Interplay of factors that contribute to ESL at the system level

Grade retention means a student is held back a year (i.e. repeats a year) due to their lack of progress, with this year giving them an opportunity to acquire the knowledge they need to continue schooling (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). The EACEA/Eurydice study (2011) showed that, even though grade retention is possible in most countries with similar basic regulation (restrictions), practices vary greatly between countries; in some countries, the rates are very low (< 3%) while in others they are very high (around 30%, e.g. Spain, France, Luxembourg). Similar grade retention rates were found 3 years later (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). It seems that grade retention is more common in countries where the view that this may benefit the student still prevails among teaching staff, the education community and parents (EACEA/Eurydice, 2011).

However, this assumption has been challenged in many studies. Janosz, LeBlanc, Boulerice, and Tremblay (1997) followed two samples of adolescents and found that grade retention significantly increased the risks of ESL in both samples. Roderick (1994) and Alexander, Entwisle and Horsey (1997) obtained similar results. Cairns, Cairns and Neckerman (1989) established a clear relationship between ESL and grade retention (i.e. students who were 1 to 3 years older than their peers in seventh grade were more likely to leave school within the next 4 years). This effect was more pronounced for Caucasian students than their African-American counterparts (ibid.). Jimerson’s (2001) metaanalysis of 20 studies showed no clear benefits of retaining students in grades for their academic, social-emotional or behavioural outcomes. When comparing retained students with a matched control group, 16 studies (80%) concluded that grade retention is ineffective (either nonsignificant or negative effects were found). The author also emphasised that, despite some positive short-term effects of grade retention for certain outcomes, the longitudinal studies show a strikingly close link between grade retention and ESL. In fact, another review study examined 17 studies and determined grade retention was one of the most powerful predictors of ESL (Jimerson et al. 2002). Moreover, grade retention was perceived to be the most stressful life event by sixth-grade students when asked to rate the stressfulness of 20 different life events (Anderson, Jimerson, & Whipple, 2005). A comparison of students who were retained and then subsequently became ESLers with those who were retained and then managed to finish high school showed that early socio-emotional and behavioural characteristics as well as maternal education and academic achievement distinguish the two groups of retained students (Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton, 2002). Early attention to a student’s social-emotional competencies is thus warranted. A more recent study showed that grade retention in eighth grade significantly increased the probability of dropping out of high school. However, retention in sixth grade did not affect the likelihood of completing high school and two-thirds of these students were able to catch up with the original cohort within 2 years (Jacob & Lefgren, 2009). Interestingly, authors have found no impact of grade retention in eighth grade for those who were sent to ’transition centres’ rather than remaining in school. Their findings offer some important insights into grade-retention policies regarding the timing of the retention as well as opportunities provided during the retention year.

The segregation of schools refers to the accumulation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in certain schools (European Commission, 2011). The socio-economic segregation of schools in the education system means there are large disparities between schools in their mean socio-economic status (SES), i.e. in the composition of the student body at a particular school in terms of SES. Socio-economic segregation occurs for different reasons. It can be due to the selection made within the education system (e.g. students from a disadvantaged background are over-represented in some types of schools) or may result from the tendency of specific social groups to live in certain areas (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014).

Socio-economic segregation is the main factor underpinning segregation in European school systems (European Commission, 2011). It has been shown to be problematic in many ways. For example, the socio-economic segregation of schools is closely linked to the issue of (in)equity in education as those secondary school systems in which the schools are strongly segregated on average have lower achievement and greater variability in their PISA achievement; social background is a greater obstacle to educational success than in systems with less segregation among schools (OECD, 2008). Further, there is more problem behaviour in schools that have a concentration of socio-economic disadvantage (David, 2011). Another important issue is that the risk of ESL is considerably higher in schools with a low mean SES (Rumberger & Lim, 2008; Traag & van der Velden, 2008). Low school SES is often interwoven with other factors like a higher share of students with a minority/migrant background (e.g. OECD, 2008). Palardy (2013) showed there is considerable variation in high school graduation rates among schools within each socio-economic composition (SEC) category of schools (low, medium and high SEC schools). In some low SEC schools, all students complete high school while in others the figure is a low as 50%. However, despite this variation within each category, the graduation rates for high SEC schools were substantially on average higher than for low SEC schools. It should be noted that some studies (e.g. Lee & Burkam, 2003; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005) showed that, after accounting for a variety of other school characteristics (e.g. school practices), mean SES no longer had a direct effect on ESL rates.

Some countries apply active desegregation policies aimed at lowering segregation – they want to change the social composition of low SES schools, for example in Bulgaria and Hungary these seek to reduce the segregation of Roma students (European Commission, 2011). The range of mechanisms available for desegregation include, for example: controlling the entry conditions to individual schools, and positive discrimination measures in support of disadvantaged schools (grants, technical assistance, and other additional resources to schools) (ibid.; OECD, 2012). Attempts to increase the social heterogeneity of schools should always be accompanied by measures to ensure school quality (European Commission, 2011).

Tracking refers to the degree of educational differentiation in the education system – early tracking characterises systems with a high level of education differentiation that forces students to follow clearly defined paths early on in their education (EP, 2014b). Students are tracked into different educational pathways based on their achievement – a common practice in many European countries (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014).

As with grade retention, the assumption is that this is beneficial for students’ learning – it is assumed that students learn better in a homogenous classroom at the level that is appropriate for their abilities. Yet this becomes problem when there is a mismatch between the track and a student’s potential, aspirations and interests (Hattie, 2009). Studies show tracking negatively impacts students assigned to a lower track and reinforces pre-existing inequities (a student’s SES matters more for their academic performance; de Witte et al., 2013; Gamoran & Mare, 1989; OECD, 2012). Course-level tracking is one factor explaining why the academic achievement gap associated with SES widens during secondary schooling (Caro, Cortina, & Eccles, 2015). Moreover, it seems that certain student groups (e.g. with a migrant background) tend to be more often tracked in the least academic tracks, possibly preventing them from fully developing their potential (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). The role of the teachers’ (low) expectations is also important in early tracking systems (ibid.).

Early tracking holds clear implications for ESL. Placement in the college track (i.e. academic) increases the chances of high school graduation (after controlling for selection factors; Gamoran & Mare, 1989). The type of vocational emphasis in school chosen when students are aged around 12 to 13 years plays a role in ESL as the selection of a school may limit easy access to the preferred intermediate vocational track and increase the risk of ESL (Beekhoven, & Dekkers, 2005).

School systems employing early tracking should postpone its use until upper secondary education while strengthening comprehensive schooling; moreover, opportunities to change tracks and provide high curricular standards for students in the different tracks lessen early tracking’s detrimental effects (OECD, 2012). Thus, permeable educational pathways are an important system-level protective factor against ESL (EC, 2011; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014).

The importance of high-quality ECEC is strongly emphasised in various EU documents. It is recognised that it brings a range of short- and long-term benefits for both individuals and society (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat, 2014). For example, PISA 2015 showed that students who attended ECEC in their childhood outperform those who did not, even after accounting for SES (however, somewhere between two- to three-quarters of the advantage is reduced after accounting for students’ and schools’ SES; OECD, 2017). Generally, across European countries participation in ECEC is high during the year or two before primary education – on average, 93% children attend ECEC before they start primary education (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat, 2014).

Tracing ESL back to (non-)participation in high-quality ECEC is a challenging task. The quality of early caregiving has been shown to be linked to ESL (Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). In a study carried out by the Public Policy and Management Institute (EC, 2014a), based on a literature review and case studies it was concluded that “in the profiles of pupils who are defined as ESLers and underachievers we see the absence of the very dispositions and skills that are laid down in high-quality early childhood education and care settings” (p. 76). This indicates that high-quality ECEC is a protective factor against ESL, particularly for migrant and minority students (EC, 2012; OECD, 2017).

A well-managed transition process from the primary to secondary level, from the lower to upper secondary level, and from school to work are all factors helping to cut the ESL (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). However, research indicates this is now always the case, and in particular the following drawbacks of transition to upper secondary level are mentioned: traditional style of academic teaching, lack of relevance of pathways and excessively rigid curriculum, disconnection from labour market needs, lack of permeability between pathways (academic, technical, vocational) (ibid.). Smoothing the transition from primary to post-primary level was also one of the key themes raised in interviews with high-risk ESL groups (e.g. people with special educational needs, travellers) and parents of ESLers (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2010).

Other researchers have also problematized the transition to secondary education and the developmental inappropriateness of the secondary school context (e.g. Eccles, 2004). In her model, Eccles argued that the emotional, cognitive and social needs and personal goals of individuals change as they mature. The transition from primary to secondary level needs to reflect these changes and provide a developmentally appropriate context that will continue to motivate and engage students; she called this stage-environment fit. The author argued that the extent to which this does not happen leads to the first psychological and later physical disengagement from school, which ultimately is what ESL represents. She emphasised the following discrepancies that are especially problematic in early adolescence (coinciding with the transition to the secondary level in many countries): at this age, environmental changes bring a greater emphasis on competition, social comparison, opportunities for close student-teacher relationships are disrupted and academic work is not in line with the increasing cognitive sophistication, diverse life experiences and identity and autonomy needs of adolescents – with all of these potentially decreasing motivation and increasing disengagement. On a similar note, it was recognised that adolescents’ growing need for autonomy and participation in decision-making as well as their continuing need for strong social support and trusting relationships with adults is not matched in the transition to secondary education, leading them to turn away from school and adults in the school (Eccles, Lord, Roeser, & Jozefowicz, 1997). Even though it may appear that these issues take place at the school level (rather than system level), the system can in fact provide strong support to help make the transitions smoother (e.g. by allowing or ensuring continuity in student-teacher relationships between levels).

ESL is more common in vocational routes (partly due to the overlap with lower social background and academic weakness; NESEE, 2010). Despite this, VET is recognised for holding the potential to attract, retain and reintegrate young people by bringing them back into education and training – it can provide a re-entry point or alternative pathway (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). Understanding ESL from VET can help develop this potential of VET by addressing e.g. the lack of relevance of the curriculum, lack of flexibility, inappropriate pedagogy and young people’s labour market aspirations (NESSE, 2010).

The available data show that countries with a relatively weak VET system tend to have higher levels of ESL (ibid.; NESEE, 2010). Countries have adopted many different approaches concerning ESL from VET, but a feature they all share is their awareness of the need to allow VET students to create their own, individual paths. The report identified a student-centred, individualised approach to learning (e.g. through guidance, mentoring, individual learning plans or case management) and a competence-based approach as key aspects (ibid.; also see Rogers, 2016). Moreover, VET must be high in both quality and status, and lead to recognisable qualifications as well as match opportunities available in the job market (NESSE, 2010).

At a more general, holistic level, researchers have identified so-called well-balanced (EP, 2014a) or consistent education systems (Fthenakis, 2014) as vital characteristics of the education system as a whole. This refers to the characteristic that all parts of the education system from ISCED 0 to ISCED 6/7 fit together well and function in synergy. Well-balanced education systems have four dimensions: efficiency (every part of the system reinforces the results of the other parts), equity (conditions for the success of one sub-group are not allowed to damage the prospects of another sub-group), cohesion (co-responsibility of stakeholders across the education system) and representativeness (the diversity of pupils is reflected by the diversity of staff and policymakers) (EP, 2014a). The consistency of education systems (Fthenakis, 2014) refers to consistency in the theoretical basis, pedagogical principles and values, educational goals and organisation of the learning process. In EP (2014a), this is called pedagogical and professional continuity (quality of programmes and staff), curriculum continuity and structure continuity (transition between levels). According to these authors, the education system should be diverse (in terms of types of educational tracks, teaching styles etc.), but not fragmented.