ESL situation in Luxembourg

Following Europe’s strategy within the framework Education & Training 2010 (European Commission, 2002) and 2020 (Council of the EU, 2009), the reduction of early school leaving (ESL) has become an important issue in Luxembourg. The issue has also attracted political attention since over 40% of youth who were in unemployment had no qualifications (Cedefop, 2014). ESL has been addressed in a comprehensive reform of the national education system, with various measures at either national or local level being articulated to prevent or remedy ESL.

The aim of this article is to describe the current situation and recent trends concerning ESL in Luxembourg. First, some characteristics of Luxembourg’s education system relevant to ESL are presented (i.e. transitions, length of compulsory education, grade retention), including certain pertinent recent reforms. Second, statistics on ESL in Luxembourg are provided along with, third, an insight into some ESL-related measures and policies with a focus on multi-professional collaboration relating to ESL. The purpose is to elucidate the context in which experiments within the TITA project take place, thus guiding the interpretation and generalisations of the findings.

The findings outlined in this article are based on information drawn from European documents (European Commission, Eurydice), Eurostat, ministerial documents on ESL, and other documents and reports available online. A search for scientific articles using the key words “early school leaving”, “drop-out” and “Luxembourg” using the Arizona State University Libraries search engine resulted in only two relevant articles. This lack of international scientific publications and findings pertaining to the ESL topic in Luxembourg indicates it has not received much research attention; thus, for this article’s purposes we mostly relied on the documents listed above. A search was also conducted using the backward procedure.

Due to its relatively small territory and geographical location, Luxembourg’s demographic situation is characterised by a multinational population and workforce as well as a multilingual environment. Naturally, this holds implications for the education system (Eurydice, n.d.). For example, in 2004/2005, pupils speaking Luxembourgish at home made up the majority, but by 2012/2013 the situation had reversed: just 40% of pupils speak Luxembourgish as a first language at home (MENJE, 2014). Moreover, over 30% of students in primary education do not speak any of the three official languages – French, German or Luxembourgish (neither as the first language spoken, nor the second language spoken; ibid.). This trilingual tradition is an asset for the national education system. However, it also makes life more difficult for many students, bringing about the possibility of ESL (European Commission, 2016a, b; also see Meyers & Houssemand, 2011 for a discussion on language education in Luxembourg; see MENJE, 2015 for the reasons for ESL identified by actual ESLers). Moreover, the high rates of students with a migrant background also hold implications for tackling ESL as such students are largely over-represented among ESLers in many EU countries (Eurostat, n.d./b). Yet the relationship between a migrant background and ESL is not straightforward, with other variables (e.g. socio-economic status, language) likely playing a role. Another specific characteristic of Luxembourg’s education system is the important role of the social partners (i.e. professional chambers, parents’ associations) throughout the system – there is a strong presence of social dialogue between the government and various interest groups as well as membership in different bodies and commissions.

Eurydice diagrams of education systems (Eurydice, n.d.; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015) show that education in Luxembourg is compulsory between the ages of 4 and 16. This period comprises elementary school (école fondamentale) and secondary education (enseignement post-primaire) with several transitions and early tracking (after primary level), both of which are recognised as risk factors for ESL at the system level. Elementary school is divided into four cycles (cycles 1–4, including preschool education and primary education, ages 3 to 11 years, ISCED 0 and 1). After elementary education, students are streamed into secondary education (ages 12 to 19 years, ISCED 2 and 3) which is either: general secondary education (lycée) preparing for higher education or technical secondary education (lycée technique – with three different regimes) preparing for working life and/or higher education (Eurydice, n.d.). Since the 2016/2017 school year, the process of guidance towards secondary education already starts in the last two years of elementary school (ibid.). Early education and career guidance is recognised as system-level protective factor against ESL.

Another two aspects of the education system touching on ESL are grade retention (a risk factor) and accessible high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC; a protective factor). Grade retention in Luxembourg is one of the highest in Europe, with some 35% of students reporting they had repeated a grade at least once in primary, lower or upper secondary education in 2009 (EACEA/Eurydice, 2011) and in 2012 (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). Early childhood education and care is strong in Luxembourg since over 95% of children participate in it before they start primary school (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat, 2014) and recent measures aim to improve the quality of these services, particularly to reduce socio-economic disadvantages (European Commission, 2016b). One of the biggest issues in Luxembourg is the strong relationship between socio-economic status and educational performance, where socio-economic status is, in turn, correlated with migrant background (European Commission, 2016a).

Luxembourg’s education system brings a strong emphasis on education and career guidance, (psychological) counselling and information activities available to the students. Guidance is part of the curriculum in primary education; in secondary schools it is not embedded in the curriculum, but schools are obliged to provide it (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). School staff dealing with guidance comprise teachers with and without specific training, education and career counsellors, psychologists, social workers and pedagogues (ibid.). The main services and bodies offering such support are:

• the secondary schools (lycées) themselves;
• an individual school’s Services for Educational Psychology and Guidance (SPOS – Service de psychologie et d’orientation scolaires) – most schools have one;
• the Centre for Educational Psychology and Guidance, a department at the Ministry of Education, Youth and Childhood (CPOS – Centre de psychologie et d’orientation scolaires); and
• the Centre for Documentation and Information on Higher Education (CEDIES – Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur) (Eurydice, n.d.).
  In 2012, several public services and entities merged to form a counselling centre or ‘house of guidance’ (Maison de l’orientation), bringing together all relevant counselling services for young people and adults like guidance services, educational and psychological support; these services depend on different ministries and are not administratively integrated, but their co-location has significantly increased their cooperation (European Commission, 2013b). Partners of the ‘house of guidance’ regularly cooperate with schools and provide in-class presentations on the different services and possibilities available to pupils and young people (ibid.).

Luxembourg has been engaged in the process of comprehensively transforming its national education system. The core idea is to make the education system fit better with today’s society and to better equip each student to help them succeed in educational vocational and personal life. Reforms are prepared and implemented at all levels of education: reform of vocational education and training (2008; for details, see Cedefop, 2015), reform of elementary education (école fondamentale, which includes pre-primary and primary schools, 2009; for the first evaluation, see reports prepared by Université du Luxembourg, 2012 and Koenig, 2013) and the preparatory work for a secondary school reform. The reform of secondary schools was being prepared in 2013 (European Commission, 2013a) and remains at an early stage (European Commission, 2016a). The reforms share some common features: a competence-based approach, early identification of educational difficulties, identification of factors causing educational failure, emphasis on educational and vocational guidance, the cooperation of all stakeholders (Eurydice, n.d.) – namely, attributes also relevant for tackling ESL.

Luxembourg uses both the Eurostat definition of ESLers and a national definition. In national statistics, ESLers are defined as secondary school students of 16 to 24 years who have, during a given school year, left school and did not return before November 15 of the following school year (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). The Eurostat and national statistics on ESL are presented below.

Luxembourg already had relatively low ESL rates at the start of 2000 compared to other EU member states, but still made considerable progress up to 2009 (European Commission, 2011). Since then, slight fluctuations can be observed which to some extent might also be attributed to the small sample size (European Commission, 2016b); the ESL rate stayed below the European headline target of 10% throughout this period, but attention to the trend in the future is needed. According to the Eurostat (n.d./a) data, Luxemburg’s ESL rate was 7.7% in 2009, 6.1% in 2013, 9.3% in 2015, 5.5% in 2016 (also see Figure 1). The figures on ESL collected at the national level via a centralised digital system by following individual students are usually higher than the figures provided by Eurostat (e.g. see National reform programme, 2016). Moreover, the national data show a steady increase in ESL rates since 2008 from 9.0% to 13.5% in 2014/15; the rise is attributed to methodological concerns as these constitute theoretical (estimated) ESL rates (MENJE, 2017). At first, Luxemburg set the national target for ESL to below 10% (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) with the possibility to modify the target in 2015 if the ESL rate had stabilised (European Commission, 2013). Yet the rates in that year were unstable and the national target remained the same (National reform programme, 2016; see Lastra-Bravo, Tolón-Becerra, & Salinas-Andújar, 2013 for the rationale behind the national targets and possible calculations).

Figure 1. Luxembourg: time trend of share of the population aged 18–24 with at most a lower secondary education and not in further education or training during the last four weeks preceding the survey (Eurostat, n.d./a). Note. Lower secondary education refers to ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) 2011 level 0-2 for data from 2014 onwards and to ISCED 1997 level 0-3C short for data up to 2013. There is a national-specific time break in the series in 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015.

The percentage of early leavers is higher for foreign-born versus native-born (8.1% versus 5.3% in 2013, 8.5% versus 4.1% in 2015) and for male versus female (8.4% versus 3.7% in 2013, 6.8% versus 4.2% in 2016; Eurostat, n.d./a). National data also reveal a high share of ESLers among students who had at least twice been retained in a grade (MENJE, 2015).

Interestingly, in the 2012/13 school year almost 17% of the students who left school in Luxembourg decided to re-enrol in a school in one of the neighbouring countries (Belgium, Germany or France). The majority of these students (63%) commute daily to their school and thus do not need to move to the other country (MENJE, 2015).

As stated on the website of the Ministry of National Education, Children and Youth, activities and measures to keep students at school have been a priority since 2003 (MENJE, n.d.). Moreover, ESL was recognised as a priority during the Luxembourg Presidency of the EU in 2015; under its presidency, the EU Council’s recommendations were adopted as Council conclusions on reducing early school leaving and promoting success in school (Council of the EU, 2015).

In the national context, the ministry responsible for education regularly publishes reports on ESL, including national statistics and other relevant analyses and insights, as well as the results of a survey of actual ESLers (MENFP 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013; MENJE, 2015, 2017). Several structural reforms, policies and measure(s) have been taken; promotion and support for a cross-sector, multi-disciplinary approach to reducing ESL has been an important feature (Cedefop, 2014; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) as well as a compensation measure for strengthening second-chance education programmes, particularly those in the area of vocational education and training (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013). Special emphasis is put on promoting academic success as a way to prevent young people from leaving school and increase young people’s qualification levels. Researchers highlight the important need to conceive public health strategies in Luxembourg in the context of tackling ESL (Esch et al., 2011).

Education and career guidance is clearly seen as a prevention, intervention and compensation measure for addressing ESL (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014) and, as described in the section on the education system in Luxembourg, is well developed. Some other main activities and measures, including specific pilot projects, are described below (ibid.):

 development of policies and projects aimed at identifying groups at risk and providing individual support:

1. early detection procedures within primary education and adjustment measures;
2. since 2005 ‘Mosaic Classes’ have been provided for students with behavioural difficulties (e.g. failure to comply with internal regulations, systematic absenteeism, aggression, violence etc.) in secondary education (temporary intensive support in small groups targeting the reintegration and re-socialisation of students in their initial class or in a class adapted to their development; MENJE, n.d.; Cedefop, 2015);
3. the ‘School Drop-in’ pilot project (Plateforme Accrochage Scolaire – PAS; Stoffel, Friedel, & Thill-Rollinger, 2014) aims to systematically evaluate the risk of ESL amongst students in secondary education (National reform programme, 2016) and implementing measures for students at risk. PAS is coordinated by the CPOS. Its goal is to create educational alliances (see Gilles, Potvin, & Tièche Christinat, 2012) between different actors and assure the participation of everyone – the PAS team works with the family, the management, the educational team/teachers, the SPOS and the socio-educational team of the high school (lycée) concerned, together with external partners (e.g. socio-medical and psychological services, guidance professionals, employers and others; Stoffel et al., 2014). The purpose is to remobilise the young persons in terms of their personal and academic success, offering them activities that correspond to their social, relational and psycho-emotional needs and difficulties. The PAS team relies on internal resources available within the schools as much as possible and only use external ones when needed (ibid.). It started in 2014/15;
4. the ‘Itzigerstee’ pilot project for highly problematic students aims to reintegrate students into mainstream education in cooperation with their parents, the school and a psychologist after providing individualised support;
5. workshops organised by Local Youth Action (Action locale pour jeunes – ALJ) for ESLers on motivation, teamwork, the development of vocational projects, internship, and apprenticeship;
6. the ‘Stop&Go’ self-development programme organised by CPOS is intended for either students still at school but who have given up on learning, or young ESLers; youngsters work on their personal orientation through various non-verbal means of expression (body expression, photography, theatre) and are provided with an opportunity to reflect on the current situation and the path they wish to take personally and academically (MENJE, n.d.);

 inclusion of the ESL topic in teacher education: during the 2013/14 school year, three different continuing professional development courses dealing explicitly with demotivation and student dropout were offered to all teachers across the country (Eurydice, 2015); and

 development of second-chance schools (Ecole de la 2e Chance – E2C) that provide both general and vocational training and other support. E2C opened in 2011 and offer a regular school programme, but employ a specific pedagogical approach (European Commission, 2013; Cedefop, 2015).

In addition, in Luxembourg a centralised digital student register is maintained to help identify those young people who left school without obtaining a diploma or certification, either during or at the end of the academic year. A monthly report on such young people who have quit school is sent to the Local Youth Action, which contacts these youths individually in order to inquire about the reason for leaving school and to help them enter a training programme (including transfer to another school) or the labour market (European Commission, 2011; 2013b; National reform program, 2016). According to a Local Youth Action survey, the two most common reasons for ESL identified by ESLers were school failure (25%, including anticipation of a school failure and language problems) and guidance/orientation difficulties (25%, e.g. did not like the chosen path, did not have access to the desired path for various reasons, was given poor advice; MENJE, 2015).

Despite all of the measures and actions described above, Luxembourg has no comprehensive strategy in place to tackle ESL (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). In 2015, discussions and reflections on how to draw up a national strategy to keep youth at school started and an observatory for monitoring ESL (Observatoire du maintien scolaire) was announced (National reform programme, 2016). Yet, today a comprehensive ESL strategy, one that addresses all levels of education and training and brings the right mix of prevention, intervention and compensation measures together, is still needed (European Commission, 2016a).

As mentioned, cross-sectorial cooperation and a multi-disciplinary approach to reducing ESL have been a considerable feature (Cedefop, 2014; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) and multi-agency teams working in school may be seen as one form of such approach.

Multi-agency teams at the local/institutional level are well established in Luxembourg’s education system (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014). Teams involve school heads, teachers, psychologists, social workers, youth workers and therapists. Every school in secondary education provides a service for educational psychology and guidance (SPOS) which cooperates with teachers, parents, the school’s medical service, and with competent services and professional chambers. Multi-professional teams are also found in the centre of the PAS project (for more information, see above; Stoffel, Friedel, & Thill-Rollinger, 2014).

Moreover, multi-professional teams (équipes multiprofessonnelles) provide psychological counselling/support – a service for special education (Eurydice, n.d.). In each district in Luxembourg, there is a multi-professional team of experts (psychomotors, psychologists, educators, curative educators…). On the request of the pedagogical team, the multi-professional team supports pupils in difficulty while allowing them to remain in class. The first assessment (Universite du Lux, 2012) revealed the idea of introducing multi-professional teams is generally welcomed (by parents and teachers), but the teams are not seen as well-functioning (yet). Criticism of the use of the multi-professional teams includes the long waiting periods (attributed to the bureaucracy underlying the procedures and the two different bodies responsible for the team members). Another issue is that in many problematic cases the multi-professional teams were not helpful and the advice given to teachers was not concrete (because multi-professional teams work individually with the student or in making the diagnosis). Only exceptionally were teachers informed, instructed or advised how to deal with the student in question. Teachers require recommendations or guidance for their further work. The need for such a team varies greatly in the view of teachers. The results also show that schools perceive it is now more difficult to obtain help (compared to before when the multi-professional teams were introduced in special education) because the professionals offering the support were independent, while now everything is centralised through one institution), although the professionals involved remain more or less the same (ibid.).

To the contrary, there are also excessive requests whereby teachers seek the support of the multi-professional teams; it seems that teachers feel they are not responsible for a student if they are given a ’diagnosis’. It would appear that in the future some alignment of what can be done (by the multi-professional teams) and what is expected to be done (by the teaching staff) is needed. A common culture and constructive communication has yet to be established between the various professionals who come from two different sectors (elementary education and special education). Capacity constraints and responsiveness (quick intervention – regular exchange with teaching staff) are important (Universite du Lux, 2012).

ESL in Luxembourg has received considerable attention since 2000, with the issue also being considered in the country’s extensive ongoing reform of its education system. In 2009, Luxembourg achieved the European headline target of < 10% ESLers and its ESL rate has remained below the target since. Possibly contributing to this progress and providing a good tool in the ESL context is the fact that Luxembourg has a tradition in education and career guidance as well as a multi-agency partnership working in and around schools (e.g. secondary schools provide a service for educational psychology and guidance that cooperates with teachers, parents, the school’s medical service, and with competent services and professional chambers). The role of second-chance schools is also promoted. In addition, several other practices and projects have been implemented (e.g. early detection measures, temporary intensive support in small groups for students with behavioural difficulties, providing activities corresponding to the social, relational and psycho-emotional needs and difficulties of students at high risk of ESL, self-development programmes etc.). However, comprehensive national strategy tackling ESL is still missing. In addition, certain characteristics of the education system, such as early tracking with several transitions and high rates of grade retention, may represent risk factors for ESL. Moreover, as highlighted in MENJE (2015), it is clear that in general high schools (lycées) only respond to ESL once it is already obvious; instead, attention to the early causes and pathways is called for, namely at the start of the process that ends in ESL, along with more investment to help prevent ESL.