Page 39 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 39
esl in the eu: policy overview and development
despite 15 years of common cooperation in the field, ensuring a compara-
ble environment for measuring the ESL rate among all EU member states
remains challenging.
Once EU member states agree on the particular indicator(s) and/or
benchmark(s) they will use to measure the attainment of commonly agreed
strategic goal(s), they sovereignly decide how they will translate the EU
guidelines into their respective national contexts and which national poli-
cies they will develop in order to follow commonly agreed EU goals.
Translating these European guidelines into national and regional
policies by setting specific targets
The OMC is particularly interesting for the way in which it directs both na-
tional and sub-national policy-making in EU matters (Alexiadou, 2007, p.
4). The OMC does not require new legislation or the transposition of EU
legislation to suit European directives; further, this is not a precondition
for change, reform or implementation within a respective member state
(Lopez-Santana, 2006). Therefore, the EU’s influence in the education field
is intended to be visible not just in structural and policy changes but also
in the internalisation of European values and policy paradigms at the na-
tional level and in the way political debates and identities are changing. It
is argued that the OMC has an impact especially on the cognitive level of
public policies, for example, on the discourse of political actors and policy
concepts. It stimulates national debates and provides various interests with
arguments in support of policy change, and consequently offers arguments
that legitimise national reforms (e.g. modernisation of education systems)
(Radaelli, 2003).
In the case of ESL, the process of translating EU agendas into nation-
al contexts is anticipated in the following way: As part of the Europe 2020
strategy, member states have agreed at the highest political level to set na-
tional targets on reducing ESL, taking their starting position and national
circumstances into account. It is supposed that (ambitious) national targets
(e.g. 9.5% France, 10% Luxembourg, 15% Spain, 5% Slovenia) foster policy
development in this area and increase the pressure for efficient and effective
national policies. Strategies and actions for pursuing targets are elaborated
in National Reform Programmes. In addition, the Council of the EU (2011)
invited member states to “ensure that comprehensive strategies on ESL are
in place by the end of 2012, and that they are implemented in line with na-
tional priorities and the Europe 2020 objectives”. Education and Training
39
despite 15 years of common cooperation in the field, ensuring a compara-
ble environment for measuring the ESL rate among all EU member states
remains challenging.
Once EU member states agree on the particular indicator(s) and/or
benchmark(s) they will use to measure the attainment of commonly agreed
strategic goal(s), they sovereignly decide how they will translate the EU
guidelines into their respective national contexts and which national poli-
cies they will develop in order to follow commonly agreed EU goals.
Translating these European guidelines into national and regional
policies by setting specific targets
The OMC is particularly interesting for the way in which it directs both na-
tional and sub-national policy-making in EU matters (Alexiadou, 2007, p.
4). The OMC does not require new legislation or the transposition of EU
legislation to suit European directives; further, this is not a precondition
for change, reform or implementation within a respective member state
(Lopez-Santana, 2006). Therefore, the EU’s influence in the education field
is intended to be visible not just in structural and policy changes but also
in the internalisation of European values and policy paradigms at the na-
tional level and in the way political debates and identities are changing. It
is argued that the OMC has an impact especially on the cognitive level of
public policies, for example, on the discourse of political actors and policy
concepts. It stimulates national debates and provides various interests with
arguments in support of policy change, and consequently offers arguments
that legitimise national reforms (e.g. modernisation of education systems)
(Radaelli, 2003).
In the case of ESL, the process of translating EU agendas into nation-
al contexts is anticipated in the following way: As part of the Europe 2020
strategy, member states have agreed at the highest political level to set na-
tional targets on reducing ESL, taking their starting position and national
circumstances into account. It is supposed that (ambitious) national targets
(e.g. 9.5% France, 10% Luxembourg, 15% Spain, 5% Slovenia) foster policy
development in this area and increase the pressure for efficient and effective
national policies. Strategies and actions for pursuing targets are elaborated
in National Reform Programmes. In addition, the Council of the EU (2011)
invited member states to “ensure that comprehensive strategies on ESL are
in place by the end of 2012, and that they are implemented in line with na-
tional priorities and the Europe 2020 objectives”. Education and Training
39
