Interplay of factors that contribute to ESL at school level

As described in the two articles on ESL factors associated with: (1) an individual, their family and social background; and (2) to system characteristics, the phenomenon and process of ESL can be viewed from the perspective of Bronfenbrenner’s (1996) ecological systems theory of human development. Bronfenbrenner recognised that many different levels of environmental influence exist and impact one’s development. He identified five environmental systems with which individuals interact: the microsystem (i.e. people and institutions in the immediate surroundings – family, peers, school), the mesosystem (i.e. interconnections between settings in which the child participates, e.g. home-school relations), the exosystem (processes and settings with an indirect influence on the individual, e.g. the neighbourhood-community context, education system, social welfare), the macrosystem (i.e. cultural influences) and the cronosystem (i.e. events and changes over time) (see Figure 1). This multidimensional framework presents the basis for understanding risk and protective ESL factors and the multifaceted nature of ESL. In the present article, we look in particular at one specific setting within the microsystem – the school – and review the scientific literature examining its impact on ESL.

Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s model of human development (adapted from Pinterest). The black rectangle constitutes the focus of the article.

Early studies on ESL mostly considered risk or predictive ESL factors within the individual and their family (see e.g. Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992; Barclay & Doll, 2001 for studies in the period 1950–1970). Later studies revealed ESL to be a process without any one individual cause and may already start in primary school (e.g. Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; McGarr, 2010) or even as early as the toddlers years (e.g. Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). A considerable amount was known about how the individual’s characteristics and their specific background affected the ESL process, yet much less was known about the influences of the school. But as understanding grew that ESL is a complex phenomenon entailing predictors from multiple levels of the individual’s ecology, in the last few decades empirical and review studies have expanded to also include other levels and other settings from the microsystem level, for instance the school (i.e. school or institutional factors; for example, see Audas & Willms, 2001; Janosz, LeBlanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 1997; Knesting, 2008; Lee & Burkham, 2003). Several factors within schools were recognised as playing a role in ESL, with some 20% of the variability in student outcomes explained by the characteristics of the schools students attend (Rumberger & Lim, 2008). Many studies are based on multi-level datasets (i.e. samples of students within schools within countries/districts) that enable researchers to disentangle student-level and school-level effects. However, establishing a causal relationship between the variable of interest and ESL remains problematic. School factors belong to different levels of the school environment (the student in the classroom, the school buildings, the school district etc.) and the ways these levels interact also impact a student’s development (Eccles, 2004).

Different classifications of school (education institution) factors exist:

• school composition (e.g. SES intake); structure (e.g. size, sector and location); resources (e.g. physical, financial and human resources); and practices (e.g. instructional practices) (Rumberger & Lim, 2008);
• school structure and resources; school practices (Lyche, 2010);
• structural characteristics (e.g. composition of children/students, staff characteristics) and mediating factors (e.g. educators’ beliefs and expectations, relationships) (Hasselhorn, Andresen, Becker, Betz, Leuzinger-Bohleber, & Schmid, 2015).

In this article, we consider the first of these classifications and aim to review and demonstrate the variety of classroom/school factors that may contribute to becoming an ESLer. The article reviews empirical research in the field.

To conduct the scientific literature review, relevant publications were identified by using computerised searches in the Arizona State University Library search engine (including databases such as e.g. PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), ERIC (Proquest), JSTOR Arts and Sciences, ProQuest, SAGE Premier, Science Direct) and other online resources (e.g. ResearchGate, institution or project webpages). We used the following keywords “early school leaving”, “drop out” AND “school factors/precursors/determinants”, “institutional factors”, “curriculum”, “pedagogy”, “school composition”, “school resources”, “school practices”, “teacher characteristics”, “metaanalysis” etc. We then examined references cited in the articles (i.e., “backward search” procedures). Original scientific articles and monographs together with reports by or for the European Commission and the OECD are considered.

School composition or the characteristics of the student body are one of the most examined school factors concerning ESL and achievement. This means the characteristics of students as a whole can influence a student over and above the effect of their individual characteristics (Rumberger & Lim, 2008). In the literature review conducted by these authors, the following indicators of school demographics are identified as having a direct effect on ESL: mean SES, the share of at-risk students (e.g. poor grades, truancy, discipline problems, grade retention), the share of racial or linguistic minorities, the share of high-mobility students (those changing schools or residences) and the share of students from single-parent families (or other family composition alternatives). Traag and van der Velden (2008) also found a large percentage of students from ethnic minorities in school increase the risk for some groups of ESLers (i.e. without a lower secondary diploma) after controlling for the individual’s minority background; in general, a 10% drop in the share of students with a minority background decreased the risk of ESL by 13%. For other groups of ESLers (i.e. with a lower secondary diploma; in an apprenticeship programme), the share of minority students from ethnic minorities in a school had no effect on the risk of ESL. McNeal (1997) also found the percentage of minorities affecting the chances of ESL. A study in Ireland found the effect of the school’s socio-economic composition – schools with more students from disadvantaged backgrounds had higher ESL rates, over and above individual student characteristics (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2010).

It is important to note that some studies indicate that, after accounting for several other school characteristics (e.g. school size, climate, resources, student-teacher relations), mean SES and other composition variables no longer have a direct effect on ESL (see, for example, Lee & Burkam, 2003; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). This shows that the effect of school composition is mediated through other variables. Moreover, different structural and organisational characteristics of a school are likely to appear together (Lee & Burkham, 2003). On a similar note, Palardy (2013) controlled for differences in student background, peer influences, and school inputs and practices and found no differences in high-school graduation probability between low and high SES schools.

In this section, we examine the effects of the school characteristic of size, sector (public or private), location (urban or rural) and tracks provided (academic and other lower levels). The sector (public or private) of the school was examined in Rumberger and Rim’s literature review (2008). Of the 63 analyses treated, no relationship was found between public-private (in some cases only Catholic schools were considered) school and ESL rates in middle school, but in high school ESL rates were generally lower in Catholic schools (in some studies the effect could be attributed to school practices). As the authors highlight, it is common for students from private schools to transfer to a public school instead of or before leaving school, thereby ’inflating’ ESL rates in public schools. In another study, the private/public aspect of a school was found to be unrelated to ESL rates after controlling for students’ background and behaviour (Lee & Burkham, 2003). This finding is also supported by the OECD (2011) which examined the issue of private and public schools relative to achievement in the PISA study. They concluded that students in private schools do indeed perform better in the PISA assessment than students in public schools, yet when the socioeconomic context is similar students in public and private schools tend to do equally well. Moreover, ’’countries with a larger share of private schools do not perform better in PISA’’ (p. 1).

In relation to the location of the school, the relationship between the urbanisation of the municipality within which the school is located and ESL is not straightforward. For some groups of ESLers (i.e. those without a lower secondary diploma), an above-average level of urbanisation (high or very high) increased the risk for ESL, and in lowly urbanised areas the chances of ESL dropped, while in other groups of ESLers the effects were not as pronounced (Traag & van der Velden, 2008). Rumberger and Lim (2008) identified 12 analyses examining this issue, and the results were mixed; in some studies, being in an urban school increased the risk of ESL, while in others it decreased the risk or the effects were non-significant.

As for school size, the same authors (Rumberger & Lim, 2008) also found mixed results in their literature review. Out of 12 analyses, 6 found no significant effects, while in 3 students were more likely to drop out of large schools and in 3 other studies ESL was less likely in large schools. The relationship might not be non-linear – a smaller (but not too small) size is generally better (Lee & Burkham, 2003). As noted by Lee & Burkham (2003), school size per se is unlikely to directly affect the risk for ESL; it is more likely that other school, student and staff characteristics play a role. For example, a small school may have better student-teacher relations, better organisational trust, commitment to common goals, contacts (ibid., namely a better social climate). On the other hand, large schools may offer more curriculum, programme, classes and extracurricular options and benefit students’ learning in this respect (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005).

Although not a typical structural characteristic, the issue of different tracks (in terms of levels, i.e. academic or non-academic) provided in schools has also been examined. Traag (2012) and Traag and van der Velden (2008) found that schools’ heterogeneity in terms of the tracks they provided was a significant predictor of ESL. Students in lower secondary education who attended more heterogeneous schools (i.e. also providing a higher track of secondary education) were less at risk of ESL than their counterparts who attended a school which only provided lower secondary tracks. The risk of ESL decreased by 25%. The authors argued this may be a result of a more academic climate. This finding is supported by Lee and Burkham (2003); after accounting for student characteristics, schools with more challenging courses, fewer remedial or non-academic courses were more likely to keep students in school compared to their less ‘constrained’ counterparts. This means that offering a number of undemanding courses in high school does not keep students in schools.

In the literature review by Rumberger and Rim (2008), the effects of different indicators for physical, financial and human resources were observed. These included mean expenditures per pupil, mean teacher salaries, the student-teacher ratio, and the share of teachers with advanced degrees. Overall, relatively few studies found significant effects on ESL. Something similar was observed for students’ performance in PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS – namely, shortages of educational resources (instructional materials, computers etc.) did not affect students’ average performances greatly (Haahr, Nielsen, Hansen, & Jakobsen, 2005). Regarding class size, Finn, Gerber and Boyd-Zaharias (2005) found that 4 years of elementary school in a small class (13–17 students) increased the odds of finishing high school by 80% compared to their full-size-class (22–26 students) counterparts, where the effect was especially prominent among students from low-income homes. Small classes effect academic achievement and a student’s social behaviour (Finn, Pannozzo, & Achilles, 2003). Perhaps this effect mainly holds for Western societies because, in relation to class size, the OECD (2012) concluded that reducing class sizes is on its own an insufficient policy measure to improve the performance of education systems (after having examined 55 different countries or economies from around the globe).

School processes and practices are seen as the most promising for understanding and improving school performance and tackling ESL (e.g. teaching practices, a school climate conducive to student engagement and learning, social relationships among students, parents, teachers, and administrators). The studies differed in which specific practices were examined, and how they were measured. We separated the findings into those more related to instruction, curriculum and those more related to social and emotional aspects (i.e. climate).

Based on the literature reviews in the three articles on ESL factors (individual/family factors and system factors), it is obvious that a variety of factors and influences impact a young person’s educational pathway, including the decision to leave school. Explanations that rely solely on the characteristics of students and their families are incomplete; there is mounting evidence that schools exhibit important effects on students’ leaving or staying in school (Lee & Burkham, 2003). Schools and their characteristics, including their teachers and other school staff, can make a real difference in students’ ability to remain at school. Concerning school-level factors, relationships with the families’ microsystem are also important (i.e. the mesosystem). (Potential) ESLers often describe having experienced contradictions between cultural and familial narratives (home culture) and the institutional narratives (i.e. stories of the school – school culture and structure) as contributing to ESL (Clandinini, 2010; Patterson, Hale, & Stessman, 2007). However, guidance to schools on how to provide the necessary multi-tiered support frameworks addressing multiple ESL risk factors (rather than interventions targeting single components) and early intervention is needed (Freeman & Simonsen, 2015).

To sum up, the specific characteristics of school composition (e.g. mean SES, share of students with a minority/migrant background) were found to impact ESL, but these effects are likely confounded with other school characteristics (e.g. school practices). Something similar could be established for school size and public/private sector. The findings regarding school location (urban/rural) were inconsistent. As stated by Audas and Willms (2001), the effects of school composition and structure are important because they are the main areas attracting governmental attempts to tackle ESL; yet, understanding the impact of schools’ policies and practices on the risk of ESL is important – as these have holding power over individuals.

In relation to school practices, a mismatch between the (provision of the) curriculum and a student’s interest and aspirations was a primary factor identified by ESLers (or those at risk). Innovative delivery of the curriculum is warranted – different pedagogic approaches, including a personalised curriculum, the recognition of informal learning, the use of technology, collaborative approaches via outdoor activities, as well as teaching through arts and sports (Rogers, 2016). Embedded (into the more real-life context of other subjects) approaches to teaching Maths and the mother tongue are suggested to increase the relevance and authenticity of the subjects (ibid.). All of these characteristics were also identified in Hattie’s (2009) metaanalysis as being relevant for enhancing student learning (e.g. teachers know how to introduce new content knowledge in a way that integrates it with students’ prior knowledge, they can relate the current lesson to other subject areas, and they can adapt the lessons according to students’ needs). The findings indicate the need to strengthen teacher’s initial and continuous education in this respect.

With regard to school climate, caring, supportive and respectful teachers (and other school staff) who believed in the students’ ability to succeed at school have a significant impact on students and them staying in school. Often this does not require financial resources or time outside of the classroom; instead, students found important support or discouragement in everyday school activities and interactions. In order to better understand the roles played by schools and teachers in ESL, it is necessary to listen to the voices of the youngsters themselves. Yet, as Downes (2013a) states, such “dialogue with students arguably comes too late in the process and needs systematic expression at a range of earlier stages as part of prevention focus” (p. 346) at the European level (Downes, 2013b).