Page 228 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Training Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 228
In our review of the practices of second-chance education pro-
grammes and projects (e.g. Boronia second-chance school from Australia,
Eumoschool from Italy, EU national reports form second-chance educa-
tion in Greece, Austria, Italy and Romania, LION 28 from Italy, PROSA
from Austria, USA Big Picture Learning School, USA Opportunity House
and Youth Chance High School etc.), we identified that the common main
approaches to teaching and learning which distinguish them from main-
stream education derive from their student-centred approach to learning,
socio-emotional support of students during the process, the creating of
supportive teacher-student relationships and a supportive learning envi-
ronment, the use of interactive teaching methods and connection to wider
community experts and organisations. Our findings are in line with one of
the most systematic and extensive reviews of second-chance education in
European countries (European Commission, 2013) whose aim was to shape
second-chance education-based directions for teachers in mainstream ed-
ucation so as to help prevent ESL already in the early stages. Their practi-
cal implications for preventing ESL in mainstream schools are specific (see
Figure 34) and encompass a multiprofessional approach to at-risk students
(e.g. early career guidance and work experience, health and emotional sup-
port, involvement of social care institutions and cultural organisations),
an inclusive school climate (e.g. student involvement in making decisions,
small class sizes, development of positive relationships with their peers,
teachers and staff), flexible curricula (e.g. focusing on learners’ strengths,
empowering to take ownership of personal learning, providing opportuni-
ties for work experience, introducing arts and sports), stimulating learn-
ing environments (e.g. a safe and stimulating environment, opportunities
to socialise, flexibility in organising the day), personalised learning (e.g. in-
dividual attention, availability of a counsellors), social and emotional sup-
port (e.g. acknowledgement of the complex personal situations of at-risk
students), and adaptable assessment and progression (e.g. different objec-
tives – recognition of achievements related to personal development, mo-
tivation, engagement, and integration into employment). The European
Commission (2013) concludes that, as such, second-chance education pro-
grammes provide a good example of how to build confidence and moti-
vation in mainstream education for learners at the highest end of the ESL
‘risk’ spectrum and therefore serve as effective ESL prevention.
228
grammes and projects (e.g. Boronia second-chance school from Australia,
Eumoschool from Italy, EU national reports form second-chance educa-
tion in Greece, Austria, Italy and Romania, LION 28 from Italy, PROSA
from Austria, USA Big Picture Learning School, USA Opportunity House
and Youth Chance High School etc.), we identified that the common main
approaches to teaching and learning which distinguish them from main-
stream education derive from their student-centred approach to learning,
socio-emotional support of students during the process, the creating of
supportive teacher-student relationships and a supportive learning envi-
ronment, the use of interactive teaching methods and connection to wider
community experts and organisations. Our findings are in line with one of
the most systematic and extensive reviews of second-chance education in
European countries (European Commission, 2013) whose aim was to shape
second-chance education-based directions for teachers in mainstream ed-
ucation so as to help prevent ESL already in the early stages. Their practi-
cal implications for preventing ESL in mainstream schools are specific (see
Figure 34) and encompass a multiprofessional approach to at-risk students
(e.g. early career guidance and work experience, health and emotional sup-
port, involvement of social care institutions and cultural organisations),
an inclusive school climate (e.g. student involvement in making decisions,
small class sizes, development of positive relationships with their peers,
teachers and staff), flexible curricula (e.g. focusing on learners’ strengths,
empowering to take ownership of personal learning, providing opportuni-
ties for work experience, introducing arts and sports), stimulating learn-
ing environments (e.g. a safe and stimulating environment, opportunities
to socialise, flexibility in organising the day), personalised learning (e.g. in-
dividual attention, availability of a counsellors), social and emotional sup-
port (e.g. acknowledgement of the complex personal situations of at-risk
students), and adaptable assessment and progression (e.g. different objec-
tives – recognition of achievements related to personal development, mo-
tivation, engagement, and integration into employment). The European
Commission (2013) concludes that, as such, second-chance education pro-
grammes provide a good example of how to build confidence and moti-
vation in mainstream education for learners at the highest end of the ESL
‘risk’ spectrum and therefore serve as effective ESL prevention.
228
