Page 230 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Training Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 230
opean Commission, 2001, 2013; Hill & Jepsen, 2007; Lagana-Riordan et
al., 2011; Polidano et al., 2015) show that it is a practice worth developing,
particularly when it comes to implementing preventive strategies for reduc-
ing ESL rates and strategies for the re-engagement of ESL students.
Different authors (e.g. Bloom, 2010; Riele, 2000; Ross & Gray, 2005;
Smyth & Hattam 2004, Spierings, 2003; Wyn et al., 2004) also point to the
fact that, in order for second-chance programmes and the implementation
of their principles in mainstream education to become successful and ef-
ficient, fiscal- and system-level changes are needed. They state that educa-
tional systems should allow students to leave education and return at a later
stage. Linear educational models and EU educational benchmarks suggest
that young people should at least complete secondary education. However,
for a substantial minority of students who are alienated from school this
is counterproductive. Retention may therefore be increased by providing
flexible structures that allow young people to leave education and come
back at a later stage. The traditional, uni-dimensional models based on age
or the school-to-work transition are inadequate because they fail to capture
the complexities of youth transitions in the post-modern era. It is there-
fore necessary to develop multiple educational pathways for youth. Some
ESLers have the interest and capacity to move into postsecondary pro-
grammes, others would do better in occupationally oriented programmes
and would benefit from early working experience and contact with em-
ployers, and still others need special approaches tailored to young people
with very low levels of basic skills. Such a flexible approach would also de-
crease the funding problems of second-chance education programmes, an-
other problematic area of second education programmes identified by the
European Commission (2001, 2013). By integrating the principles of sec-
ond-chance education into mainstream education and thereby lowering
ESL levels, second-chance education would not be required to such an ex-
tent and national education systems would then benefit from lower ex-
tra costs. Integration of the second-chance education principle into main-
stream education could therefore yield many positive effects not only for
potential ESLers (academic development and personal growth), and teach-
ers (professional growth), but also schools and the community as a whole
(better social cohesion and lower costs).
230
al., 2011; Polidano et al., 2015) show that it is a practice worth developing,
particularly when it comes to implementing preventive strategies for reduc-
ing ESL rates and strategies for the re-engagement of ESL students.
Different authors (e.g. Bloom, 2010; Riele, 2000; Ross & Gray, 2005;
Smyth & Hattam 2004, Spierings, 2003; Wyn et al., 2004) also point to the
fact that, in order for second-chance programmes and the implementation
of their principles in mainstream education to become successful and ef-
ficient, fiscal- and system-level changes are needed. They state that educa-
tional systems should allow students to leave education and return at a later
stage. Linear educational models and EU educational benchmarks suggest
that young people should at least complete secondary education. However,
for a substantial minority of students who are alienated from school this
is counterproductive. Retention may therefore be increased by providing
flexible structures that allow young people to leave education and come
back at a later stage. The traditional, uni-dimensional models based on age
or the school-to-work transition are inadequate because they fail to capture
the complexities of youth transitions in the post-modern era. It is there-
fore necessary to develop multiple educational pathways for youth. Some
ESLers have the interest and capacity to move into postsecondary pro-
grammes, others would do better in occupationally oriented programmes
and would benefit from early working experience and contact with em-
ployers, and still others need special approaches tailored to young people
with very low levels of basic skills. Such a flexible approach would also de-
crease the funding problems of second-chance education programmes, an-
other problematic area of second education programmes identified by the
European Commission (2001, 2013). By integrating the principles of sec-
ond-chance education into mainstream education and thereby lowering
ESL levels, second-chance education would not be required to such an ex-
tent and national education systems would then benefit from lower ex-
tra costs. Integration of the second-chance education principle into main-
stream education could therefore yield many positive effects not only for
potential ESLers (academic development and personal growth), and teach-
ers (professional growth), but also schools and the community as a whole
(better social cohesion and lower costs).
230
