Addressing Early School Leaving and Underachievement in 10 European Countries – a Policy Analysis

• In Event: Equitable Education? Policies and Strategies to Prevent Dropout, Accommodate Needs, and Retain Students in Secondary Education

Abstract

Objectives
This paper reports on a comparative analysis of Europe wide policy provision designed to meet the EU's Early School Leaving (ESL) reduction target drawing on the 10 country SCIREARLY research project supported by the EU Horizon Europe programme.

Theoretical Perspectives
The importance of a 'whole school approach' is highlighted, emphasising multi-site stakeholder collaboration. This acknowledges the role played by various services, including social, youth, and outreach services.
In 2011 the European Commission (EC) made recommendations to guide EU policy discourse countries to tackle ESL which serves as the theoretical framework as well as criteria for this policy analysis. It emphasises the need for comprehensive approaches, focusing on the root causes of ESL and sustaining efforts to reduce it.
The framework outlines three categories of measures:
a) Prevention -targeting the root problems leading to ESL including quality early childhood education, relevant curricula, flexible educational pathways, and strong guidance systems.
b) Intervention -combatting emerging difficulties and supporting at-risk students through personalised guidance, extra-curricular activities, and improved learning environments.
c) Compensation- offering second chance schemes and alternative pathways.

Methods
Utilising the Eurostat ESL data from 2012 - 2021, countries were categorised into three groups:
1. High Performers - countries with consistent ESL rates below 6% throughout the entire time period. (Poland, Switzerland, Croatia, and Slovenia)
2. High Improvement - countries that have achieved a reduction of ESL rates by more than 6 % over the same period. (Spain, Portugal, Malta, Greece, and Ireland)
3. Low Performers - countries with ESL rates exceeding and remaining at 10% (Italy, United Kingdom, Norway, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, and Germany).
Policies from these countries were examined using the framework outlined and a comparative report examining differential outcomes was developed.

Data sources
The policy analysis relied on key data sources including the OECD Library, EC reports, government websites, national and regional research agencies, and agencies involved in providing compensation programmes. Furthermore, evaluation reports of ESL initiatives played a crucial role in assessing the effectiveness of existing policies. By drawing on these diverse data sources, evidence-driven recommendations to enhance ESL prevention and support strategies were produced.

Results
The key findings of the policy analysis indicate that countries under examination possess explicit policies or legislation aimed at addressing ESL, encompassing preventive, interventive, and compensatory measures.
Preventive and compensatory measures demonstrate stronger policy measures than interventions. The main challenge lies not in the lack of policy or legislation but rather in their implementation. Inadequate interagency collaboration and relatively unsophisticated evaluation of ESL measures were areas of weakness. Specific policies such as :
· quality ECEC,
· supports for low SES students, and
· initiatives to enhance access pathways into education and VET were found to be important.

Scholarly/scientific significance
Results have helped identify strengths and gaps in ESL policy which should allow policymakers to make informed decisions in developing and implementing effective strategies. By comparing policies and practices, the analysis offers insights into successful approaches facilitating international benchmarking.

Authors

• Joe O'Hara, Dublin City University

• Martin Brown, Dublin City University

• Andrea Larrañaga, Universidad de Deusto

• Rocio Garcia-Carrion, University of Deusto

• Auli Toom, University of Helsinki

• Sarah Gardezi, Dublin City University

• Aideen Cassidy, Dublin City University

• Gerard P. McNamara, Dublin City University