Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 569–601 | Cite as

Proposal for national targets in the framework of the European reduction goal for early school leaving

  • Xavier B. Lastra-Bravo
  • Alfredo Tolón-Becerra
  • José A. Salinas-Andújar
Article
First Online:
  • 225 Downloads

Abstract

According to the European Commission’s “Europe 2020” strategy, the early school leaving (ESL) rate in European Union (EU) Member States must be reduced to a maximum of 10 per cent by 2020. This paper proposes a nonlinear distribution method based on dynamic targets for reducing the percentage of early school leavers. The aim of this method is to provide policymakers with alternatives in terms of transferring the EU-wide headline target to individual national targets. Weighting was based on four indicators: ESL rate, unemployment rate, expenditure on education as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), and expenditure on schools per student. As a result, nine possible scenarios for ESL reduction have been constructed for each of the EU Member States in three groups: the whole EU up to June 2013 (EU27), EU Member States which joined before 30 April 2004 (EU15) and EU Member States which joined after 30 April 2004 (EU12). This method allows the European policy to be translated into specific national targets that would converge in the aggregate goal.

Keywords

Early school leaving EU education policy Dynamic target values Territorial targets Europe 

Résumé

Proposition d’objectifs nationaux dans le cadre européen de réduction de la déscolarisation précoce – La Commission européenne préconise dans sa stratégie « Europe 2020 » un abaissement du taux de sortie précoce du système scolaire à moins de 10 % d’ici 2020 dans les États membres de l’Union européenne. Les auteurs de cet article proposent une méthode de distribution non linéaire à partir d’objectifs dynamiques, qui vise à réduire la proportion des jeunes quittant prématurément l’école. Cette méthode a pour but de fournir aux décideurs des alternatives permettant de traduire l’objectif européen en objectifs nationaux. La pondération a été effectuée en fonction de quatre indicateurs : le taux de l’abandon scolaire prématuré (ASP), le taux de chômage, la dépense éducative en termes de pourcentage du produit intérieur brut (PIB), et la dépense scolaire par élève. Neuf scénarios en ont été tirés pour la réduction de l’ASP dans chacun des États membres répartis en trois groupes : l’ensemble des pays de l’UE avant juin 2013 (UE 27), les États devenus membres de l’UE avant le 30 avril 2004 (UE 15) et les États entrés dans l’UE après le 30 avril 2004 (UE 12). Cette méthode permet de transposer la politique européenne en objectifs nationaux pour converger vers l’objectif européen.

Resumen

Propuesta de valores objetivos nacionales en el marco del objetivo europeo de reducción del abandono educativo prematuro – La Comisión Europea estableció en la Estrategia “Europa 2020” que los Estados miembros deben reducir la tasa de abandono escolar prematuro (AEP) como mínimo al 10% en 2020. En este artículo se propone un método de distribución no lineal, en función de valores objetivos dinámicos, para reducir el porcentaje de la población que abandona prematuramente sus estudios. El objetivo de este método es ofrecer a los responsables políticos alternativas para traducir el valor objetivo global de la UE a valores objetivos nacionales. La ponderación se ha realizado en función de cuatro indicadores: tasa de AEP, tasa de desempleo, gasto en educación como porcentaje del producto interno bruto (PIB), y gasto escolar por alumno. Como resultado se obtuvieron nueve propuestas de reducción de la tasa de AEP para cada uno de los países miembros en tres grupos: la Unión Europea en su conjunto antes de junio de 2013 (EU27), los países miembros antes del 30 de abril de 2004 (EU15) y los países miembros que se integraron después del 30 de abril de 2004 (EU12). Este método permitirá traducir la política europea a valores objetivos nacionales, que convergerían hacia el valor objetivo global.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are very grateful to Andalusia Regional Government (Consejería de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia), Spain, for financing this work through the Programme “Tercera fase de formación de personal docente e investigador en las Universidades Andaluzas, en áreas de conocimiento deficitarias por necesidades docentes (FPDU 2008)”. This is a programme co-financed by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

References

  1. Albouy, V., & Lequien, L. (2009). Does compulsory education lower mortality? Journal of Health Economics, 28(1), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D. M. (2010). In school and out of trouble? The minimum dropout age and juvenile crime. University of Washington. Working paper.Google Scholar
  4. Andrei, T., Teodorescu, D., & Oancea, B. (2011). Characteristics and causes of school dropout in the countries of the European Union. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrei, T., Teodorescu, D., & Oancea, B. (2012). Quantitative methods used to identify the causes of school dropout in EU countries. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 188–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, A. B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2004). Indicators and targets for social inclusion in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakkes, J. A., Klein-Goldewijk, C. G. M., Meijer, J. R., Rothman, D. S., de Vries, H. J. M., & Van Woerden, J. W. (2000). Insights for the third Global Environment Outlook from related global scenario analyses. Working Paper for GEO-3.RIVM report 402001017. Global Dynamics and Sustainable Development Programme. Globo Report Series No. 28. Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.Google Scholar
  8. Balezentis, A., & Balezentis, T. (2011). Framework of strategic management model for strategy Europe 2020: Diachronic analysis and proposed guidelines. Engineering Economics, 22(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barone, A., & O’Higgins, N. (2010). Fat and out in Salerno and its province: Adolescent obesity and early school leaving in Southern Italy. Economics and Human Biology, 8, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrowman, C., Nutbeam, D., & Tresidder, J. (2001). Health risks among early school leavers: Findings from an Australian study examining the reasons for, and consequences of early school drop out. Health Education, 101(2), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdekin, B. (1989). Our homeless children. Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children. Canberra: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Buscha, F., & Conte, A. (2010). The impact of truancy on educational attainment: A bivariate ordered probit estimator with mixed effects. Jena Economic Research Papers. Jena: Friedrich Schiller University/Max Planck Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
  13. Cabus, S. J. (2011). Does enhanced student commitment reduce school dropout? Evidence from two major dropout regions in the Netherlands. TIER working paper series.Google Scholar
  14. Cabus, S. J., & De Witte, K. (2012). School Absenteeism and Dropout, A Bayesian Duration Model. TIER Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  15. Chamberlain, C., & Mackenzie, D. (1996). School students at risk. Youth Studies Australia, 15(4), 11–18.Google Scholar
  16. Codogno, L., Odinet, G., & Padrini, F. (2009). The use of targets in the Lisbon Strategy. Rivista di Politica Economica, 99(1–3), 3–21.Google Scholar
  17. Dekkers, H., & Claassen, A. (2001). Dropouts – disadvantaged by definition? A study of the perspective of very early school leavers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (European Commission). (1995–2010). Population, Education and training, and Labour market statistics (including Labour Force Survey [LFS]). Brussels: Statistical Office of the European Union (EUROSTAT).Google Scholar
  19. EC (European Commission). (2002). European benchmarks in education and training: Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council. Communication from the Commission COM(2002) 629 final. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  20. EC (European Commission). (2006a). Progress toward the Lisbon objectives in education and training. Report based on indicators and benchmarks. Brussels: Commission staff working document SEC(2006) 639. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  21. EC (European Commission). (2006b). Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems. Communication from the Commission COM(2006) 481 final. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  22. EC (European Commission). (2007). A coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training. Communication from the Commission COM (2007) 61 final. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  23. EC (European Commission). (2010). EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission COM(2010) 2020 final. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  24. EC (European Commission). (2011). Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution to the Europe 2020 Agenda. Communication from the Commission COM(2011) 18 final. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  25. EC (European Commission). (2012). European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Online publication. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction [accessed 10 September 2013].
  26. Ensminger, M., Lamkin, R., & Jacobson, N. (1996). School leaving: A longitudinal perspective including neighborhood effects. Child Development, 67, 2400–2416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans, I., & DiBenedetto, A. (1990). Pathways to school dropout: A conceptual model for early prevention. Special Services in School, 6, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faludi, A. (2009). A turning point in the development of European spatial planning? The “Territorial Agenda of the European Union” and the “First Action Programme”. Progress in Planning, 71, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Leung, M., Trott, M., Bishop, J., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Individual characteristics, early adolescent peer affiliations, and school dropout: an examination of aggressive and popular group types. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garnier, H., Stein, J., & Jacobs, J. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: A 19-year perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrington, I. (2008). The motivation of boys who leave school early: Impact of teachers. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herbert, T. P., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an urban high school. Urban Education, 34(4), 428–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Predicting different types of school dropouts: A typological approach with two longitudinal samples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kritikos, E., & Ching, C. (2005). Study on access to education and training, basic skills and early school leavers. London: European Commission DG EAC. GHK.Google Scholar
  37. Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R. (2004). Staying on at school: Improving student retention in Australia. Report for the Queensland Department of Education and the Arts. Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 353–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lleras-Muney, A. (2005). The relationship between education and adult mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1667–1695.Google Scholar
  41. Mata-Diz, J. B. (2009). Un enfoque distinto de la integración regional: la cohesión social en la Unión Europea y América Latina. Novos Estudos Juridicos, 14(1), 107–126.Google Scholar
  42. Muskens, G. (2013). Inclusion and education in European countries: Methodological considerations. Quality & Quantity, 47(1), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pallemaerts, M., Herodes, M., & Adelle, C. (2007). Does the EU Sustainable Development Strategy contribute to environmental policy integration?. Environmental policy integration and multi-level governance. EPIGOV Paper 9. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
  44. Pittman, R. B. (1991). Social factors, enrollment in Vocational/Technical courses, and high school dropout rates. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 288–295.Google Scholar
  45. Powdthavee, N. (2010). Does education reduce the risk of hypertension? Estimating the biomarker effect of compulsory schooling in England. Journal of Human Capital, 4, 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roderick, M., Nagoaka, J., Bacon, J., & Easton, J. Q. (2000). Update ending social promotion in Chicago: Passing, retention, and achievement trends among promoted and retained students. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  47. Ronchi, E., Federico, A., & Musmecib, F. (2002). A system-oriented integrated indicator for sustainable development in Italy. Ecological Indicators, 2, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steiner, M., & Lassnigg, L. (2009). Early school leaving and VET in comparative perspective incidence and policies. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Vienna, Austria, 28–30 September.Google Scholar
  50. Sutphen, R. D., Ford, J. P., & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy interventions: A review of the research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Swadener, B. B. (1995). Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk. Albany: State University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  52. Timmons, V., & Ostridge, R. (2009). Contrasting cross-sectional and longitudinal early school leaver rates in Canada. McGill Journal of Education, 44(2), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tresidder, J., Macaskill, P., Bennett, D., & Nutbeam, D. (1997). Health risks and behaviour of out-of-school 16-year-olds in New South Wales, Australian and New Zealand. Journal of Public Health, 21(2), 168–174.Google Scholar
  54. Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Steeg, M., & Webbink, D. (2006). Voortijdig schoolverlaten in Nederland: omvang, beleid en resultaat. CPB Document, 10, 7.Google Scholar
  56. Walther, A., & Pohl, A. (2005). Thematic study on policy measures concerning disadvantaged youth. Tübingen: Study commissioned by the European Commission.Google Scholar
  57. Wegner, L., Flisher, A. J., Chikobvu, P., Lombard, C., & King, G. (2008). Leisure boredom and high school dropout in Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zittoun, P., & Mandinaud, V. (2006). Les indicateurs de développement urbain durable: nouvelles ressources ou nouvelles contraintes pour l’action publique. In: Colloque international: Usage des indicateurs de développement durable. Montpellier, 3–4 April.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier B. Lastra-Bravo
    • 1
  • Alfredo Tolón-Becerra
    • 1
  • José A. Salinas-Andújar
    • 1
  1. 1.Area of Engineering ProjectsUniversity of Almeria, Junta de Andalucía ScholarshipAlmeríaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options