Page 81 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 81
the esl situation in luxembourg
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) and multi-agency teams
working in school may be seen as one form of such approach.
Multi-agency teams at the local/institutional level are well established
in Luxembourg’s education system (European Commission/EACEA/
Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). Teams involve school heads, teachers, psycholo-
gists, social workers, youth workers and therapists. Every school in sec-
ondary education provides a service for educational psychology and guid-
ance (SPOS) which cooperates with teachers, parents, the school’s medical
service, and with competent services and professional chambers. Multi-
professional teams are also found in the centre of the PAS project (for more
information, see above; Stoffel, Friedel, & Thill-Rollinger, 2014).
Moreover, multi-professional teams (équipes multiprofessonnelles)
provide psychological counselling/support – a service for special educa-
tion (Eurydice, n.d.). In each district in Luxembourg, there is a multi-pro-
fessional team of experts (psychomotors, psychologists, educators, curative
educators…). On the request of the pedagogical team, the multi-profession-
al team supports pupils in difficulty while allowing them to remain in class.
The first assessment (Universite du Lux, 2012) revealed the idea of introduc-
ing multi-professional teams is generally welcomed (by parents and teach-
ers), but the teams are not seen as well-functioning (yet). Criticism of the
use of the multi-professional teams includes the long waiting periods (at-
tributed to the bureaucracy underlying the procedures and the two dif-
ferent bodies responsible for the team members). Another issue is that in
many problematic cases the multi-professional teams were not helpful and
the advice given to teachers was not concrete (because multi-professional
teams work individually with the student or in making the diagnosis). Only
exceptionally were teachers informed, instructed or advised how to deal
with the student in question. Teachers require recommendations or guid-
ance for their further work. The need for such a team varies greatly in the
view of teachers. The results also show that schools perceive it is now more
difficult to obtain help (compared to before when the multi-professional
teams were introduced in special education) because the professionals of-
fering the support were independent, while now everything is centralised
through one institution), although the professionals involved remain more
or less the same (ibid.).
To the contrary, there are also excessive requests whereby teachers
seek the support of the multi-professional teams; it seems that teachers feel
they are not responsible for a student if they are given a ‘diagnosis’. It would
81
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) and multi-agency teams
working in school may be seen as one form of such approach.
Multi-agency teams at the local/institutional level are well established
in Luxembourg’s education system (European Commission/EACEA/
Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). Teams involve school heads, teachers, psycholo-
gists, social workers, youth workers and therapists. Every school in sec-
ondary education provides a service for educational psychology and guid-
ance (SPOS) which cooperates with teachers, parents, the school’s medical
service, and with competent services and professional chambers. Multi-
professional teams are also found in the centre of the PAS project (for more
information, see above; Stoffel, Friedel, & Thill-Rollinger, 2014).
Moreover, multi-professional teams (équipes multiprofessonnelles)
provide psychological counselling/support – a service for special educa-
tion (Eurydice, n.d.). In each district in Luxembourg, there is a multi-pro-
fessional team of experts (psychomotors, psychologists, educators, curative
educators…). On the request of the pedagogical team, the multi-profession-
al team supports pupils in difficulty while allowing them to remain in class.
The first assessment (Universite du Lux, 2012) revealed the idea of introduc-
ing multi-professional teams is generally welcomed (by parents and teach-
ers), but the teams are not seen as well-functioning (yet). Criticism of the
use of the multi-professional teams includes the long waiting periods (at-
tributed to the bureaucracy underlying the procedures and the two dif-
ferent bodies responsible for the team members). Another issue is that in
many problematic cases the multi-professional teams were not helpful and
the advice given to teachers was not concrete (because multi-professional
teams work individually with the student or in making the diagnosis). Only
exceptionally were teachers informed, instructed or advised how to deal
with the student in question. Teachers require recommendations or guid-
ance for their further work. The need for such a team varies greatly in the
view of teachers. The results also show that schools perceive it is now more
difficult to obtain help (compared to before when the multi-professional
teams were introduced in special education) because the professionals of-
fering the support were independent, while now everything is centralised
through one institution), although the professionals involved remain more
or less the same (ibid.).
To the contrary, there are also excessive requests whereby teachers
seek the support of the multi-professional teams; it seems that teachers feel
they are not responsible for a student if they are given a ‘diagnosis’. It would
81
