Page 127 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 127
esl in the eu: learning from differences and common trends
With what effect do they learn?
Certain authors (e.g. Stone, 1999; Radaelli, 2008; Hartlapp, 2009; Gilardi,
2012) believe it is extremely difficult to explain the reasons for policy learn-
ing, mainly due to the difficulties in causality and the fact that several fac-
tors may trigger policy learning. These connections become all the more
complicated when seeking to explain policy changes as the key conse-
quences of policy learning. In relation to this, a big divide is seen in the lit-
erature in answers to the question of whether a policy change is a prerequi-
site for policy learning. While some authors (Sabatier, 1993; Grin & Van de
Graaf, 1996; Pemberton, 2003) argue it is only possible to talk about policy
learning when it results in a policy change, others (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996;
Hemerijck & Visser, 2001; 2003; Lange & Alexiadou, 2010) believe a policy
change is not a prerequisite for the policy learning process. Hartlapp (2009)
adds that policy learning, per se, is not a goal, but is aimed at the implemen-
tation of political programmes and achieving of policy goals. When poli-
cy learning is regarded as learning that brings about policy changes, this
encompasses a change in ideas, values, interests, instruments, goals, pro-
grammes and the institutional structure of (some of) the actors involved
(Rose, 2005; Dolowitz & Marsh 2000). It can also provide the precondi-
tions for ideational convergence, that is, the convergence of policymakers
around a set of criteria that define good policy.
At least the following intended changes should be brought about by
the TITA project: a) ideas and values concerning how ESL is understood
and should be resolved; b) instruments for solving the problem (from sec-
toral to cross-sectoral collaboration); c) an institutional structure in terms
of establishing local multi-professional teams for addressing ESL across the
EU. The precondition that policy learning within the TITA project in the
form of policy experimentation will actually bring any substantial chang-
es in educational policies and practices at the EU level and across the EU is
that internal and external actors show interest and engagement. Follow-up
activities for monitoring and evaluating its long-term impact are also nec-
essary. According to Vilpišauskas (2011), a decade would be an appropriate
time frame for such a review.
Conclusion
This article shows that the EU’s policy framework on ESL establishes a
unique architecture for policy learning that is not simply limited to top-
down learning (»listening recommendations« from EU institutions), but
127
With what effect do they learn?
Certain authors (e.g. Stone, 1999; Radaelli, 2008; Hartlapp, 2009; Gilardi,
2012) believe it is extremely difficult to explain the reasons for policy learn-
ing, mainly due to the difficulties in causality and the fact that several fac-
tors may trigger policy learning. These connections become all the more
complicated when seeking to explain policy changes as the key conse-
quences of policy learning. In relation to this, a big divide is seen in the lit-
erature in answers to the question of whether a policy change is a prerequi-
site for policy learning. While some authors (Sabatier, 1993; Grin & Van de
Graaf, 1996; Pemberton, 2003) argue it is only possible to talk about policy
learning when it results in a policy change, others (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996;
Hemerijck & Visser, 2001; 2003; Lange & Alexiadou, 2010) believe a policy
change is not a prerequisite for the policy learning process. Hartlapp (2009)
adds that policy learning, per se, is not a goal, but is aimed at the implemen-
tation of political programmes and achieving of policy goals. When poli-
cy learning is regarded as learning that brings about policy changes, this
encompasses a change in ideas, values, interests, instruments, goals, pro-
grammes and the institutional structure of (some of) the actors involved
(Rose, 2005; Dolowitz & Marsh 2000). It can also provide the precondi-
tions for ideational convergence, that is, the convergence of policymakers
around a set of criteria that define good policy.
At least the following intended changes should be brought about by
the TITA project: a) ideas and values concerning how ESL is understood
and should be resolved; b) instruments for solving the problem (from sec-
toral to cross-sectoral collaboration); c) an institutional structure in terms
of establishing local multi-professional teams for addressing ESL across the
EU. The precondition that policy learning within the TITA project in the
form of policy experimentation will actually bring any substantial chang-
es in educational policies and practices at the EU level and across the EU is
that internal and external actors show interest and engagement. Follow-up
activities for monitoring and evaluating its long-term impact are also nec-
essary. According to Vilpišauskas (2011), a decade would be an appropriate
time frame for such a review.
Conclusion
This article shows that the EU’s policy framework on ESL establishes a
unique architecture for policy learning that is not simply limited to top-
down learning (»listening recommendations« from EU institutions), but
127
