What can we learn from second-chance education programmes for adults to prevent ESL in younger generations?

In 1995, the European Commission issued the White Paper on Education and Training (Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society), with the aim to fight social exclusion in Europe (Efstathiou, 2009). Another important part of this strategy was the implementation of second-chance education programmes into educational schemata in order to address the issue of ESLrs as a group of socially excluded individuals. When the second-chance school scheme began in the EU context, second-chance education programmes were reflecting the belief of many experts and policy-makers that ESLrs should not be brought back to ’the place of failure’ and that one should think more in terms of job creation, vocational training and social care when attempting to help this target group.

Second-chance education programmes were, as a strategic approach involving schools, wider community agents and employers, further elaborated in 2006 and 2007 through the European Parliament’s Lifelong Learning Action Programme and the European Commission’s Action Plan on Adult Learning. These programmes provided the statutory and fiscal support to institutions participating in fighting against ESLrs’ segregation by offering them the opportunity to re-engage in education (European Commission, 2001; European Council, 2003; European Parliament, 2006; University of Florence, 2010).

Second-chance education is based on the idea that, through an accessible, non-selective, effective and organised educational structure, an individual can actualise an educational opportunity they missed or failed when enrolled in mainstream education for the first time (European Commission, 2001; Inbar & Sever, 1989; Shavit, Ayalon, & Kurleander, 2001).

Second-chance education programmes are today widespread in different countries around the world, but are most systematically researched and reported in Europe, the U.S.A. and Australia. They are referred to in various ways (e.g. flexible learning centres, second-chance schools, alternative schools, second-chance community, youth coaching programmes, evening schools, transfer schools etc.) and enrol different target groups. They can enrol students who are still involved in mainstream education but are at risk of not attaining any qualifications [1] from the secondary education level (lower or upper), young people above the age of 15 not currently in education, employment or training, as well as individuals regardless of age, those already employed and who require special educational support in order to achieve a certain education level. As such, second-chance education programmes can entail ESL prevention and compensation for educational qualifications, from basic education to higher secondary education, up to continuing tertiary education (opening up cross-over points between the secondary and tertiary sectors). However, all of them aim to include individuals who are disadvantaged from an educational point of view, in labour market terms, socially and also culturally, and promote education as a means to keep or reintegrate individuals into the education and training system (Bills, Cook, & Giles, 2015; Bloom, 2010; Efstathiou, 2009; Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011; McGregora, Mills, Riele, & Hayes, 2015; ROBIN project, 2016).

In its report on implementation of the Second Chance Education Pilot Project, the European Commission (2001) concluded that 94% of investigated ESLrs from 11 European countries could be rescued in a second-chance education scheme. This means that ESLrs are not necessarily lost to the education system in the first place. Accordingly, another important question emerges: could the approach to education used in second-chance education prevent ESL already during the ’first chance’ (European Commission, 2001)?

In the following article, we examine different second-chance education practices and project reports in order to: define the main principles of second-chance education programmes and, most importantly, present aspects of second-chance education programmes that could benefit mainstream education in order to prevent ESL already in the early years.

Since the literature on second-chance education programmes in connection to ESL is wide and versatile, in addressing the topic we first conducted a search for policy frameworks and definitions, followed by a review of project reports carried out on the international (e.g. reports of the European Commission and European Council) and national levels. For a better review, we classified the projects according to region (European and non-European projects), target group and aims. Since the project reports are usually widely accessible, we first searched for the results online, followed by a search of the scientific EBSCOhost online research databases (Academic Search Complete, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX with full-text databases). The main keywords initially used in both cases were: second-chance education, second-chance education projects, second-chance education approach to ESL, second-chance education principles and second-chance programmes and ESL prevention/compensation. We also examined references cited in the project reports and the described implemental practices in different countries, and reviewed articles. Texts taken into account had to address second-chance education implementation, lessons learned from implementations, second-chance practices, principles, the use of those principles in mainstream education, and the use of second-chance approaches in preventing ESL.

Cartier and associates (Cartier, Langevin, & Robert, 2011) found that about 71% of American students who drop out of school admit they wish to return. Research also indicates that many students who drop out of high school are academically capable of finishing high school if given the right type of educational choices (Franklin & Streeter, 1992, 1995; Franklin et al., 2007). Second-chance education programmes are designed in a way to offer such a choice.

As mentioned in the introduction, second-chance education programmes can enrol different age groups of individuals and can vary according to the content. Their main purpose is to offer a second chance to attain educational qualifications to educationally, socially and culturally disadvantaged individuals who are at risk or have already left mainstream education for various reasons. In this section, we present the main principles of second-chance education programmes we identified in our review of second-chance education project reports, summaries, meta-analyses and case studies (e.g. Black, Polidano, & Tseng, 2012; Efstathiou, 2009; European Commission, 2001, 2013; McFadden, 1996; McGregora et al., 2015; ROBIN project, 2016; Ross & Gray, 2005): the student-centred approach to learning, the socio-emotional development of participants, supportive teacher-student relationships, a supportive learning environment, interactive teaching methods, and cooperation with the local environment. As evident from main descriptions in the next section, at some points it is hard to describe a given principle as completely separate from other principles. Since they together form a process, i.e. a specific approach to teaching and learning, and since they are mutually and tightly connected, at times their descriptions overlap.

Different authors (e.g. Black et al., 2012; Hill & Jepsen, 2007) state that, despite many good studies of practices, little systematic research and evidence examines the engagement of ESLrs in second-chance education programmes on the national level. In their studies, they confirmed that the time of an individual’s re-engagement with study is an important point when considering ESL. For youth, the rates of re-engagement were strongly falling during the period since they left school, with the highest rates of re-engagement being in the first year out, after which they dropped dramatically up until year 4. Such findings point to the importance of the early re-engagement of ESLrs in education and therefore the availability of second-chance education programmes that enable and encourage such inclusion. Further, it is important to encourage the integration of second-chance education principles already in mainstream education in order to prevent ESL.

In our review of the practices of second-chance education programmes and projects (e.g. Boronia second-chance school from Australia, Eumoschool from Italy, EU national reports form second-chance education in Greece, Austria, Italy and Romania, LION 28 from Italy, PROSA from Austria, U.S. Big Picture Learning School, U.S. Opportunity House and Youth Chance High School etc.), we identified that the common main approaches to teaching and learning which distinguish them from mainstream education derive from their student-centred approach to learning, socio-emotional support of students during the process, the creating of supportive teacher-student relationships and a supportive learning environment, the use of interactive teaching methods and connection to wider community experts and organisations. Our findings are in line with one of the most systematic and extensive reviews of second-chance education in European countries (European Commission, 2013) whose aim was to shape second-chance education-based directions for teachers in mainstream education so as to help prevent ESL already in the early stages. Their practical implications for preventing ESL in mainstream schools are specific (see Figure 1) and encompass a multiprofessional approach to at-risk students (e.g. early career guidance and work experience, health and emotional support, involvement of social care institutions and cultural organisations), an inclusive school climate (e.g. student involvement in making decisions, small class sizes, development of positive relationships with their peers, teachers and staff), flexible curricula (e.g. focusing on learners’ strengths, empowering to take ownership of personal learning, providing opportunities for work experience, introducing arts and sports), stimulating learning environments (e.g. a safe and stimulating environment, opportunities to socialise, flexibility in organising the day), personalised learning (e.g. individual attention, availability of a counsellors), social and emotional support (e.g. acknowledgement of the complex personal situations of at-risk students), and adaptable assessment and progression (e.g. different objectives – recognition of achievements related to personal development, motivation, engagement, and integration into employment). The European Commission (2013) concludes that, as such, second-chance education programmes provide a good example of how to build confidence and motivation in mainstream education for learners at the highest end of the ESL ‘risk’ spectrum and therefore serve as effective ESL prevention.

Figure 2. Implications for mainstream education in order to prevent ESL in early stages

According to our review of second-chance education practices, we may conclude that there are two primary forms of second-chance education programme implementation: Their principles can be implemented within mainstream education and thus serve at-risk students or can be implemented as part of a flexible, non-linear education system and address students who have already left mainstream education. Although there is much space for further systematic research, especially in the area of implementing second-chance education practices in mainstream education, so far the existing research results (e.g. Bills et al., 2015; Black et al., 2012; Efstathiou, 2009; European 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 reducing 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 efficient, fiscal- and system-level changes are needed. They state that educational 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 therefore necessary to develop multiple educational pathways for youth. Some ESLrs have the interest and capacity to move into postsecondary programmes, others would do better in occupationally oriented programmes and would benefit from early working experience and contact with employers, and still others need special approaches tailored to young people with very low levels of basic skills. Such a flexible approach would also decrease the funding problems of second-chance education programmes, another problematic area of second education programmes identified by the European Commission (2001, 2013). By integrating the principles of second-chance education into mainstream education and thereby lowering ESL levels, second-chance education would not be required to such an extent and national education systems would then benefit from lower extra costs. Integration of the second-chance education principle into mainstream education could therefore yield many positive effects not only for potential ESLrs (academic development and personal growth), and teachers (professional growth), but also schools and the community as a whole (better social cohesion and lower costs).