allythewrongmodelsandchoices.Formorecomplicatedrisksandtroublesof

theyoungpeopleconcerned,schoolsandteachersdonotdisposeofthecapaci‐

tiesandcompetencesasneeded.So,theycannothelpthemoutappropriately.Byout‐placingtheburdenandpupilsconcerned,schoolsandteacherswilllosecon‐

trol of the further educational career and perspectives of these young people,whowereandshouldremaintheir‘clients’.

Theauthorassumesthattherecommendationontherecognisedleadingpositionof the schools and the teachers in the ideal model may avoid the choice for the

wrongmodels, toa certain extent. The leading positionwould underline and re

inforcetheresponsibilityoftheschoolsandtheteachers.

Otherappropriatemeasuresthattheauhtormayrecommendmightbe:

Clearlocalrulesandarrangementsonburdensharing,

Well placed school care teams, remedial teachers, confidant teachers, designatedteachersandfurtherspecialisedteachingstaff,

Relianceon(voluntary)tutorsandmentorsforpupils,whomaybeatrisk,

Regularconsultationbytheco ordinatingauthority,

Jointtrainingsessionwithotherprofessionalsanddisciplines,

Etc.

3.4 Finalremark

Inrelation toschools, teachers and their responsibility to keep their pupils at

(high)riskaboard,anumberofexpertsareassumingthat‘newlearning’wouldandshouldhavetheinclusiveeffectsasneeded.Therefore,theystronglyinsist

ontheintroductionof‘newlearning’inallstreams,tracksandlevelsofprimaryandsecondaryeducation.TheCommission’sstaffobservedintheresponsetoitsconsultationonimprovingthecompetencesforthe21st Centurythatpedagogic

approachesasproposed“includednewpedagogies,cross‐curricularapproaches

to supplement single‐subject teaching, and greater involvement of students inthedesignoftheirownlearning.(…)Curricularreformtoimprovecompetences

needsa holisticapproach…”(CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,2008,p.5).

ThereisnodisagreementinEuropeontheneedtofocuseducationonthecom‐petencesthat (young) people need and will need in the 21st Century. Thereis

alsonodisagreementthatallyoungpeopleneeditandwillneedit,asexpressedandunderlinedintheintroductiontotheCommission’sCommunicationonim‐



29

proving competences for the 21st Century (Commission of the European

Communities,2008,pp.3‐4).Therefore,schoolsandteachersshouldfosterthesocialinclusionoftheirpupilsat(high)risk,keepingthemaboardineducation

andpreparingthemforsocietyappropriatelyandtotheirfullpotentials.

Theauthoris,however,reluctantwithregardtoanypedagogicrecommendation,suchasthoseregarding‘newlearning’,forthreereasons.Thesereasonsare:

Theconceptisrathervagueandwide,includingagreatvarietyofteachingmaterials

and styles, ordering of subjects and disciplines, foci on knowledge, co‐operation,

presentationandfurthercompetencesasrelevantforthe21st Century,etc.There‐

fore, theauthor is unsure about whatthe concept is actuallyrepresenting. There‐

fore,clearconclusionsandrecommendationareratherdifficult.

The evidence withregard to the educational and/or inclusion effects of measures

that may refer to ‘newlearning’ is insufficient for the recommendation that these

measuresweretobeappliedinotherschoolsthanthosewherethemeasureswere

appliedandtested.

Theexperts’rhetoricwithregardto‘newlearning’istunedrather‘excathedra’.Theauthor have argued above that ‘ex cathedra’ communications with schools and

teachersisusuallyinappropriate.

Moreappropriatearethelessambitiousaimsofreinforcingthecommitment,ef fortsandfocusofschoolsandteacherstokeeptheirpupilsat(high)riskaboard,as

theauthorrecommendedintheopeningsectionabove.



30

4 Reductionofearlyschoolleaving:discussionand

recommendations

Furthertothereductionofearlyschoolleavingthefollowingpointswillbedis‐

cussed:

Whatdataweretobeused?

Furtherresearch,improvedknowledgebase,

Thereisnorationalearlyschoolleaving,

Whatmeasuresforthepupilsandgroupsat(high)risk?

Focusonacceptableschools,pedagogyandconditions,

Involvementofsocio‐economicsectorinrelationtothelabourmarket.

4.1 Whatdataweretobeused?

Astheindicatorofearlyschoolleaving,theEUandEUROSTATarereferringto

thenumbersofyoungpeople,aged20‐24,whoenteredthelabourmarketwith‐outsufficientqualification.Severalnationaldatabasesandstatisticsreferredto

the registration of broken school careers, referring to all pupils, who disap‐peared from their schools or from their school registration during thecurrent

schoolyear.However,suchafullandreliablenationalregistrationsystemisa

difficulttask,bothattheregionalandthenationallevel.Itwouldbeafullmis‐sionimpossibleattheEuropeanorthewiderinternationallevelofe.g.theOECD

andUNESCO.

AlabourmarketsurveysuchasthatofEUROSTATismakingreliablemeasure‐

ments of the appropriate or inappropriatequalificationamong young working

people,takingUNESCO’sISCEDlevel3Casitscriterion.Forreasonsofcompara‐tiveresearchandreliablemeasurementthesesurveysweretobefollowedupat

thenationalandtheregionallevel.Nationalorregionaleducationalregistrationsystemsaretobeusedasanadditionalsupportinstrumentforpolicymakersand

educational authorities. These registrations may reveal both quantitative andqualitativecriticalpointsine.g.secondaryeducation,invocationalschools,their

streamsandtracks,andattheend‐ageofcompulsoryeducation,in thenational

orregionalcontext.

ThisleadstotherecommendationthattheEUandtheMemberStatesshouldrely

primarilyon(comparative)labourmarketsurveysforthecomparativeassessment

of regional, national and international (or European) early school leaving. ThisrecommendationisinlinewiththenationalandEuropeanpolicycontextformeas ures toreduce early schoolleaving,beingthe attainment of the required labour

marketqualificationlevelforallormostyoungpeople.

4.2 Furtherresearch:types,numbers,appropriatemeasures,weak

countries

Further (comparative) research on early school leaving is needed and recom mended, as the issue is most urgent as a European policy objective and as the

knowledgebaseonitisinsufficientlydeveloped.



31

In the course of our study the following issues that need targeted European

and/ornationalresearchattention,wereindentified:

Theskeweddistributionofearlyschoolleavingbetweencountriesandregions.Special

Europeanpolicyresearchattentionisurgentlyneededtounderstandwhythedis‐

tributionofunder‐qualifiedyoungpeopleisasskewedasitis.Whatdifferencesand

mechanismswithregardtoyoungpeople,theeducationalsystemand/orthelabour

markets have lead to percentages above 20% in Portugal, Spain, Malta and Italy

amongyoungworkers,topercentagesunder7% inSlovenia,Poland,theCzechRe‐

public and Slovakia, and to percentages in between 10% and 20% in most other

MemberStates?Understandingthedifferencesandmechanismswillenablepolicy‐

makers to take appropriate action in the countries and regions with the highest

scores,ifneededwiththesupportof theEuropeanCommission.Theauthorrecom

mendstheCommissiontocalluponacomparativeresearchprojectthatshouldexplain

thetrends,differencesandmechanisms.

Breakpointsinvocationaleducationandtraining.Thenexturgentresearchissuere‐

gardstheanalysisofbreakpointsinvocationalschools,streamsandtracks.These

aretobedetermined,quantifiedandassessed,e.g.inrelationtowhatschoolsdoandcando,inrelationtotypesoftheyoungpeople,whodroppedout,andinrelationto

thepost‐schoolcareersofthedropouts.Themajorityofthemmightbeso‐called‘ra‐

tionalearlyschoolleavers’intheirown eyes(tobediscussedbelow).Whydo they

leaveandwhatcanbedoneagainstit?

Those,whowillneverattain“ISCED3C” .Thistypeofearlyschoolleaversmightbe5‐

10%ofeachagecohort.Eachcountryischallengedtoclarifywhattodoforandwith

thesegroups,ineducation,onthelabourmarketandinfurtheradultlife.

So calledrationalearlyschoolleavers .Presumably,thelargestgroupsofearlyschool

leaversaretobeidentifiedas‘so‐calledrationalearlyleavers’,maybeupto70%of

allearlyschoolleavers.Theseareyoungpeople,whoarenot‘atrisk’,butleavetheir

schoolatatoolowlevel,althoughtheywouldbeabletoattaintherequiredqualifi‐

cationlevel.Theymayhavelosttheirmotivationintheir‘boringschool’,asitwas

referredtoointheFrenchnationalreport.Ortheymayhavefoundafinejob,e.g.at

their apprentice place, with good perspectives for their future. In that sense they

mayappeartobe‘rationalschoolleavers’.Theymayhavebeenillortheymayhave

madeawrongchoiceforastreamortrackandhavetowaituntilthenewschool

yearbeforethey canmake a restart. Research into ‘so‐called rationalearly school

leavers’shouldrevealthesepoints.Careerresearchshouldclarifyboththeemerging

risksofunemploymentaswellasthequalificationeffectsoflaterandadulteduca‐

tion.Exitinterviewsandpersonalinterviewsatjobcentresorothercentresforindi‐

vidualcaseworkmaybeusedtofindlatentrisksandproblems,aswellasanchor

points for renewed learning motivation and return to school, or for public cam‐

paignsagainstearlyschoolleaving.

4.3 Norationalearlyschoolleaving

Apartfromtheresearchthatis recommendedonso‐calledrationalearlyschoolleavers,theauhtorwouldliketo discussthefollowingpointanditssubsequent

recommendations.

Howeverrationalearlyschoolleavingmightappeartobeintheeyesofyoung

people, from the perspective of ‘society’ there is no rational reason for earlyschoolleaving.‘Society’shouldthereforedemandfromallwhocan,topassedu‐

cationatleastattheISCED3C‐level.



32

Suchdemandmightbeinstitutionalisedinalightorinthemostsevereway.The

lightwaywouldbethatrepresentativesofsociety,suchasnationalauthorities,socialpartners,educationalauthoritiesandschools,etc.,supportamoreorless

permanentawarenesscampaignconcerningthenecessityofbeingeducatedatISCED3C‐level orhigher.The most severe demand wouldbe that the national

andEuropeanauthoritieswouldenforceandsanctioncompulsoryeducationuptotheISCED3C‐level,forallyoungpeopleorfortheunemployedamongthem.Itwouldmeanthatcompulsoryeducationwouldbelinkedtothelevelofeducation

asreachedandnot,asnowisthecaseinmostEuropeancountries,toage.The

newpoliciesandlegislationasappliedinTheNetherlands,representsthesevereway,toacertainextent.Compulsoryeducationisprolongeduntiltheageof 18,

whileunder‐qualifiedyoungpeoplebetween18and27areobligedto returntoeducationortolearningonthejobincasetheyarejobless.

Theauthorrecommends theCommission,thenational,regional,localandeduca tionalauthoritiestoconsidertheadvantagesofthemostsevereway,i.e.toenforce

compulsoryeducationuptothelevelofISCED3Cforallyoungpeople,whocan,atleast for unemployed young people. Prolonged compulsory education is recom mendedasafurtherstepinthatdirection.

Invocationaleducationandtraininganapparentcauseofearlyschoolleavingis

regardingthewrongchoicesofpupils.Intherichmarketsofschools,streams,

tracksandsectors,manyofthemhavetofindoutthattheirfirstorsecondchoicewasnotsatisfactory,thattheyhadnotthecapacitiesandinterestsasrequired,

that the pedagogic climate was not in line with their expectation, etc. So, they

mayquit.Reductionofearlyschoolleaving,temporaryordefinitively,mayfol‐low from improved information and counselling on vocational schools, their

streams, tracks, and sectors, and the requirements to the pupils. Further im‐provement may follow from well‐integrated tracks up to the ISCED 3C‐level,

without unneeded choice and change moments, e.g. between lower vocational

educationandone,twoormoreadditionalyearsinuppervocationaleducation.

Atemporaryschoolbreakaftera wrongchoiceis oftenunavoidable,inrelation

tothenewschool, stream ortrack –manystarts and restartsarerestrictedtooneortwooccasionsperyear.Mostimportantistokeeptemporaryschoolleav‐

ers‘ontrack’,astoensuretheirrestartatthefirstoccasionpossible.Itmayin‐volvetheactiveinterventiononbehalfofschoolcounsellors,schools,educational

authorities,parents,andothersasrelevanttoensuretherestartatthefirstocca‐sionpossible.Incase,regionalandnationalauthoritiesweretoco‐ordinatesuchactiveintervention.

Inthisrespect,theauthorrecommends theauthorities,theschoolsandotherac tors as relevant, to make temporary school leavers restart their new schools,

streamsortracksatthefirstoccasionpossible,andtokeepunavoidablebreaksasshortaspossible.

Pupils have also left their schools because they had lost their motivation forlearningandgotdisappointedwiththeir‘boring’school.Theauthorthinksthat

thecombinationofcompulsoryeducation,appropriateinformationandcounsel‐

ling, andan acceptable pedagogicclimate should be sufficient to manage mostmotivationproblemsofpupilsinsecondaryeducation.



33

Themajorchallengehereisthefosteringofanacceptablepedagogicclimate.

4.4 Whatmeasuresforpupilsandgroupsat(high)risk

Itisobviousthatdisadvantagedpupils,pupilswithspecialneedsandpupilsin‐

volved in bullying and harassment (as victims or as perpetrators) run a com‐

paratively high risk of leaving their schools too early. Comparatively manyamongthem leavetheirschools before they havereached ISCEDlevel3C, and

further,comparativelymanyamongthemareleavingtheirschoolsundertheirfullpotentialsandcapacities.Inabsolutenumbers,theauthorassumes,however,

thatitregardsaminority,i.e.aquartertoathird,ofallearlyschoolleavers.

Asfarastheyarepartofthetargetgroupsofpriorityeducation,inclusiveeduca‐

tionand/orsafeeducation,themeasuresundertakeninthesedomainsshould

ensuretheirstaying‘aboard’ineducation,certainlyuntiltheyhavereachedtheISCED3Clevel.Schoolsandauthoritiesshouldensurethistargetoftheirmeas‐

uresandtheyshouldcontroltheireffectsatthispoint–is(atleast)theISCED3Clevelattained,i.e.willthepupilsat(high)risknotbecomeearlyschoolleavers?

The author recommends the schools and the authorities to ensure this target oftheirmeasuresandtheyshouldcontroltheireffectsatthispoint,i.e.that(atleast)

theISCED3Clevelisattainedbypupilsbelongingto(high)risktargetgroups.

ItishoweverclearthatnotallpupilscanreachISCEDlevel3C,duetotheirper‐

sonality and capacities. It may regard pupils with mental orotherrestrictions

andneeds.Manyofthemwillreceivesupportonbehalfofinclusiveeducationmeasuresorwillfindaplaceinspecialeducation,whiletheymayrelyuponfur‐

thersupportandarrangementsinsocietyduringtheiryouthandlife.Forothers,mainstreamschoolsandfurthermainstreaminstitutionsinsocietymustrespond

totheirlowlevelortoolowlevelofeducation.Theschools,theinstitutionsand

the young people concerned will have to rely on mainstream resources, ar‐rangementsand/oradditionalmeasuresas setoutbynational,regionalorlocal

actors,e.g.intheframeoflifelonglearning.ThelatterisobviouslyintendedbytheSwedishSFI‐project.

Fortheyoungpeopleconcerned,jobswithlowormoderateeducationalrequire ments are representing their best perspective. The author may recommend the

authoritiestomonitortheavailabilityandaccesstoloweducationjobontheirla

bourmarkets,intheinterestofyoungpeople,whocannotreachISCEDlevel3C.

4.5 Focusonacceptableschools,pedagogyandconditions

Mostpartnersandfurtherconsultedexpertshavereferredtothenecessityofa

goodschool,achallengingpedagogicclimateandbestteacherstokeepthepupilsof (lower) secondary education and vocational schools on track. Teachers,

teachingteamsandschoolleadersshouldenhanceandfosterthegoodschool,create the challenging climate and be the best teachers, in good co‐operation

withtheparents,inpermanentdialoguewiththepupils,andwithothersasap‐

propriate.Teachersaretobesupportedbyappropriateinitialteachertraining,in‐servicetrainingasanewteacher,andtargetedteacherre‐training.Incritical

circumstancestheyweretobesupportedbyappropriateworkingconditionsandsalaries–someevenpleadedforthebestconditionsandthehighestsalariesin



34

criticalcircumstances.Incase,schools,schoolleaders,schoolteamsandteachers

arerelyinguponexpertadvisers,whomaysharewiththeme.g.thepositiveex‐periencesofotherschools.

Theevidencebaseforthemostappropriatemeasuresis,however,ratherweak.

Mostascertainedpointsarethenegativeones:overburdenedteachers,whohavelosttheirmotivation,andschoolsthatareweaklyorganisedarehardcontra‐in‐dicatorsforaclimatewithlownumbersofearlyschoolleavers.Asfarasgood

practicesareconcerned:casestudiesdescribedthegoodresultsthathavebeen

realised by this or that team under these or that circumstances, with as thecommon denominatorthat all ormost active endeavours are more orless ap‐

propriate for being a good school, for creating a challenging climate and forworkingasmotivatedandgoodteachers.Thecommonfactorofmostevaluations

regardedthegeneralcommitment,effortsandfocusofschoolsandstafftokeep

theirpotentialearlyschoolleaversaboard.

TheauthormayrecommendtheCommissionandrelevantactorsatthenational,regional,andlocalandleveltosupporttheschoolsinthisrespect,amongothersbythe recommended European, national and regional knowledge centres that will

disseminatematerialsongoodschools,challengingclimateandbestteachers,andbyincentivesforthoseworkingunderthemostcriticalcircumstances,andbyfacili

tiesforteachertrainingandre training .

4.6 Involvementofthesocio‐economicsector

Theauthorhasunderlinedabovethatthereisnorationalearlyschoolleavingfor

‘society’.FortheEuropeanUnionandtheMemberStatesearlyschoolleavingisa

highlydysfunctionalphenomenonandtrendinrelationtotherequirementsofthemodern,competitive labour markets,in Europeandworldwide. Therefore,

‘society’istoberepresentedbyitsmarketrelationsandsocialpartners,together

withtheeducationalsectorandvocationaleducation,ontheonehand,andre‐gional,nationalandEuropeanauthorities,ontheother.Thesocialpartnersare

tobeinvolvedandaretobeconsultedonlabourmarketrequirementsandtheir‘translation’intovocationalschoolsandtraining,streamsandtracksthatshould

lead toqualification atthe ISCED3C‐level. The social partnersaswell aslocal

andregionalbusinessesandenterprisesshouldbecommitted,amongothersbyoffering apprentice places to all pupils in vocational schools and training, in‐

cludingguaranteesforguidanceandjobs,ifappropriate.Togetherwithregional,

nationalandEuropean authorities, thebusiness sectors should recognisetheirresponsibilityinthisrespect,alsointhepresenthardtimesofeconomiccrisis.

Theschoolsshouldbeasco‐operativeandpro‐activeaspossible,forthesakeoftheirpupilsandtheirfutureonthelabourmarket.

TheauthorrecommendstheCommissionandallrelevantactors,particularlythesocialpartnersandthesectorofvocationaleducation,tore considertheinvolve

ment ofthesocial partnersand the businesssectorsinmeasures toreduce early

schoolleaving,bothintheframeofthere assessmentoftheLisbonStrategyDocu mentin2010,andinjointstrategiesthataretobedevelopedinfaceoftheongoing

economiccrisis.



35

5 Pupilsbelongingtotargetgroupsat(high)risk

Invaryingdegrees,thecountrieshavesetoutmeasuresandhaveallocatedre‐

sourcestoschoolsandotheragentstocaterforpupilsbelongingtotargetgroups

at (high) risk. The comparative conclusions with regard to such target groupsweresummarisedintheFinalreport:comparativeconclusions,withfocussedat‐

tentionforthenationaltargetgroupsofdisadvantagespupils,pupilswith(re‐cognised)handicaps,disabilitiesand/orspecialneeds,andpupils,whowerein‐

volvedinbullyingandharassment,asvictimsorasperpetrators,asco‐victimsor

assupportivewitnesses.

To a high degree, the schools are expected to cater for these pupils and their

riskswithintheconstraintsoftheirowntime,personnel,tools,accommodationandbudget.Theyarefurtherexpectedtodosoforotherpupilsatrisk,forwhom

nospecificmeasuresandresourcesareavailable.Invaryingdegreestheyfeelormayfeelpressedtotakeresponsibilitiestheycannotorshouldnotaccomplish.

Betweentheextremesoftightgeneralresourcesandabundantspecificmeasures

andresources,schoolsandstaffhavetofindtheirbalancedpracticewithregardtotheirpupilsat(high)risk.Itevokedandwillevokebothinternalcontroversy,

e.g. formthe sideofteachersfeeling atoo highworkoverload, orfrom thatof

parentsfearinginsufficientattentionfortheirchildren.ThecontroversymaybereflecteduptonationalorregionalParliamentoruptointernationalbodiesand

NGOsthathaveproposedandwillcontinuetoproposethebestpracticesandthemeasures that wouldbe needed in that respect. As there is no hard empirical

evidencewithregardtobestpracticesandthereforenecessarymeasuresbeyond

theschoollevel,theexternalproposalsarefirstofalltobeseenasawell‐meant

advicetoschools,staff,parentsandpupilsat(high)risktoimprovetheireduca‐tionalpracticesandachievements.

However,thereisalsologicandcase‐relatedevidenceconcerninggoodpractices

thathaveworkedoutpositivelyattheschoollevel.Therefore,schools,staff,par‐entsandpupilsat(high)riskshouldbeableandwillingtorelyupontheregional,

nationalandinternationalbodyof knowledge representing suchlogic andevi‐

dence.Internalandexternalmediatorsshouldgivethemfullandeasyaccesstothatbodyofknowledge,whileresearchinstitutionsandotherknowledgemakers

suchasspecialisedjournalistsandmediashouldgivecontinuousfreshandre‐freshedfeed‐inasrelevanttothatbodyofknowledgeanditsinterestedusers,i.e.

theschools,teachers,parentsandpupils.

Forthatreason,theauthorwouldliketorepeattheearlierrecommendationfor

linkedEuropean,nationalandregionalknowledgecentreswithregardtoinclusion

andeducationanditvaluablefunctionasanodefortheproductionanddissemina tionofrelevantmaterialsconcerningtheinclusionofpupilsat(high)riskineduca

tion.

Forthecomparativeanalysistheattentionwasfocussedonthreemajorrisksof

exclusionforeducationandthetargetgroupsconcerned.Thesewere:

Social,economic,culturalandotherdisadvantagesandinequities,andrelatedpri‐orityeducationmeasures,

Handicaps,disabilitiesandspecialneeds,andrelatedinclusiveeducationmeasures,



36

Involvementinbullyingandharassment,andrelatedsafeeducationmeasures.

Inclusive education measures will be discussed first, followed by the priority

educationmeasuresandsafeeducationmeasuresthereafter.Theinclusiveedu‐

cationmeasuresarediscussedfirstbecauseourrecommendationsonthisissue

aremorepertinentthanthoseforpriorityeducationmeasuresandsafeeduca‐tionmeasures.

5.1 Inclusiveeducationmeasures

Inclusiveeducationforalloralmostallpupilswithspecialneedsetcisaninter‐

national UNESCO‐aim. The comparative conclusion was drawn that inclusive

educationhasprovedtobefeasibleinatleastcertaincountriesandregions.Be‐sides, international literature appeared to show that the educational achieve‐

mentsofmostpupilsconcernedwereasgoodasthoseoftheirclassmateswith‐out special needs etc. And further, the country reports and the literature re‐

vealedthatthe,sometimes,apparentmechanismsofthestigmatisation,discri‐

minationand‘trashing’ofthepupilsconcernedwasavoided.

Onbehalfofthis‘evidence,’theauthorrecommends that schools andauthorities

‘learn from the lessons’of countries and regions concerned and from that oftheinternationalliterature,reinforcingtheireffortstofosterinclusiveeducationforall

oralmostallpupilswithspecialneeds,etc.

The European, national and regional knowledge centres should disseminate rel

evant inclusive strategies, modes of operation, practices and measures amongauthorities,schools,staff,parentsandpupils,inresponsetolocalneedsandexperi

ence.

5.2 Priorityeducationmeasures

Althoughinquitevaryingdegreesandwithobviouslydifferentnationalandre‐

gionaltargetgroups,thecountriesareendorsingtheEuropeanpolicyobjectives

ofRomaeducation,minority(language)education,priorityeducationandinter‐culturaleducationinrelationtosocial,economic,culturalandotherinequities

anddisadvantages.InmostcountriesonNorth,WestandSouthernEurope,poli‐cies and measures to integrate young immigrant people and young people of

immigrantdescentintheirschoolsandsocietyprevailed,withfurthertargetsfor

e.g. the urban‐county divide and/or non‐immigrant disadvantaged groups, lo‐

catedinpoorneighbourhoods.Genderwasnoapparentissueanymore.

Following the landmark judgement of the European Court (see section 1.1above) the EU may have to set a European guideline against special Roma

schoolsand/orotherspecialschoolthatapparently woulddiscriminatecertaineconomic, social or cultural minorities. In case, countries, regions, schools and

staff may have to adapt their rules, practices and measures with regard to the

placementofRomachildrenand/orchildrenbelongingtootherminoritiesinspe cialschools.

Thenationalreportsandfurtherdocumentationhasdeliveredalargesetofmost

interesting case studies, i.e. local actions, practices and measures that werefeasible,thathadpositiveeffectsandthatwerevaluablecontributionstothere‐



37

gional,nationalandEuropeanbodiesofrelevantknowledgeonpriorityeduca‐

tion measures. The reports also included less positive or even negative cases,referringtoimplementationproblems,problemsemerginginthecourseoftime,

andtolackofintendedeffectorquitediscouragingside‐effects,suchastheso‐called dependence effect of the enduring priority approach on certain target

groups.Forsomethelatterisreasontorejectprioritypoliciesanditsmeasuresinprinciple,forotherstolinkpriorityeducationmeasurestoacleartimeframeandend‐dateatwhichtheprioritymeasuresshouldhaveachievedtheintended

effects.Continuation should depend on theavoidanceof theso‐called depend‐

enceeffectandnecessitytoundertakefurtherpriorityeducationmeasuresforthe pupils concerned. Preferably, the aims of the priority measures should be

realise within the usual constraints of time, staff, tools accommodation andbudget.

Theauthorislayinghighvalueonacleartimeframeforpriorityeducationmeas ures,butheisalsoawarethatmostnationalandregionalpolicymakersaswellas

committedschoolsandteachersarelikelytokeeptomoreorlesscontinuouspri orityeducationmeasures.Thereforeherecommendsthemtokeeptothemoreorlesscontinuouspriorityeducationmeasures,buttobeawareoftheadvantageor

evennecessityofacleartimeframe.

The variety of practices and measures, combined with the diversity of target

groupsdidnotallowforprecisecomparativeconclusions.Neitherdidthe(quali‐tative)casestudydesignofmostcases,as wasexplainedinattachment2tothe

Final report: comparative conclusions. Attempts, however, at national or re‐

gionalassessmentwereavailable. Thecommonfactorinmostcasesregardedthecommitment, effort and focus of the schools and teachers as well as further rel

evantactorsthatwereinvolvedinthepriorityeducationpracticesandmeasures.Thereforeallrecommendationdoneinchapter3shouldtoextendedandappliedto

priorityeducationmeasures.

Itisnotpossibletodrawgeneralandcomparativeconclusionsonspecifictarget

groups or specific priority practices and measures.Therefore, the schools, the

teachers and further relevant actors must settle their own good practices andfind the best measures that apply to them. Important help regards ‘lessons

learned’fromthepracticeandmeasuresofothers. Forthat,theyshouldfindhelpfromthesideofregional,nationalandEuropeanknowledgecentresthatareeasily

accessibleandthatrespondappropriatelytotheirneedsandcircumstances.5.3 Safeeducationmeasures

Thereisanobviousneedforeffectivesafetyprotectionmeasuresinandaround

schools,aswellaspracticesandmeasuresthatshouldreducebullyingandha‐

rassment,inwhichpupilswereinvolvedandwillbeinvolvedinthefuture.Al‐thoughitmayregard‘incidents’atfacevalue,thephenomenaarearatherper‐

manentthreattopupilsandtheschoolcommunity.Itmayneedlong‐termmeas‐

ures and strategies to assure a reasonable level of safety in and around theschoolsandanacceptablelowlevelof‘lightbullying’withoutharassment.

Thereportsshowedthatsomethingcanbedoneandthereforeshouldbeinthatdirection,withoutclearoutcomesonwhatmeasureswouldbemosteffectiveand



38

what would fail. Much appeared to depend on the problem awareness among

schoolleadersandstaffaswellastotheircommitmenttoreducebullyingandtostopharassment,andtheseriousanalysisoflocalincidentsandcircumstances.

Asabove,thecommonfactorinmostcasesregardedthecommitment,effortsandfocusof theschoolsand teachers aswellas furtherrelevant actors thatwere in

volvedinthesafeeducationpracticesandmeasures.Thereforeallrecommendationdoneinchapter3shouldbeextendedandappliedtosafeeducationmeasures.

‘Safe education’ can be realised by preventive and with repressive measures,

withawarenesscampaignsorwithoutthese,withandwithoutthehelpofexter‐nalspecialisedagenciesorinternalsafetymanager(s),etc.Therefore,asmuchas

aboveforthepriorityeducationmeasures,theschools,theteachersandfurtherrelevantactorsmustsettletheirowngoodpracticesandfindthebestmeasures

thatapplytothem.Importanthelpis regarding‘lessonslearned’fromtheprac‐

ticeandmeasuresofothers. Forthat,theyshouldfindhelpfromthesideofre gional, national and European knowledge centres that are easily accessible and

thatrespondappropriatelytotheirneedsandcircumstances.



39

Bibliography

Knowledge System forLifelong Learning. (n.d.).(GHK,Producer)RetrievedMay07, 2009 from

kslll.net

(s.a.). 2009 National priorities for COMENIUS school partnerships in the Lifelong Learning

Programme.s.l.Cluster "Access and Social Inclusion in LifelongLearning". (2007, April 04). (De)segregation in

education.SummaryreportofthePeerLearninginHungary,25‐27April2007 .RetrievedMay

06,2009fromKnowledgeSystemforLifelongLearning:www.kslll.net/PeerLearningActivity

Cluster"Access andSocialinclusionin LifelongLearning". (n.d.).Fightagainstfailureatschool

and inequality in education. Summary report of the peer learning Activity in Paris, 12‐15

November 2007 . Retrieved May 06, 2009 from Knowledge System for Lifelong Learning:

www.kslll.net/PeerLearningActivity

Cluster"AccessandSocialinclusioninLifelongLearning".(n.d.).Positivediscriminationmeasures,

schoolintegrationofimmigrantchildren,supporttoschooldrop‐out.Summaryreportofthe

Peer Learning in Brussels, 9‐11 October 2006. Retrieved May 07, 2009 from Knowledge

SystemforLifelongLearning:kslll.net/PeerlearningActivities

Cluster "Access and Social Inclusion in Lifelong Learning". (2007, January 31). Preventive and

compensatorymeasurestoreduceearlyschoolleaving.SummaryreportofthePeerLearning

inDublin,31January‐2February2007 .RetrievedMay06,2009fromKnowledgeSystemfor

LifelongLearning:www.kslll.net/PeerLearningActivity

Cluster"TeachersandTrainers".(n.d.).Howcanteachereducationandtrainingpoliciesprepare

teachers to teach effectively in culturally diverse settings? Report of the Peer Learning

Activity, Oslo, May 2007 . Retrieved May 06, 2009 from Knowledge System for Lifelong

Learning:www.kslll.net/PeerLearningActivities

Comer,J.P.(2004).Leave nochildbehind.Preparingtoday's youth fortomorrow'sworld.New

HavenandLondon:YaleUniversitypress.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.(2006Octber23). Adultlearning:Itisnevertoolate

tolearn.COM(2006)614. Brussels:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.(2008July3). Greenpaper.Migrationandmobility:

challenges and opportunites forthe EU educationsystem. COM(2008) 423 Final. Brussels:

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.(2008).Improvingcompetencesforthe21stCentury:

an agenda for European cooperation in schools. Brussels: Commission of the European

Communities.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,Directorate‐GeneralforEducationandCulture.(2006

December20).LifelongLearningPorgramme:PartI –prioritiesofthe2007generalcallfor

proposals.Brussels:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.

Commission of the European Communities, Directorate‐General for Research. (2009 July).

European research on education and training. FP6 and FP7 research projects addressing

directly issues of education and training. Brussels: Commission of the European

Communities.

Commisison staff. (2009 August 5). Working document results of the consultation on the

education of children from a migrant background. SEC(2009) 1115 Final. Brussels:

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.

Commissionstaff.(2008July2).Workingdocumentaccompanying'Non‐discriminationandequal

opportunities: a renewed commitment. Community instruments and policies for Roma

inclusion.SEC(2008)2172.Brussels:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.

Commisison staff. (2008 July 3).Working document accompanying the Green Paper migration

andmobility:challengesandopportunitesfortheEUeducationsystem.SEC(2008)2173Final.

Brussels:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.



Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. (2007 November 13).

JUDGMENT in the CASE OF D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no.

57325/00).Strasbourg.

Europa Glossary . (n.d.). From Open method of coordination:

http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/open_method_coordination_en.htm

Heckmann,F.(2008April). Educationandmigration.Strategiesforintegratingmigrantchildrenin

European schools and socities. A synthesis of research findings for policy‐makers. NESSE

NetworkofExperts.Bamberg:UniversityofBamberg.

Lemoine, M., Guigue, M., & Tillard, B. (2009 August). "Démission imposisble" (impossible

resignation): a scheme dsigned for pupils indifficulty to support the work conducted by

porfessionals. In D. Zay, Inclusion and education. Final report: France (pp. 146‐163).

Lepelstraat:DOCABureaus.

(2009 August). Best achievements atMozaiek School, Arnhem. In G. Muskens, & D. Peters,

Inclusion and education. Final report: The Netherlands (pp. 76‐80). Lepelstraat: DOCA

Bureaus.

NationalResearchCouncil,InstituteofMedicine.(2004).Engagingschools.Fosteringhighschool

students'motivationtolearn.WashingtonD.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.

Penn,H.(2009June).Earlychildhoodeducationandcare.Keylessonsfromresearchforpolicymakers.AnindependentreportsubmittedtotheEuropeanCommissionbytheNESSEnetwork

ofexperts.Brussels:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.

Presidency of the European Council. (2000 March). Presidency conclusions Lisbon European

Council,23and24March2000.Brussels:PresidencyoftheEuropeanCouncil.

Reuter,Y.(2009).ThefightagianstschoolfailureinEducationActionnetworks(REP).InD.Zay,

Inclusionandeducation.Finalreport:France(pp.163‐184).Lepeltraat:DOCABureaus.

Inclusion and Education in European Countries - Recommendations

Documents

Transcript of Inclusion and Education in European Countries - Recommendations