Page 220 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Training Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 220
(Boronia second-chance school from Australia, Eumoschool from
Italy, EU national reports from second-chance education in Greece,
Austria, Italy and Romania, LION implemented in Italy, PROSA
implemented in Austria, USA Big Picture Learning School, USA
Opportunity House and Youth Chance High School etc.), we iden-
tified the following common principles: all programmes are based
on a student-centred approach to teaching and learning, they put
an emphasis on supportive relationships and a supportive environ-
ment, the socio-emotional development of participants is impor-
tant, all use interactive teaching methods, and all of them are close-
ly connected to the wider community. The extensive review by the
European Commission (2013) supports our findings and concludes
that, by including second-chance education programmes and its
principles in formal educational content, this would more effectively
serve as ESL prevention and compensation (e.g. Bloom, 2010; Ross &
Gray, 2005; Spierings, 2003).
Key words: second-chance education, ESL prevention, mainstream
education
Introduction
In 1995, the European Commission issued the White Paper on Education
and Training (Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society), with
the aim to fight social exclusion in Europe (Efstathiou, 2009). Another im-
portant part of this strategy was the implementation of second-chance ed-
ucation programmes into educational schemata in order to address the
issue of ESLers as a group of socially excluded individuals. When the sec-
ond-chance school scheme began in the EU context, second-chance edu-
cation programmes were reflecting the belief of many experts and poli-
cy-makers that ESLers should not be brought back to ‘the place of failure’
and that one should think more in terms of job creation, vocational train-
ing and social care when attempting to help this target group.
Second-chance education programmes were, as a strategic approach
involving schools, wider community agents and employers, further elab-
orated in 2006 and 2007 through the European Parliament’s Lifelong
Learning Action Programme and the European Commission’s Action Plan
on Adult Learning. These programmes provided the statutory and fiscal
support to institutions participating in fighting against ESLers’ segrega-
tion by offering them the opportunity to re-engage in education (European
220
Italy, EU national reports from second-chance education in Greece,
Austria, Italy and Romania, LION implemented in Italy, PROSA
implemented in Austria, USA Big Picture Learning School, USA
Opportunity House and Youth Chance High School etc.), we iden-
tified the following common principles: all programmes are based
on a student-centred approach to teaching and learning, they put
an emphasis on supportive relationships and a supportive environ-
ment, the socio-emotional development of participants is impor-
tant, all use interactive teaching methods, and all of them are close-
ly connected to the wider community. The extensive review by the
European Commission (2013) supports our findings and concludes
that, by including second-chance education programmes and its
principles in formal educational content, this would more effectively
serve as ESL prevention and compensation (e.g. Bloom, 2010; Ross &
Gray, 2005; Spierings, 2003).
Key words: second-chance education, ESL prevention, mainstream
education
Introduction
In 1995, the European Commission issued the White Paper on Education
and Training (Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society), with
the aim to fight social exclusion in Europe (Efstathiou, 2009). Another im-
portant part of this strategy was the implementation of second-chance ed-
ucation programmes into educational schemata in order to address the
issue of ESLers as a group of socially excluded individuals. When the sec-
ond-chance school scheme began in the EU context, second-chance edu-
cation programmes were reflecting the belief of many experts and poli-
cy-makers that ESLers should not be brought back to ‘the place of failure’
and that one should think more in terms of job creation, vocational train-
ing and social care when attempting to help this target group.
Second-chance education programmes were, as a strategic approach
involving schools, wider community agents and employers, further elab-
orated in 2006 and 2007 through the European Parliament’s Lifelong
Learning Action Programme and the European Commission’s Action Plan
on Adult Learning. These programmes provided the statutory and fiscal
support to institutions participating in fighting against ESLers’ segrega-
tion by offering them the opportunity to re-engage in education (European
220
