squaring the circle report - maynooth...

S Q U A R I N G T H E C I R C L E

An analysis of programmes in Dublin schools

to prevent early school leaving.

With recommendations for

effective best practice

by

Ted Fleming and Mark Murphy

National University of Ireland Maynooth

iDublin Employment Pact, 7 North Great George’s Street, Dublin 1.Tel: +353-1-8788900 Fax: +353-1-8788711 Email: [email protected] Website: www.dra.ie/dublinpact

Policy Paper No. 3© Dublin Employment Pact, 2000

SQUARING THE CIRCLEii

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Page

Preface vAcknowledgements viiAbbreviations viii

Introduction 1Introduction 2Organisations Involved in Report 2Aims and Objectives of Study 2Methodology 3Limitations of Study 3Outline of Report 3

1. The Policy Context of Preventative Education in Ireland 5Introduction 6The Nature and Scale of Early School-leaving 6Profile of Early School-leavers 7National Policy on Preventative Education 9Conclusion 14

2. A Description of Early School-leaving Measures in Dublin 15Introduction 16Department of Education and Science Measures 16Other National Measures 20Local Measures 22Discussion and Conclusion 26

3. Early School-leaving: Identifying Elements of a Model for Best Practice 29

Introduction 30Human Resources 30Material Resources 32Internal Organisation 33External Organisation 35Conclusion 36

Conclusion and Recommendations 37Summary 38Discussion 39Recommendations 42

Bibliography 44

CONTENTS

iii

CONTENTS

Appendices

Appendix AList of Organisations Contacted 50

Appendix BList of Preventative Education Measures Included in Report 51

Appendix CEducation at a Glance – OECD Education Indicators 1998 52

Appendix DCensus Data for Dublin Partnership Areas 59

Appendix EDepartment of Education and Science Measures to Tackle Educational Disadvantage 62

Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1.1 Integrated services – lessons from overseas 13

Table 2.1 An outline of assumptions behind early school-leaving measures in Dublin 28

Table 3.1 Early school-leaving: elements of a model for best practice 30

Table C.1Distribution of the population 25 to 64 years of age by level of educational attainment (1996) 53

Table C.2Number of people at the age of basic, upper secondary and tertiary education as a percentage of the total population (1996) and projected size of population 54

Table C.3Expenditure per student (US dollars converted using PPPs) on public and private institutions by level of education (based on full-time equivalents) (1995) 55

Table C.4Ratio of students to teaching staff by level of education (calculations based on full-time equivalents) (1996) 56

Table C.5School expectancy (1990, 1996) and index of change in enrolment (1990=100, 1996, 2005 [projected], 2015 [projected]) 57

Table C.6Unemployment rates of youth by level of educational attainment and age group (1996) 58

Table D.1Summary of Census data for Clondalkin Area Partnership Company 60

Table D.2Percentage who left school at or before 15 years of age and percentage with no formal education or with primary only by Partnership area 61

Table D.3Percentage who remained in education beyond 20 years of age and Percentage of the population aged 15 and over whose full-time education has ceased and who went to third level by Partnership area 61

Figures

Figure 1.1Early school-leaving – Dublin and national figures 7

Figure 1.2Educational attainment – international comparisons 8

Figure 4.1 Elements of a model for best practice in preventative education 45

SQUARING THE CIRCLEiv

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

THE DUBLIN EMPLOYMENT PACT represents a very broad range of interests acrossthe Dublin Region. Its aim is to promote practical solutions and recommendationsregarding unemployment (particularly long-term unemployment), future sustainable

employment policy and the economic growth and development of the Dublin Region.

The Pact recognises the key role of educational disadvantage in the continuing problems oflong-term unemployment, social exclusion and skills deficits in the labour force in Dublin.The Focus Group on Youth Employment and Education established by the Pact decided thatthere was a critical need for an in-depth examination of the wide range of interventions andpilot projects implemented in Dublin to tackle early school-leaving. Such a study needed toestablish the nature, aims and achievements of these diverse interventions and establish clearand coherent parameters for future policy development in this area.

Disadvantaged communities in Dublin in particular have been affected by very high rates ofearly school-leaving, which is known to be a key adverse factor in the life chances of youngpeople. Tackling this issue is now a major priority of government policy, which includesambitious national targets for increased retention rates at school. A very large range of qualityinterventions have been developed and tried, both by the Department of Education andScience and also by youth organisations, schools, other statutory and voluntary agencies andPartnership companies at the local level. Many of these, however, have remained as localpilots, sometimes even in competition for funding. The very diversity, range and unevenspread of these interventions has possibly prevented a coherent overview of their individualand combined effect.

The Pact therefore commissioned Dr Ted Fleming and Dr Mark Murphy of the NationalUniversity of Ireland, Maynooth, to examine the nature and structure of the diversepreventative education projects in Dublin and to produce recommendations towardsestablishing models of best practice.

Based on a detailed examination of existing reports and evaluations, the study establishesthat interventions tend to be based on one or more of a range of specific assumptions, viz.that the cause of early school leaving lies primarily with either the individual, the parents, thelocal community, the school or with society. The underlying assumption of a givenintervention necessarily influences the intervention. Where the individual child is the focus,programmes will be aimed at enhancing social skills and developing self-esteem. Where theschool is the focus, programmes will tend to concentrate on resources, training and syllabus,and where the family is the focus, programmes will concentrate on homework facilities,breakfast provision and parent support.

The researchers introduce the concept of the overall ‘capital context’ of early school-leaving,involving personal, social, cultural and economic factors. Each type of capital plays a role indeciding whether or not a child stays on at school. They stress that all of these capitalelements must be included in any interventionist programme and to omit any one of themfragments and reduces the effectiveness of the response.

The researchers further suggest that, given the strong correlation between socio-economicbackground and early school leaving, policy must be directed as much towards inequalities insociety as towards schools, districts, parents and pupils. In tackling educational disadvantageit is essential that a level playing field be established with access by all children to the key

PREFACE

v

PREFACE

forms of capital.

In proposing a model of best practice applicable to all programmes of intervention, theycategorise the main components of an integrated response. This must include both adequatehuman and material resources as well as close attention to how projects are organisedinternally and externally – i.e. including the involvement of parents, students and thecommunity.

The study concludes with a range of recommendations regarding this model of best practicewhich, if implemented, will provide a sound basis for achieving a solution to the core issue ofearly school-leaving.

This is an excellent and challenging report and it warrants close examination and debate byall the major stakeholders.

Philip O’Connor Catherine DurkinDirector Youth Employment and Education Focus Group

Dublin Employment Pact Dublin Employment Pact

Members of the Youth Employment and Education Focus Group:

Catherine Durkin (Blanchardstown Partnership), John Dunne (South Dublin Chamber of Commerce), Margaret Kelly (Dept.

Education and Science), Michael Doyle (School Attendance Service), Brian Flemming (Collinstown Park Community College),

Bernadette Reilly (City of Dublin VEC), Michael Cummiskey (Dublin Docklands Development Authority), Gus O’Connell (FAS),

Jerry Kelleher (Dept. Taoiseach), Margaret Maher (Clondalkin Partnership), Helen Campbell (National Youth Council), Nollag

Hanaway (Community Enterprise Ltd.), Michael Bowe (Finglas-Cabra Partnership), Tommy Fitzsimmons (SIPTU), Jacinta

Conroy (National Youth Federation), Doreen McDonnell (Dublin LEADER Co.), Frank Murphy CSM (Parish of the Travelling

People), Pat Coughlan (City of Dublin VEC), Carmel Corrigan (Combat Poverty Agency), Sr Therese McCormac (C.O.R.I.), Rita

Clifford (Ballyfermot Senior College),

SQUARING THE CIRCLEvi

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

In putting together this report the authors depended heavily on the goodwill and supportof a great number of people, who made crucial contributions with great generosity. Wefound them always busy and over-worked (maybe this is another study) but never too busy

to contribute further. This is a thank you to them and an acknowledgement of their courtesy,professionalism and generosity.

The members of the Youth Employment and Education Focus Group of Dublin EmploymentPact were central to the gathering of information. In particular Margaret Kelly (Departmentof Education and Science), Catherine Durkin (Blanchardstown Partnership), Brian Flemming(Collinstown Park Community College), Frank Murphy (Parish of the Travelling People),Michael Doyle (School Attendance Service), Margaret Maher (Clondalkin Partnership) andPhilip O’Connor (Dublin Employment Pact) were major supports and constructive readers ofthe draft report.

We also appreciate the contributions of Maeve Butler (Foroige), Bernie Judge and JuneSimmons (ADM), Emma Kiernan (BITE), Tom Leonard (Ballymun Partnership), BridinGilroy (Ballyfermot Partnership), Barry Cullen (Children’s Research Centre), Kate Byrne(CARA), Grainne Lord (Canal Communities Partnership), Dave McGill (School BusinessPartnership), Bernadette Sproule (Dublin Inner City Partnership), Tony Tyrell (EuropeanSocial Fund, Evaluation Unit), Zara Rogers (Finglas/Cabra Partnership), Fran Bissett(National Youth Federation), Eamonn Waers (National Youth Council), Emer Cullen(Patrician College), Martha Giblin (CHOICES), Deirdre Keyes (Southside Partnership),Caroline Lynch (Tallaght Partnership), Caroline Hope (Tallaght Youth Services), Angie Daley(Killinarden Education Network), Sharon Cosgrove (URBAN), Kathleen O’Toole (JETS),Paula Heenan (BEST), Anne Murphy (Youth Support and Training Unit), Maeve O’Brien andScott Boldt (Marino Institute), Julie Howley and Carmel Corrigan, Grainne Doyle (IntegratedServices Process), Theresa McCormack (CORI) and Brendan Devine (ETC Consultants).

Ted Fleming

Mark Murphy

National University of Ireland MaynoothMay 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

ADM Area Development Management

BTC Breaking the Cycle

CDU Curriculum Development Unit

CSO Central Statistics Office

ESF European Social Fund

ESRI Economic and Social Research Institute

HSCL Home School Community Liaison

JCSP Junior Certificate School Programme

LCVP Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme

LCA Leaving Certificate Applied

NAPS National Anti-Poverty Strategy

NESF National Economic and Social Forum

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OPLURD Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development

SIS Stay in School

SQUARING THE CIRCLEviii

SQUARING THE CIRCLE 1

Introduction

Introduction

Organisations in volved in the Report

Aims and objectives of the Study

Methodology

Limitations of the Study

Outline of the Report

MUCH has been written on educationaldisadvantage, early school-leavingand social inclusion. Focus groups,

INTRODUCTION

THIS study was commissioned by theDublin Employment Pact in 1999 toexamine the nature and function of

current preventative education measures inDublin. Over the last number of years earlyschool-leaving has risen to the top of thesocial policy agenda in Ireland. Thosefamiliar with the workings of schools,statutory agencies and community groupswill have noticed the recent shift fromprovision for those who have left schoolearly, to preventing students leaving schoolearly. There is widespread recognition thatsuch pro-active measures are essential in theefforts to reduce educational disadvantageand social exclusion. As ADM (1999a: 7) putit, there is an

increasing recognition of the need tocounter educational disadvantage inIreland, and to develop strategies andmeasures which will retain more youngpeople within the formal education systemfor a longer period of time.

Policy on educational disadvantage andsocial inclusion provides the context for theimportance placed on early school-leaving.The most obvious manifestation ofeducational disadvantage “is the number ofyoung people who leave school early and/orwithout any effective educationalqualifications” (ADM, 1999a: 7).

There is certainly a great deal of impetusbehind government proposals to deal withthe issue. One of the objectives of theNational Anti-Poverty Strategy (1997) is to“eliminate the problem of early school-leaving before the Junior Certificate suchthat the percentage of those completing thesenior cycle will increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000 and 98 per cent by theyear 2007.” This recommendation followedon from the White Paper on Education(1995), which included the objective ofmeeting retention rates of 90 per cent by theyear 2000. Also, the National Economic andSocial Forum (1997: 3) argues that earlyschool-leaving, along with youth unemploy-

ment, are “among the most serious socialand economic problems which this statemust address.”

The present study aims to add to this debateabout early school-leaving by contributingto the knowledge of preventative educationmeasures and models of best practice. Itsurveys the existing reviews of measuresoperated by a range of organisations – theDepartment of Education and Science,other statutory agencies, schools, youthorganisations, community groups and area-based partnerships, to name some of themain players. It provides additional relevantknowledge to an already extensive literatureon early school-leaving and educationaldisadvantage.

ORGANISATIONS INVOLVEDIN THIS REPORT

The Youth Unemployment and EducationFocus Group of the Dublin EmploymentPact state that their mission is,

to harness the collective competencies of thevarious parties to the Dublin EmploymentPact to tackle the related issues of earlyschool-leaving and youth unemployment inthe greater Dublin region on an effective,integrated basis.

The Centre for Adult and CommunityEducation at the National University ofIreland, Maynooth has joined with theDublin Employment Pact in researchingand writing this report.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE STUDY

Aim:

The aim of the study is to examine thenature and structures of preventativeeducation measures in Dublin in order tomake recommendations regarding modelsof best practice.

SQUARING THE CIRCLE2

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Objectives:

❑ To examine the policy contextwithin which preventative measureshave developed nationally.

❑ To outline the different preventativemeasures existing in Dublin, theirobjectives and their successes andfailures as reviewed in the literature,reports and evaluations.

❑ To use the discussions of bothpolicy and practice and makerecommendations in relation todeveloping models of best practicein preventative education.

METHODOLOGY

The findings of this study are based on theavailable documentation produced byDublin-based preventative educationmeasures. Evaluations, interim reports,proposals, progress reports to funders, andother useful written material were gatheredfor the purpose of this review. In this regard,organisations deemed likely to be involvedin the provision of preventative educationwere contacted to establish whether theyhad developed specific measures and, if so,whether documentation in any form wasavailable on them (See Appendix A for a listof organisations contacted). Youthorganisations, Area-Based Partnerships,Government Departments and agencies,and other miscellaneous bodies werecontacted in this regard. The model of bestpractice is based on the collation of thefindings of these reports. (See Appendix Bfor the list of preventative educationmeasures included in the study).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study is based on the written work ofpractitioners and researchers. As a result, themain limitation of the present work is that itdoes not involve primary research. Itconsists of a documentary analysis of

already existing material and relies on theinformation detailed in sundry reports. Theproblem with this approach is that nosystematic approach to evaluations ofpreventative education measures exists. As aresult, it is difficult to compare approachesin terms of their effectiveness. This isparticularly the case when comparing localto national approaches.

Even within each sphere, identifyingelements of best practice can be a vagueexercise, given that many evaluations andreports are produced on an ad-hoc basis andare carried out at the request of fundingagencies or other organisations. Also, manyof the reviews and evaluations examine themerits of programmes on the basis of themission statements of the organisationsinvolved. The criteria for identifying bestpractice (if these exist at all) thus tend to beparticular to the organisation and not basedon objective criteria. This factor again makesit difficult to arrive at an overall model.What is presented is a very general andtentative outline of a model for bestpractice. These limitations must be takeninto account in assessing the usefulness ofthis report.

OUTLINE OF THE REPORT

Section One outlines the policy context ofearly school-leaving, preventative educationand educational disadvantage. We examinethe nature and scale of early school-leavingboth nationally and in the Dublin area.Included is a profile of early school-leavers,their gender and class characteristics. Theoutline of policy refers to the White Paperson Education and Early ChildhoodEducation, the Education (Welfare) Bill, theNational Anti-Poverty Strategy, theProgramme for Prosperity and Fairness, etc.There is a special emphasis in this section onthe integration of services, which hasbecome the buzzword in both the policyarena and the field itself.

INTRODUCTION

3

SECTION ONE: THE POLICY CONTEXT OF PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION IN IRELAND

Section Two outlines the different types ofpreventative education measures currentlybeing implemented in Dublin. The majordistinction is between national and localmeasures, with the main player in the firstcategory being the Department ofEducation and Science while the Area-BasedPartnerships are now playing a major role inthe second category. The first categoryincludes the Home School CommunityLiaison Scheme (HSCL), Breaking the Cycleand Early Start, while the second categoryincludes such colourful monikers as JETS,APPLE, CHOICES and CLOVER. Thisoutline is not comprehensive andprincipally identifies those projects forwhich reports and evaluations have beenprinted or published.

Section Three summarises our survey of thereports and evaluations of these measuresand outlines a number of elements that havebeen identified in the literature ascontributing to a model for best practice.We emphasise, in particular, the importanceof inter-personal and inter-agency issues inthe delivery of successful preventativeeducation.

The Conclusions and RecommendationsSection provides a summary of the report,and sets out recommendations for thedevelopment of models of best practice inearly school-leaving and preventativeeducation programmes.

A series of Appendices provides a range ofsupportive information and data. The mostimportant is Appendix C, an extract fromOECD Education Indicators, which puts aselect number of issues in a global context.Appendix D is useful in providing a morelocal set of information based on theBaseline Data Reports for the DublinPartnership Areas prepared from the 1996Census.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

SECTION ONE

The Policy Context ofPreventative Education in Ireland

Introduction

The Nature and Scale of Early School-leaving

Profile of Early School-leavers

National Policy on Preventative Education

Conclusion

5


INTRODUCTION

M UCH has been written oneducational disadvantage, earlyschool-leaving and social

inclusion. Focus groups, EU initiatives,state-run programmes, national policydocuments and local reports - all have addedto the debate on early school-leaving and thebest ways in which it might be addressed.The purpose of this section is to sift throughthis large quantity of policy and advocacywork, in an effort to lay the basis for adiscussion of existing provision.

In this section, the following issues areexamined:

❑ The nature and scale of early school-leaving

❑ Profile of early school-leavers❑ National policy on preventative education

THE NATURE AND SCALE OF

EARLY SCHOOL-LEAVING

The National Situation

There is an acknowledgement in theliterature on educational disadvantage thatIreland is not in a disastrous situation. AsRourke (1994: 7) pointed out, “the level ofeducational failure in Ireland is notnoticeably higher than in other Europeancountries.” The 1998 ESRI Annual School-leavers Survey (of 1996/97 leavers) showsthat the percentage leaving school with noqualifications has fallen from 6.9 per cent(1986) to 3.5 per cent (1998). However, theoverall retention rate, calculated using ESRIdata on Leaving Certificate leavers as aproportion of overall 1996/1997 leavers, is81 per cent, the same as that for the previoustwo years.1

The main figure quoted regarding earlyschool-leaving is that provided by the 1996ESF study. It stated that 15,000 studentsleave every year before they complete theLeaving Certificate. The NESF report from1997 provides other figures for 1993-1995,which break down the overall figures asfollows:

❑ Up to 1,000 did not progress to second-level school at all

❑ 3,000 left second-level school with noqualifications

❑ 7,600 left school having completed theJunior Certificate only; of which 2,400failed to achieve 5 passes in the JuniorCertificate

❑ 2,600 young people left school havingcompleted the Junior Certificate and anAPT only

❑ Around 7,000 did not achieve 5 passes inthe Leaving Certificate exam (NESF, 1997:39).

This is an improvement on the 1976 figures,where only 60 per cent completed theLeaving Certificate (ADM, 1999a: 8). Thefigure has been steadily improving. AsDevine (1998: 5) puts it,

surveys by the Department of Labour andthe Economic and Social Research Institutethroughout the 1980s and the 1990sindicate that more students are remainingin school and that the rate of participationin full-time education has been steadilyimproving.

Early School-leaving in Dublin

There is, however, a long history and cultureof early school-leaving in Ireland. Twentyfour per cent of the adult population leftschool before 15 years of age, and 35 percent left before the age of 16 (CSO, 1998:21). One in five people in the labour force isonly educated to Primary level. The Dublinregion has a population over 15 years of ageof 825,000 and almost 100,000 of these left


1 In the 1996/97 year, 3.5 per cent (2,500) left with no qualifications, while 15.5 per cent(10,800) left with either the Group Certificate or Junior Cycle, but no Leaving Certificate.Nationally, there were 69,700 school-leavers in the 1996-1997 year.

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

school at 16 years or under (CSO, 1998: 38). How does Dublin compare with the rest ofthe country? Data compiled by Gammafrom the 1996 Census suggest that Dublinfares far worse as regards its history of earlyschool-leaving (See Figure 1.1). 45 per centof the Dublin region population left schoolat or before 15 years of age, compared to 35per cent nationally. The localised nature ofthe pattern is clear: in some areas the figuredrops to below 7 per cent but in the poorestareas it can rise to 70 per cent. In particular,the designated disadvantaged areas inDublin have serious levels of early school-leaving. 43 of the 100 most disadvantagedDistrict Electoral Divisions (DEDs) in theRepublic are located in Dublin, and of the223 DEDs in the Partnership Areas inDublin, 54 (or 25%) — twice the national rate— are among the poorest ten percent ofDEDs.

International Comparisons

Education indicators in other OECDcountries put early school-leaving andrelated issues in a wider context (See Figure1.2). Without having detailed comparativefigures for early school-leaving, othercomparisons indicate the relative position ofthe Irish educational system compared toother countries. Fifty percent of the Irishadult population between the ages 25-64 left

school early, i.e. before upper secondarylevel. This compares with the United Stateswith only 14 per cent and Norway with only18 per cent leaving school before uppersecondary level. Only six other countries2

are worse off than Ireland (See Appendix Cfor more information on the OECDIndicators).

PROFILE OF EARLY

SCHOOL-LEAVERS

Socio-Economic Background of Early School-leavers

But if the figures have improved over theyears, why is there so much attention paid toearly school-leaving? As Boldt and Devinepoint out (1998: 13), while the percentage ofearly school-leavers has decreasedsignificantly over the last 15 years, “theproblem persists.” The persistence of theproblem is on a scale that means that itcontinues to impact to a major extent on thefutures of those who leave school early.

The consequences of educational failure havebecome more serious over time, those withoutqualifications – drawn mostly from lowerworking class backgrounds – being more andmore limited to unskilled manual occupationsat high risk of unemployment. . . . A prioritymust be to address the needs of this particularlydisadvantaged group. (Nolan and Callan,1994: 318, quoted in Devine, 1998: 5)

According to the NESF report (1997: 25),“there also appears to be a much higher rateof turnover among the least qualified, withmuch lower probabilities of getting a securelong-term job.”


7

2 Turkey (83 per cent, Spain (70 per cent), Portugal (80 per cent), Luxembourg (71 per cent),Italy, 62 per cent) and Greece (56 per cent). See Appendix C, Table C.1 for more detail.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BlackrockNationalDublinCherry Orchard

70

49

35

7

Percentage of population who left school at or before 15 years of age

area

per c

ent

Figure 1.1: Early school-leaving, Dublin and National figures

(Source: ADM (1998) Baseline data report. Dublin: Gamma)


According to the 1998 early school-leaverssurvey (McCoy et al, 1999), 54 per cent ofschool-leavers with no qualifications remainunemployed. This falls to 21 per cent forthose with a Junior Certificate. Theemployment rates are equally revealing.Forty percent of those leaving in 1996-1997with no qualifications were employed and76 per cent of those leaving with a JuniorCertificate were employed.

One striking characteristic of early school-leavers is their socio-economic background.According to the ESF evaluation report(1996: 9), 85 per cent of early school-leaverscome from working class or small farmingbackgrounds.3 Socio-economic statuscontinues to exert a strong influence onboth educational participation and jobprospects. Over 60 per cent of childrenwhose fathers belonged to higher/lowerprofessional groups were students ascompared with 17 per cent of those whosefathers are unemployed. Thirty per cent ofthose whose fathers are unemployed areunemployed themselves, compared with 5per cent of those whose fathers belonged to

the higher/lower professional category(McCoy et al, 1998). These findings are inagreement with O’Sullivan (1999, p. 15).

Gender factors

Gender also constitutes a significantvariable. A higher proportion of boys leaveschool early with no qualifications (64 percent male, 36 per cent female). Employmentis 16 per cent lower for girls, at least partlydue to higher female educationalparticipation, and a higher proportion ofgirls being ‘unavailable for work’ (McCoy etal, 1999).

Geographical concentrations

There appears to be a certain amount ofconfusion regarding the influence ofgeography on early school-leaving. Hannan(1986) found that early school-leaving wasmost prevalent in large cities, in the Ulstercounties and Co. Louth. He also pointed outthat certain schools were more affected thanothers. A recent City of Dublin VEC studyconfirms this (O’Sullivan, 1999: 6).

Early school-leaving is quite prevalent incertain kinds of schools – those that catermainly for working-class children, orchildren from small farms or from familiesof unemployed manual workers, voca-tional schools and schools in which thepoorly educated are selectively concen-trated. (Hannan, 1986: 85)

The Gamma analysis of the 1996 Censusdata (ADM, 1998) suggests that earlyschool-leaving is correlated with specificlocations — those scoring lowest on thedeprivation index (See Appendix D for anexamination of these findings). Boldt andDevine, however, argue that it would beincorrect to see it as a problem only forcertain areas. It could also be argued thatseeing it as a problem for certain schools in


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Port

ugal

Spain

Italy

Irela

nd

Austr

alia

France

Denm

ark

Sw

eden

Unit

ed K

ingdom

Germ

any

US

A

1419

24 2634

40 4350

6270

80

Percentage of population that attained lower secondary education only

country

per c

ent

Figure 1.2: Educational attainment – international comparisons

(Source: OECD (1998) Education at a glance – Education indicators 1998.Paris: OICD)

3 This correlation has been recognised for some time. Breen (1984) found that a largepercentage of early school-leavers had fathers who were unemployed or did not have steadyjobs. Also in this regard, the Sexton et al (1988: 20) study found that “no less than 46 percent of (unskilled manual workers’) children leave school without having attained anyqualifications” (quoted in Boldt and Devine, 1998: 17).

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

particular geographical areas might bemissing the main point: that early school-leaving is heavily correlated with socio-economic background.

This is an issue identified as significant inthe ESF (1996) evaluation of early school-leaving provision. The report indicates thatthe Irish education system is not doingenough to ensure opportunities for childrenof working-class backgrounds.

The level of representation of students oflower socio-economic status at second levelsenior cycle and third level education,betrays the relative inefficacy of theeducation system to counter the economicand social disadvantage of many of itsclients to date and its failure to adapt itselfto the requirements of all of its clientele,particularly those from backgrounds whichare not traditionally associated with anextended stay in education. (Summary Report, ESF, 1996: 2)

Early school-leaving is not purely an urbanphenomenon, and Rourke (1994: 8) goes sofar as to say that “the problems faced bydisadvantaged young people in rural areasare often more extreme than those of theirurban counterparts.” The problem of earlyschool-leaving is replicated in towns andrural areas but the life experience and familybackground varies between town andcountry (Fleming and Kenny, 1998: 12).Nevertheless, Dublin does have “the greatestconcentration of disadvantage” (Kellaghanet al, 1995: 47-48). Dublin, in fact, receivesthe most support from the Department ofEducation and Science’s Scheme ofAssistance to Schools in Designated Areas ofDisadvantage.

NATIONAL POLICY ON

PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION

Early school-leaving, as a manifestation ofeducational disadvantage, has become apriority in national policy over the last 15

years. Successive Ministers for Educationhave prioritised measures to counteracteducational disadvantage – reflected in thedevelopment of such programmes as theHome School Community Liaison Scheme,Breaking the Cycle, Early Start and the 8-15Early School-leavers Initiative. In June 1999Minister for Education Micheál Martinannounced that he would allocateadditional resources to tackle early school-leaving, and in so doing provide continuityto the priority placed on preventativeeducation. These resources, in the form of£4.5m (Stay in School Initiative), aredesigned to empower schools to tackle theproblem themselves (DES, June 1999).According to the Minister, “not finishingschool is the most significant cause ofkeeping people caught in cycles of disadvan-tage and it must be a key national priority toradically address this problem.”

More importantly, the Department hasannounced that £5.3bn under the NationalDevelopment Plan is earmarked for edu-cation. Of this, approximately £440m is tobe provided for initiatives designed tocombat educational disadvantage. Accord-ing to the press release (DES, November1999), this constitutes an “unprecedentedunderpinning and expansion of program-mes across the next 7 years.”

The New Deal – A Plan for EducationalOpportunity makes available £194m, and“involves every level of the education system,including pre-school and adult literacy andwill also provide the funding for a completerevision of targeted disadvantaged schools”(DES, December 1999).

The April 1999 publication of the Education(Welfare) Bill contributed to the policycontext of early school-leaving. According tothe Minister (DES, April, 1999: 8), the Billprovides a new and structured approach toschool attendance issues. In this regard, it

❑ Recognises the complexity of the issuessurrounding and determining schoolnon-attendance and early school-leaving.


9


❑ Takes a pro-active rather than reactiveapproach to dealing with these issues.

❑ Seeks to promote positive attitudes toschool attendance rather than merelysanction poor school attendance.

The overall aim of the Bill is to encourageyoung people to remain in the educationsystem. Measures such as the raising of theschool-leaving age to 16 (or completion ofthree years post-primary education) and theestablishment of a National EducationWelfare Board are designed with this inmind.

4

Although it does not focus specifically oncombating early school-leaving, the WhitePaper on Early Childhood Education, Readyto Learn, (DES, 2000), places heavy emphasison educational disadvantage. The principalobjective of Government policy in regard toearly childhood education, as outlined inthe White Paper, is

to support the development andeducational achievement of childrenthrough high quality early education, withparticular focus on the target groups of thedisadvantaged and those with special needs.(DES, 2000)

Early interventions are viewed as essential interms of later behaviour and development.

The nature of the opportunities and thesupports provided for a child’s developmentduring the formative period, and thequality of the educational experiences overthis period, can have a far-reaching effect onthe individual’s long-term developmentand prospects. (DES, 2000)

An emphasis on tackling educationaldisadvantage has also featured in variousprogrammes for Government and in theNational Agreements between socialpartners. Partnership 2000, for example,

lists the following objectives as top priority:

❑ Breaking the inter-generational cycle ofpoverty and disadvantage.

❑ Increasing retention rates andcompletion rates in primary and secondlevel education.

❑ Mainstreaming of good practice fromprogrammes like EU Youthstart.

❑ Addressing the requirements of childrenwith special needs.

❑ Providing a continuum of education foradults and community groups including‘second chance’ education.

The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness(2000: 106) proposes to “eliminateunqualified early school-leaving … andsignificantly increase school completion toupper second level.” One of the objectives ofthe National Anti-Poverty Strategy is “toeliminate the problem of early school-leaving before the Junior Certificate andreduce early school-leaving such that thepercentage of those completing the seniorcycle will increase to at least 90 per cent bythe year 2000 and 98 per cent by the year2007.” The Operational Programme for LocalUrban and Rural Development (94-99) placedemphasis on preventative education, one ofits main aims being “to provide anintegrated approach to local developmentthrough a cohesive framework which willassist in promoting education and trainingmeasures to prevent early school-leavingleading to social exclusion.”

There is certainly an increased interest in thequestion of early school-leaving, and theabove policy measures signify a sustainedpolitical will to address early school-leavingand educational disadvantage in general. The next question is: What are the mainissues that have arisen within this debate at


4 The Bill provides for the establishment of welfare officers who will have a wide range of responsibilities for ensuring and enforcing school attendance. They will also be able to inspect attendancerecords in schools and the officers must be notified by schools of absent, suspended or expelled students. Schools will be expected to have a statement of strategy in place to encourage regularattendance and will engage proactively with children at risk. The welfare officers will have a role in identifying early school-leavers; establishing contact with families, youth services and other schools,and identifying aspects of school management and curriculum that may lead to truancy. It will be an offence to employ a child during school hours and the school-leaving age will be increasedfrom 15 to 16 years (Doyle, 2000, p. 16).

The Board and employers will have a role to play in identifying all young people under 18 years of age who leave school without adequate qualifications and will assist in accessing continuingeducation and training. This is consistent with trends in the EU where the worlds of work and learning are increasingly seen as intertwined (Durand-Drouchin, M. et al., 1998, p. 3).

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

national level? Boldt and Devine (1998: 10)provide a summary of these issues. Theyargue that the debate concerning nationalpolicy covers three areas. We can focus ontwo of them (their final area – addressingthe problem of early school-leaving - is thefocus of the present report):

❑ Developing partnerships and co-ordinating government services

❑ Targeting and re-structuring resourcesand provision within the formaleducation system

This outline can be used to make sense ofcurrent policy, and provide a frameworkwithin which issues concerning preventativeeducation can be addressed.

Developing partnerships and co-ordinating government services

The issue of integrating services in the formof partnerships is the main focus of policyand practice in approaches to combatingsocial exclusion, whether educational orother forms of disadvantage. This is evidentfrom both policy documents and theliterature developed around these issues.The National Anti-Poverty Strategy (1995:1) argued for the establishment ofinstitutional mechanisms “to ensure…appropriate co-ordination across andbetween department policy” in the area ofearly school-leaving. The NationalEconomic and Social Forum (1997: 92)recommended “the development ofpartnership between parents, particularlythose from disadvantaged backgrounds,schools, youth organisations and othereducation and training agencies.”

The CEO of Area Development Manage-ment talks about the contribution of localdevelopment (Crooks, 1999: 12) in tacklingsocial exclusion and argues that apartnership approach should be encour-aged. “A partnership at local level betweenthe community sector, the social partners

and state agencies increases co-operation,co-ordination and effective decision-making.” It is difficult to find writtenmaterial on early school-leaving andpreventative education that does not refer tothe issue of integration at some stage. It isoften accompanied by a focus onpartnership between different sectors andagencies, particularly at the local level.

Why has the concept of integration achievedsuch significance in Irish policy? Adefinition of integration is useful in thiscontext and the OECD (1996) provides onewith regard to the provision of local services.

Services integration refers primarily toways of organizing the delivery of servicesto people at the local level … it is not a newprogramme to be superimposed overexisting programmes; rather it is a processaimed at developing an integratedframework within which ongoingprogrammes can be rationalized andenriched to do a better job of makingservices available within existingcommitments and resources.

An integrated approach is viewed by bothpolicy makers and practitioners as providingat least some of the elements for a model ofbest practice. As Boldt and Devine (1998)and Stokes (1999a) argue, the perception ofearly school-leaving measures is thatfocusing solely on the education system isnot sufficient to address the wide range offactors associated with the problem.Kellaghan et al (1995: 6) put this new focuson integration in historical context.

Today’s proposed solutions are likely toinvolve a range of agencies even if the focusis on one institution, such as the home or theschool. Programmes of urban regeneration,for example, are likely to require co-operation among agencies involved inemployment, social work, housing, andhealth, as well as education. Thus, thesupreme confidence of the 1960s that


11


educational provision on its own couldsolve the problems of disadvantage, a viewthat gave way to a pessimism in the 1970sabout what education could achieve, hasnow been replaced by the view that whileeducation has a necessary role to play, thatrole is not sufficient in itself to deal withdisadvantage.

The integrated service approach is viewed asa means for avoiding several pitfalls. AnIrish Vocational Education Associationpolicy document (1999: 1) argued for thedevelopment of a co-ordinated andintegrated approach to early school-leavers,in the belief that this would lead to:

❑ The delivery of a more effective service tostudents and their families.

❑ Avoid duplication in services.

❑ Promote the development of a sharedvision amongst the professionals andagencies involved.

❑ Avoid fragmentation in service delivery.

Rourke (1999: 9), in his overview of theintegrated approach offered by the CombatPoverty Agency’s Demonstration Pro-gramme on Education Disadvantage, addedseveral further positive outcomes ofintegration:

❑ A wider range of services can be offered.

❑ Awareness of a range of approaches.

❑ A greater understanding of the multi-dimensional needs of many youngpeople.

❑ Relationships were developed.

There is increased awareness about thenegative implications of not having anintegrated approach – duplication andfragmentation of services being two of themore significant issues (National YouthFederation, 1998). Cullen (1997a: 25) detailsthe lessons to be learned by Irish policymakers and practitioners from theexperiences of integrated services elsewhere.These are outlined in Table 1.1

Targeting and re-structuring resourcesand provision within the formal educationsystem

The targeting and re-structuring ofresources in the education system is linkedto the first policy issue of developingpartnerships for integrated services. As theNational Youth Federation argues (1998:38-39), provision within the formaleducation system needs to take account ofexisting provision:

It is our belief that many of the newmeasures are often put in place without duerecognition being given to how the role ofexisting services might be expanded andenhanced to cater for new needs andwithout adequate analysis of where newinitiatives might best be placed to cater forthose in greatest need. This is leading toduplication, rivalry for limited funding andinequality in resources between initiatives.

In the formal education system, there hasbeen an increasing emphasis placed on pre-school interventions. As Kellaghan et al(1995: 6) put it, “early intervention isaccorded a special place when the allocationof additional resources is being considered.There is ample evidence relating tochildren’s development—on its cumulativenature and on the importance of earlyexperience— to support this view.” TheWhite Paper on Education (Department ofEducation, 1995: 16) argued that

❑ Early childhood experiences areimportant for the child’s development.

❑ Entry to formal schooling is a majortransition for children, particularly thosefrom disadvantaged back-grounds.

❑ Early disadvantage affects the child’sexperience within formal schooling,because such disadvantages tend to beboth persistent and cumulative.

The targeting and re-structuring processesover the last five years have been towards


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

schools in identifiable disadvantaged areas.This has come about in particular as a resultof the White Paper on Education. AsKellaghan et al (1995: 65) put it, oneimportant aspect of government policyrelates to targeting additional resourceswhere problems of inequality anddisadvantage exist. “This position is basedon the premise that since children are

unequally prepared when they start school,differential treatment is required in theschool to promote their educationaldevelopment.” Previously, the NationalEducation Convention (Coolahan, 1994:107) highlighted the need for targetingresources and interventions to undermineeducational disadvantage.


13

Table 1.1: Integrated services – lessons from overseas

Across the boardservice integration

Service integration needs to be established at all levels – policy,management and service delivery – and not just at the local level.“There would be little point in making progress on the more effectiveco-ordination of local initiatives if mechanisms for influencing widerdevelopments on policies, structures, incentives and programmeswere absent.”

Cullen argues that the focus should be on “integrating what is alreadythere and not simply the creation of new services.” According toCullen, there is a danger that when different stakeholders cometogether to form locally integrated initiatives, they spend theirenergies on identifying gaps in provision rather than working toimprove current provision.

Focus on existingprovision

Funding is required to support the process of integration.There is alsoa need to make available adequate time and other resources, in orderto ensure ownership among participants.

Resources

The staffing on integrated services is a crucial variable in the successor otherwise of interventions. According to Cullen, how personnelrelate to new organizational developments is not fully understood.This lack of understanding has serious ramifications for the service.“Inthe absence of this understanding, resistance within organizationsdevelops alongside a re-dedication to long-standing rules, regulationsand behaviours.” Also, Cullen states that the co-ordinators of theprojects play a critical role in contributing to successful outcomes.

Stafffing

Early school-leaving programmes cannot work as a panacea for all ofsociety’s ills. Although a crucial determinant of future employmentstatus, education initiatives need to take place alongside otherprojects geared towards social and economic development.

Wider societalcontext

Cullen (1997: 27) makes a final point about research and evaluation.From his analysis of integrated services elsewhere, it appears thatevaluations have a crucial part to play in shaping integration initiativesas these develop.

Research andevaluation

(Adapted from Cullen, 1997: 25)


CONCLUSION

The present report is concerned withidentifying elements for a model of bestpractice in the field of early school-leavingpreventative measures. This sectionexamined some of the key policy issuessurrounding such measures. Three majorissues emerge:

First of all, early school-leaving is asignificant issue in government policy,for agencies and NGOs. Pressure is beinggenerated from many sources, not leastof these Government itself, which hasmade available large sums of money toalleviate educational disadvantage. Italso appears that the majority of policyinitiatives designed to tackle ‘socialexclusion’ have included proposals tocombat early school-leaving. It is as if thegovernment is attempting to ESL-proof(‘early school-leaving’ proof) social policyand initiatives.

Second, although there is greatemphasis on early school-leaving andeducational disadvantage in governmentpolicy approaches, there is littlerecognition that early school-leaving isstrongly linked to socio-economicbackground. The vast majority of pupils

who withdraw before gaining a LeavingCertificate come from unskilled, semi-skilled or small farming backgrounds.Despite this stark national profile, policystill seems to be geared towards certainschools, certain districts or certainpupils, rather than towards the structureof Irish society in general.

Third, the debate surrounding bestpractice in preventative education –which measures are effective and whichare not – has highlighted the importanceof both organisation and the level and typeof resources available to preventativeeducation. Organisational issues –integration of services in particular - areseen as key aspects of a successfulprogramme. Combined with effectiveresourcing, both human (staffing) andmaterial (funding, time), an integratedmeasure appears to provide the best basisfor successful interventions.

These policy initiatives and proposals basetheir claims on theoretical arguments orevidence from overseas. In the followingsection, measures developed in Dublin overthe past number of years are outlined,providing a basis for identifying a model forbest practice.



SECTION TWO

A Description of Early School-leaving Measures in Dublin

Introduction

Department of Education and ScienceMeasures

Local Measures

Discussion and Conclusion

SECTION TWO: A DESCRIPTION OF EARLY SCHOOL-LEAVING MEASURES IN DUBLIN

INTRODUCTION

ALTHOUGH a considerable amounthas been written about preventativeeducation and early school-leaving

measures, the literature tends to befragmented, focussing on a particular typeof measure, or blurring the boundariesbetween them so that confusion persistsregarding the nature and layout of thisrecent field of activity. Althoughconnections exist between them, especiallyin terms of funding and resources, earlyschool-leaving measures can be divided intothree main types:

❑ Department of Education and ScienceProgrammes

❑ Other National Programmes

❑ Local Preventative Education Measures

These programmes operate on differentlevels. For instance, some are geared todifferent stages in the education process —pre-school, primary or post-primary — or totransitions between these levels. Anotherdistinction is that the programmes andinitiatives are geared towards developingcertain capacities either in the pupilsthemselves or their environment. Somefocus on developing children’s self-confidence, others place the emphasis onworking with the parents to indirectly affectthe child’s development. Many gear theirinterventions towards instilling valuesregarding the importance of staying inschool, while others attempt to transformthe social context within which the child isunder-achieving (changes to schoolcurriculum, teacher training, buildingintegrated services, establishing partner-ships).

Many interventions involve more than oneof these emphases, and have several layers totheir structures. Most measures also have agreat deal in common. This section outlinessome of their characteristics, while thefollowing section brings together the

findings of evaluations and reports andoutlines the elements that may contributeto a model of best practice in preventativeeducation.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAND SCIENCE MEASURES

In 1990, the Department of Educationestablished the Disadvantaged AreasScheme. This provided support forconcessionary teaching posts, the HomeSchool Community Liaison Scheme andgrants for general management andschoolbooks. More recently, the remit of theScheme has widened to include thefollowing:

❑ Home School Community Liaison(HSCL)

❑ Early Start Programme

❑ Breaking the Cycle

❑ Curriculum

❑ Remedial teachers

❑ Educational psychologists

❑ Teachers counsellors

❑ 8-15 initiative

❑ Stay in School Initiative

❑ Junior Certificate School Programme

❑ Youth Encounter

❑ Transition Year

318 designated primary schools and 190designated second level schools aresupported under the Disadvantaged AreasScheme. Estimates from the Department ofEducation and Science indicate thatapproximately £43m was spent on theScheme overall.

Home-School Community Liaison Scheme

This is a preventative strategy targeted atparents, school staff and other relevantcommunity agencies.

It is concerned with establishing partner-ship and collaboration between parentsand teachers in the interests of children’s


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

learning. It focuses directly on the salientadults in children’s educational lives andseeks indirect benefits for the childrenthemselves. (Department of Education, May 1997)

The scheme began in 1990 with theappointment of 30 teachers as liaison co-ordinators in 55 primary schools in largedesignated areas of urban disadvantage(Department of Education, May 1997).Between 1992 and 1995, the scheme wasextended to 105 co-ordinators serving 106primary schools and 83 co-ordinatorsserving 84 schools at secondary level(1996/1997 year).

The aims of the Scheme are:

❑ To maximise active participation by theparents of children in the schoolsconcerned in the learning process, inparticular of those who might be at riskof failure.

❑ To promote active co-operation betweenhome, the school and the relevantcommunity agencies in developing theeducational interests of the children.

❑ To raise awareness in parents of theirown capacities to enhance theirchildren’s educational progress and toassist them in developing relevant skills

❑ To enhance the children’s uptake fromeducation, their retention in theeducational system, their continuationto post-compulsory and to third leveleducation and their attitudes to lifelonglearning.

❑ To disseminate the positive outcomes ofthe Scheme throughout the schoolsystem generally.

According to Coolahan (1994: 109, quotedin Devine, 1999: 79), “the extension,development and ‘mainstreaming’ of theHome-School-Community Liaison projectto disadvantaged schools was universallywelcomed.” The Kellaghan et al report alsohad some favourable things to say about theHSCL scheme:

There is some evidence that as a result of allthese activities, parents became more awareof, and confident about, their capacities toenhance their children’s educationaldevelopment. Community-based activitiesreceived less emphasis than ones involvinghomes and schools. (Kellaghan et al, 1995: 18-19)

More recently, Devine (1999a: 79) states thatthe HSCL “seems to have developed asuccessful approach to intervention at bothprimary and second level.” According to theESF report of 1997, there are threechallenges that face the HSCL programme:

Its future success will require higher levels ofinvolvement of the most needy parents, greaterdelegation of responsibility to alreadyparticipating parents and more participationby school staff. Each of these challenges isinterlinked. Greater delegation ofresponsibility to participating parents shouldresult in their bringing on board moreuninvolved needy parents, thus freeing up co-ordinator time for greater levels of activity withschool staff. (ESF, 1997: 109)

Early Start Programme

The Early Start Programme is a one-yearpreventative programme for 3-year-oldchildren in disadvantaged communities. Itis based on the belief that “a high qualityearly childhood service can play animportant part in offsetting the effects ofsocio-economic disadvantage and make acontribution to the alleviation of itseducational effects” (ESF, 1997: 33). It wasestablished in 40 school centres in areas ofdisadvantage (26 schools or 65 per cent ofthe total in Dublin). The aim of Early Start is to “enhance theoverall development of pre-school childrenand prevent school failure” (National YouthFederation, 1998: 26).

The concept of partnership is central toEarly Start, as is the involvement of parents


17


(Devine, 1999a: 29). Also, the proposal wasto involve second-level transition studentsas part of their work experience requirement(ESF, 1997: 34). “Both of these elementsrepresent an opportunity for the develop-ment of a partnership between the com-munity and the Department of Educationand the participation of the community inthe development of this service.”

The National Economic and Social Forum(1997: 53) argued that the introduction ofEarly Start resulted in “displacing someexisting community-based child-careservices. This resulted in the dis-empowerment of some of the more activewomen from disadvantaged communities.”It went on to say that “it was not acceptable… that one form of disadvantage (earlyschool-leaving) should be catered for bycreating another form of disadvantage forwomen who were providing a usefulservice.”

However, according to McGough (1999: 73),the partnership approach is essential to theprovision of an integrated approach to pre-school education:

A comprehensive model of earlyintervention requires a number of levels ofsupports to families from a number ofavenues, agencies and professionals…thereis a need for close links and liaison betweenall the elements in this web of support, eachhaving its own clearly defined role, eachsupporting and contributing to theeffectiveness of the other. Within this socialsupport model, formal interventionprogrammes, such as Early Start, have acrucial and specific role to play.

Breaking the Cycle (Primary)

In 1995, Niamh Breathnach, the thenMinister for Education, commissioned theCombat Poverty Agency and the EducationResearch Centre to conduct a study ofapproaches to identifying and supporting

children from disadvantaged backgrounds.This formed the basis of the Kellaghan et alReport of 1995. It recommended a moretargeted approach in the Department’sstrategies, and the initiation of positivediscrimination in favour of pupils fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. The Breakingthe Cycle project was launched in responseto these recommendations, targeting aprogramme of supports to 25 selectedschools in disadvantaged areas nationally.

This programme was “based on targetingresources, using revised criteria, to identifyschools in the most disadvantaged urbanand rural areas, with the provision ofadditional supports for these schools andthe requirement that each school includedin the scheme should prepare and submit afive-year development plan” (NESF, 1997: 11).

According to Boldt and Devine (1998: 8), ingeneral Breaking the Cycle has been receivedfavourably. As McCormack and Archer putit (1998: 13), “the new initiatives (BTC) willfacilitate a more intensified and varied typeof intervention than has been tried before. …the schemes will result in genuine positivediscrimination.”

Some other comments need to be maderegarding the BTC project. One limit-ation pointed out by McCormack andArcher is that some disadvantagedschools have not been included. AlsoNAPS questioned the focus on schoolsrather than students, because:

❑ Only schools with a sufficiently highproportion of disadvantaged pupilsreceive extra support.

❑ Schools with large numbers ofdisadvantaged pupils, but where theoverall proportion is not sufficientlyhigh to rank in the score system, receiveno extra support – impacting particularlyon rural areas.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

❑ Certain schools are identified as disad-vantaged while the neighbouring schoolattended by brothers and sisters of thesame family is not (NAPS, 1996: 27).

Curriculum – Primary Level

Recent developments have taken place in thearea of curriculum reform. The majordevelopment is the first significant revisionof the primary school curriculum since1971. This revised curriculum was launchedin September 1999, and £5m has beenallocated to support its introduction. Thefocus is on the child as a learner, and aims toprovide a holistic approach to childdevelopment and education. Included in thenew curriculum are:

❑ A new Irish curriculum, based on acommunicative approach.

❑ A revised English curriculum, with newapproaches to language learning, readingand writing.

❑ Greater emphasis in the Mathematicscurriculum on problem solving.

❑ Rationale for the arts as a whole.

❑ New emphasis on Music and Drama as anew area of study.

❑ A wide-ranging PE curriculum.

❑ Social, personal and health education(DES, September 1999).

Curriculum – Secondary Level

Alongside these changes in the PrimaryCurriculum, there is also a recognition thatthe traditional secondary school curriculumdoes not always provide a meaningful orrelevant response to the needs of thosepupils who would benefit from a morevocational and practically orientatedprogramme. The Junior Certificate SchoolProgramme and the Leaving CertificateApplied are the major developments in thisarea. The Curriculum Development Unit(CDU) began work on the Junior CertificateSchool Programme in 1994. The Pro-

gramme is aimed at schools with a high levelof educational disadvantage, and is designedto cater for and retain pupils in theeducation system who are unlikely tosucceed in the mainstream educationprogramme. According to the ESFevaluation (1997: 68), the underlyingassumption of the programme is that,

given suitable conditions and withappropriate guidance, all students inmainstream schools can acquire reading,writing and basic number skills, cultivatelanguage and literacy skills and achieve alevel of social and personal competence. Incombination, these skills should enablethem to cope with and enhance theirexperience of school and of everyday life,and equip them to engage in reflection, self-examination and critical analysis of theworld around them.

The idea is to “enable these young people tobenefit from their time in school and toenjoy the experience of improvement andsuccess” (O’Brien, 1999: 14). Although theESF report indicates that the JuniorProgramme is a positive development ingeneral, there should be some concernregarding its “potential to limit pupilaspirations, the value that is placed on theircertification by employers and theavailability of progression routes offered bythis certification” (ESF, 1997: 110). Thereport recommends that practical responsesto these issues should be included in thecurriculum design.

The Leaving Certificate Applied has receiveda favourable evaluation.

The objectives, design, structure, approachand content of the Leaving CertificateApplied suggest strongly that it is a soundeducational programme providing valu-able experiences and learning opportunitiesfor students while offering a comprehensiveLeaving Certificate alternative to thetraditionally academically focused pro-gramme.… In general, those who have been


19


involved in the Leaving Certificate Appliedconsider it to be successful in addressing theeducational needs of students, in respond-ing to many of their personal and socialneeds and hence, successful as preparationfor adult and working life. (Boldt, 1998: 42)

The following are brief descriptions of otherpreventative education programmes fundedby the Department of Education andScience.

Youth Encounter Projects

These are special schools for children ofprimary school age who are at risk of or havebeen in trouble with the law. The projectoffers these children the opportunity ofremaining in primary education withinspecial schools. These schools also providesupports to families through social workand probation and welfare workers attachedto the schools.

Remedial Education Services

Remedial education services are part of theDepartment’s Special Education Services.They aim to close the gap between actualand potential attainment levels and achievethis by providing additional specialisedteaching on an individual or small groupbasis for children experiencing learningdifficulties.

Psychological Support Services

1990 saw the introduction of PsychologicalSupport Services for primary schools.Currently, areas of socio-economic disad-vantage have priority in the development ofthe service. However, according to the ESFevaluation (1997: 66), the relevance of thisservice to disadvantaged children has beenlimited. At the same time,

in the context of a decentralised service,operating with a particular focus ondisadvantaged areas, the primary levelpsychological service could take on a more

active role in supporting front-line teachersworking with educationally disadvantagedyoung people.

Transition Year

The transition year has been recognised asthe first year of a three-year senior cyclesince the 1994/95 school year. The aim ofthe year is to promote personal develop-ment, social awareness and increased socialcompetence

Support Teachers

There is a teaching support scheme atprimary level involving support teachers(counsellors). Their role is to co-ordinate awhole school approach to devising andimplementing good practice and strategiesthat will help to prevent the occurrence ofdisruptive behaviour. Support teachers atpresent are employed in schools in thedeprived areas of the North Inner City andthe Tallaght/Clondalkin areas of Dublin(O’Brien, 1999: 14).

OTHER NATIONALMEASURES

Under this heading can be included theUrban Initiative, the Integrated ServicesProject and the Demonstration Programmeon Educational Disadvantage. Below wetake a closer look at the DemonstrationProgramme.

Demonstration Programme onEducational Disadvantage

The Combat Poverty Agency initiated theDemonstration Programme on EducationalDisadvantage in 1996 and it continued until1999. The Programme “recognises themulti-dimensional nature of educationaldisadvantage and the need for integratedresponses” (CPA information brochure).The Programme was based on a partnershipapproach to educational disadvantage at alocal or district level and follows on from 14pilot projects funded under the Once-off


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Grants Scheme for Work with Dis-advantaged Young People established in1994 (Cullen, 1997).

It was designed to run for three 3 years, withtwo overall objectives:

❑ Establishing and supporting locallybased networks to develop an integratedresponse to the problem of educationaldisadvantage within their area and toprovide disadvantaged young peoplewith opportunities to progress andtransfer between the formal and informaleducation systems according to theirneeds and to maximize theirparticipation in and benefit from thesesystems;

❑ Development of structures capable ofinfluencing policy at national leveldrawing from local experience.

The Programme supports four networks ofeducation providers nationally:

❑ Killinarden Education Network (KEN)

❑ Network for Educational Support,Tuam Area (NESTA)

❑ Drogheda Youth Educational Network

❑ Tralee Education Network (TEN)

Each of these networks includesrepresentatives of schools, parents, trainingcentres, area-based partnerships, youthgroups, community groups and othervoluntary and statutory organisations.

Integrated Services Process

The Integrated Services Process (ISP) is aGovernment funded project to promote theintegration of state agency services, inconsultation with local communities intargeted disadvantaged areas. A poor historyof consultation, co-operation andintegration between agencies and betweenthese agencies and services users is one ofthe stumbling blocks to the effectiveness ofexisting service delivery. Traditionally, state

agencies have not conducted their businessin an integrated way and a culture of‘protecting one’s own patch’ has prevailed.This institutional bias has beencompounded by the way the state isorganised and by the functionally basedprogrammes of different agencies. The aimof ISP is to develop new procedures by whichstatutory authorities can respond to theneeds of communities (Ahern, 1999).

The Project is being developed under thedirection of ADM in the following areas:Dublin’s North East Inner City; St Michael’sEstate, Dolphin House/Fatima Mansions/St. Teresa’s Gardens; Jobstown, Tallaght andTogher, Cork.

To date, state agencies have not targeteddeprived urban communities differently.They have not developed policies thatrecognise and take into account the specificneeds of people in these communities. Thelessons learned by ISP in the targeted areaswill be used to identify models of bestpractice that can be applied in other urbanblack spots. The lessons to be learned byState agencies in relation to service deliveryshould give concrete examples of wherechange has to take place.

The First Interim ISP Progress Reportidentified early school-leaving as a priorityfor action. It is the first time fundamentalthemes such as early school-leaving,localised services and family supports havebeen looked at within a geographic area(Ahern, 1999). This is a strong statementthat, when linked with attempts to tacklesocial inclusion thematically throughinitiatives such as the National Anti-PovertyStrategy, indicates an important publicpolicy priority.

Early School-leaving has emerged as thesingle greatest priority locally. One of themost important generic recommendationsin the First Interim ISP Progress Report isthe need to employ staff, especially on the


21


front-line, with the requisite skills to engageeffectively with local people. It also impliesthat central management must understandand empathise with the people on theground (Ahern, 1999).

Youth groups and organisations, somefunded by the state, play a major role inmany of these interventions.

LOCAL MEASURES

This group of interventions covers a largenumber of projects, networks and activities.It operates as a catchall phrase for allmeasures that do not directly operate fromthe Department of Education and Scienceand do not have a national mandate. Somereceive their funding from the Departmentor are provided with some other resource bythe state. Other groups now parcel a numberof measures under the one heading. Thiswill become evident in the following outline.

Local measures in preventative educationinclude:

❑ After School Projects

❑ Homework Clubs

❑ Transition Programmes

❑ Literacy and numeracy interventions

❑ Parenting initiatives

❑ Mentoring and tracking activities

❑ School – community initiatives

❑ Projects for socially excluded groups –travellers, etc.

❑ Third level access programmes

An interesting development in preventativeeducation is the introduction of multi-intervention programmes based in localcommunities. Many — though not all — ofthese operate through the Area-BasedPartnerships, and include many of themeasures mentioned above as part of theirremit. There has also been a tendency for

these programmes to employ acronyms, in asimilar fashion to community-based adultdaytime education programmes.

Such programmes include the following:

❑ APPLE(Area Partnership Programme for LanguageEnrichment)

❑ CARA(Clondalkin Area Response to Absenteeism)

❑ CHOICES(Finglas-Cabra Partnership)

❑ YSTU(Youth Support and Training Unit)(Clondalkin Partnership)

❑ BEST(Ballymun Educational Support Team)

❑ ESP (Educational Support Project)

❑ SIS Project (Stay in School) (KWCD Partnership)

❑ JETS (Jobstown Education and Training Strategy)

❑ PSI (Primary School Initiative) (Dublin Inner City Partnership)

❑ DFL (Discipline for Learning)

❑ SFP (Stengthening Families Programme)

❑ PESL (Potential Early School-leavers Programme)(Blanchardstown Partnership)

Based on existing reports and evaluations,this section outlines the operations of someof these programmes at the time the reportswere produced.

CARA (Clondalkin Area Response toAbsenteeism)

CARA is a network that brings togetherrepresentatives of the VEC schools,voluntary and community organisations,and parents.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

The aim is to develop a co-ordinatedresponse to the needs of young people atrisk of leaving school early.

CARA has targeted 108 potential earlyschool-leavers in 9 schools (based onattendance records; scores of standardisedtests; older sibling retention within theschool system; data from home visits;adherence of pupils to school behaviourcode; and consultation with principals,Home-School Liaison Officers and yearheads).

There are two main elements to the project:in-school and out-of-school. The in-schoolpart of the project includes compiling adetailed profile of each participant;establishing a database and tracking systemfor young people; an early bird club;developing needs-based curriculum and atransfer programme between primary andsecond level; and a counselling servicetargeted at young people.

The out-of-school part includes a familysupport service; an after-school supportprogramme; a summer support programme;developing capacity building programmesfor parents; mentoring and teacher training.

CHOICES (Finglas Cabra Partnership)

CHOICES is a career and study supportprogramme for primary and second levelstudents, established by the Finglas-CabraPartnership in 1995. Its aim is to:

❑ Maximise the achievement of youngpeople while in school.

❑ Reduce early school-leaving.

❑ Improve educational attainment levels.

In this, CHOICES supports the followingprogrammes:

❑ Careers advice and information

❑ Tutorials

❑ Pathways (Transfer programme fromprimary to second level)

❑ Supervised study centres

❑ Homework clubs

❑ Study clubs

❑ Parents in Education

❑ Action Research

❑ Certificate in Equality Studies

❑ Opt in

The programme offers young people achance to explore the third levelenvironment and subject areas of interest tothem. In 1997, the Partnership successfullyattracted additional EU funding under EUURBAN initiative, and appointed a full-timeco-ordinator.

It is hoped that by offering a range ofservices, CHOICES will contribute to theimprovement in educational provision andhelp increase attainment levels. It is alsohoped that by taking part in a combinationof the services on offer, students will bebetter equipped to make decisions abouteducation and training options and hencetheir long-term career paths. Devine (1999a:80) has some positive comments to makeabout CHOICES:

The intervention programmes operatingwithin CHOICES seem to have greatpotential for addressing educationaldisadvantage in its target communities.Significant support is offered to studentsand schools, and there appears to be a highlevel of partnership and co-operation. As amodel it seems to offer many opportunitiesfor Partnerships and communities to assiststudents and support them in derivinggreater benefit from their schooling.

This positive feedback is supported bySproule et al (1999: 34). According to them,the Partnership, working from acollaborative model, was “able to strengthenlinks between schools and encourageschools in embracing cross community


23


links.” They also outlined some of the keylessons emerging from the programme(1999: 34). These included:

❑ The need for local involvement inplanning for change.

❑ The need for local structures to supportchange.

❑ The need for change in policy andpractice at local as well as national level.

❑ The need for support for staff involved ineffecting and managing change.

The Youth Support and Training Unit(YSTU)

The Youth Support and Training Unitstarted in August 1997 and is based inClondalkin. It began as a pilot initiative inresponse to research that called for analternative approach to dealing with earlyschool-leavers in the Clondalkin area. It isfunded by the Department of Tourism andthe European Commission (through theSouth Dublin Urban Initiative) and ismanaged through Clondalkin Partnership.

The aim of the Unit is as follows:

To identify, access and support existing earlyschool-leavers aged 15+ and to refer and linkthem to the service and training providersthat are available in the area.

To achieve this objective, they provide:

❑ Outreach; one-to-one support;

❑ motivational interviewing;

❑ assessment and the development of anindividual plan;

❑ support programmes such as the Activityand Breakthrough programmes;

❑ individual literacy classes and specialistreferrals;

❑ tracking and monitoring a client’stransition and progression.

The vision of the Unit is to identify existingearly school-leavers in need and through the

provision of individual support, assist theirprogress with a view to training andemployment. Their work is needs-basedand guided by principles of respect,openness, flexibility, commitment andinclusiveness. Their clients have the right torespect, understanding and supportregardless of their situation or background;the right to quality education and training;and the right to mediation by the Unit withother agencies with regard to health andsafety as these factors impact on their abilityto access suitable training opportunities.(Unique Perspectives, 1999: 1)

Blanchardstown Potential Early School-leavers Programme (PESL)

The Blanchardstown Potential Early School-leavers Programme is an inter-agencyinitiative involving two local nationalschools and one second-level school,Barnardos, Blanchardstown Youth Serviceand the Partnership.

The aim of the project is provide a positiveresponse to the issues of educationaldisadvantage and early school-leaving in theBlanchardstown area. According to Rourke(1998b: 6), the main focus of PESL is on thetransition of children and young peoplefrom primary to secondary education.

Based on the belief that they could identifypotential future early school-leavers at theprimary school stage, they devised aprogramme based on three components:

❑ After School Groups

❑ Summer Projects

❑ Parents’ Programme

After School Groups:

These operate in the three schools andinvolve a combination of the following:practical and creative activities, outdoorpursuits and sport and group work/


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

discussions. Practical activities are aboutmaking a range of products such as jewelleryand leather craft. Creative activity is aboutencouraging kids to “develop all theirintelligences during the time that theyspend with the programme... Throughactivities like drama, artwork, dance andvideo production, the after-school groupsprovide opportunities for young people toexpress themselves in a creative andimaginative manner.” Outdoor pursuits areabout getting kids involved in activities thatwould not normally be available to them.“Through the group work the young peopleare supposed to start taking responsibilityfor their own actions and to decide how theywould like their group to be organisedrather than being objects of other people’sinstructions and directions” (Rourke, 1998b, p. 9).

Summer projects:

These involve activities in the area and tripsto places outside the area – regarded as ofparticular importance to transition kids.These projects give them the opportunity toknow Riversdale Community College and tobecome comfortable with their new schoolenvironment. The fact that they knew thelayout of the school (they had beenintroduced to some of the teachers and hadmet other pupils who were also making thetransition) was of significant assistance to anumber of young people (Rourke, 1998b, p. 9).

Parents’ programme:

Involvement of the parents is an importantaspect of the programme:

If the parents don’t push their children tostay at school and are fairly lax about issueslike school attendance and schoolexaminations, it is more likely that thesechildren will leave school early without anyeffective qualifications … Work withparents has primarily involved a

combination of home visits to the parents,and the organisation of events to which theparents are invited (Rourke, 1998b: 10).

Ballymun Educational Support Team(BEST)

According to their mission statement, BEST

“wishes to develop programmes and tocreate a climate which will stimulate theinterest and participation of young peoplebetween the ages of 8 and 15 years with aview to tackling early school-leaving.” Indoing so, BEST will endeavour to improveschool attendance, behaviour andattainment; to promote parental, familyand community involvement and toencourage the genuine and continuedintegration of services.”

BEST offers three types of support:

❑ In-School Support

❑ Half Way Facility

❑ Out of School Facility

In School Support:

This covers both primary and second leveland includes work on:

❑ on a 1-to-1 or small group basis, withchildren identified as being at risk

❑ co-ordinating a structured caringapproach within the school andcompliment existing structures

❑ Providing support for both the child andthe teacher.

Half Way Facility:

This is a 5-6 week programme developed forchildren who have been suspended fromschool because of disruptive behaviour.They have 9 places available – 5 primary and4 post-primary. It involves: negotiating


25


contracts between pupils, parents andschool; continuation of the child’ssubject/class curriculum; self-esteem/interpersonal skills/behaviour programme;repairing the relationship between pupil,parents and schools; and accessingappropriate resources and agencies.

Out of School facility:

This facility was developed for children whohave effectively left mainstream education.There are 5 places available. It involves:developing a structured, child-centredprogramme of education and self-development; building on family links andsupports; developing appropriate learningplans and progression routes.

Jobstown Education and TrainingStrategy (JETS)

JETS is an inter-agency programmedesigned to counter educational disad-vantage in the Jobstown area of Tallaght.The agencies and organisations in the areacame together to formulate a proposal tothe Tallaght Partnership, which thenprovided £50,000 per annum for a four-yearperiod beginning in 1996.

The partners involved are a senior NationalSchool, a local Community College,Barnardos, Youth Horizons, TallaghtPartnership and South Dublin Chamber ofCommerce. Like many preventativeeducation programmes, JETS wasestablished on the belief that integration ofservices was best:

There was a belief that an inter-agencyapproach, involving the main players (e.g.,schools, parents and organisations) couldproduce positive results in relation topotential early school-leavers making thetransition from primary to post-primaryeducation and completing their secondarycycle. (Rourke, 1998: 1)

This is clearly stated in the JETS project plan(7: 1.4): “it is strongly felt by themanagement committee that isolatedindividual agency approaches have not beensuccessful in realistically minimising therisk to children of leaving school early.”

The primary objectives of JETS are:

❑ To produce innovative models of goodpractice and learning which will improvethe retention in the formal educationsystem of potential early school-leaversand therefore reduce educationaldisadvantage

❑ To enable the target group of 18 youngpeople and their families to engage in theeducation system until at least theirJunior Certificate.

The interventions include:

❑ 18-1 class size

❑ Class teachers dedicated to JETS group

❑ Class remains together for 4 years

❑ Summer projects between academic years

❑ Full-time co-ordinator employed todevelop and support the project

❑ Homework support and after-schoolactivities

❑ Visits to places of educational andrecreational interest

❑ Provision of meals and books

❑ Significant contact and interaction withparents

❑ Evaluation and policy development

DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSION

There were many interesting developmentsin the 1990s in the field of preventativeeducation. The types of measures andinterventions presented in this section aredistinct from the ‘interventive’ measuresthat preceded them in government policy,


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

particularly YOUTHREACH. All theexamples provided are based on theassumption that prevention is better thancure, and if pupils cannot be stopped fromleaving school early, or if some children arenot likely to be interested in academiccourses, then at least they can be preparedfor life outside school. This emphasis isviewed as essential, given the links betweenearly school-leaving and indicators of socialexclusion such as long-term unemployment.

Another shared characteristic is the amountof work and effort invested in suchprogrammes. In many cases, the differentagencies and individuals involved – teachers,schools, parents, health agencies, Gardaí,school attendance service and so on – crossprofessional boundaries in promotingpreventative education.

Of course, there are differences too. Somemeasures target primary school while othersview pre-school as the arena in which totackle early school-leaving. Some are basedin a single school while others work with anetwork of institutions. Many measureswork with children defined as ‘at risk’ whilesome programmes work with all pupils.

But possibly the crucial way in whichintervention measures differ is the way inwhich they identify the causes of earlyschool-leaving. Some programmes are moreexplicit than others in this regard. Forinstance, the Educational Support Projectsees the absence of social and personal skillsas the key cause:

The emphasis on developing social andpersonal skills arises from teachers’perceptions that educational disadvantagereflects cultural and social differencesbetween the school and the home. Thesedifferences can cause children to be eitherdisruptive or withdrawn in the classroomand they are unable, as a result, toparticipate fully in the school’s mainacademic programme. (Cullen, 1997: 8)

The HSCL Scheme is built on similarassumptions, with a greater focus on theparents and on the social and culturaldifferences which exist between them andthe ethos of the school. So, while the ESPemphasised the development of personalskills, HSCL focuses on developing a set ofcultural values within the family conduciveto children staying in school.

Sproule et al (1999: 39) developed aninteresting model of interventions and thismodel sheds light on the assumptionswhich underpin early school-leavingmeasures in Dublin. Their own study, basedon experiences of working with an AreaBased Partnership, resulted in a series ofrecommendations. They included theirproposed model as an overview and thisprovides the starting point for aninteresting discussion. According to them,there are four main assumptionsunderlining programmes aimed at tacklingeducational disadvantage. Modifiedversions of these are outlined in Table 2.1below.

Depending on the analysis used, theproblem is identified as primarily personal,cultural, social or economic. While Sprouleet al state that each of these explanations hassome validity, they state: “In outlining theseno attempt is being made to prioritise or‘favour’ one frame over another but ratherto show that a more holistic analysis isrequired to explain why young peopleunderachieve” (1999: 32). Many mightregard these different assumptionsregarding cause to be mutually exclusive anddecidedly non-neutral. However, it is theopinion of the authors of this report thatSproule and her colleagues inadvertentlydeveloped a schema which enables earlyschool-leaving measures to be categorised interms of their ability to provide differentforms of capital. We will return to this issuelater after outlining the elements of a modelof best practice. These are based on thereports and evaluations available.


27



Table 2.1: An outline of assumptions underpinning early school-leaving measures in Dublin

Explanation

(Adapted from Sproule et al 1999: 39)

Assumption

A measure based on an essentialist paradigm believes that theproblem is personal – low ability or low self-esteem.

Essentialism

A measure based on a consensual paradigm assumes that there is acultural deficiency in the family, group or community from which thepupil derives.

Consensualism

A measure based on credentialism would argue that the problem lieswithin the organisation of the schooling and administrative system –what we might call a social deficiency (inflexible structures, curriculumdesign, teacher training, etc).

Credentialism

Finally, a measure that takes as its starting place the notion ofexploitation, would argue that the cause of early school-leaving can belocated in the broader structures of Irish society, that the failure“arises from the need to protect an economic system based onprivate profit” (Sproule et al, 1999: 39).The problem here is economic.

Exploitation


SECTION THREE

Early School-leaving:Towards a Model for Best Practice

Introduction

Human Resources

Material Resources

External Organisation

Conclusion

SECTION THREE: EARLY SCHOOL-LEAVING: IDENTIFYING ELEMENTS OF A MODEL FOR BEST PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION

THERE has been little work on theextent to which different inter-vention measures have been

successful in reducing early school-leavingin their target areas. This is a majorlimitation of the research in this area. Thereis a tendency to focus on the processesinvolved in preventative education ratherthan the outcomes. This is because mostprojects and measures are at an early stage ofdevelopment and it is difficult, therefore, toexamine their impact on early school-leaving. The research is mainly based on theperceived benefits of measures to children oron their impacts on organisational andstructural factors such as co-ordination ofservices or communication between parentsand school.

The elements of a model of best practice forpreventative education produced below weredeveloped with this limitation in mind.They are based on a review of the writtendocumentation available on preventative

education measures in the Dublin area.These largely consist of evaluations, casestudies and other reviews of policy andpractice, and include studies of nationalprogrammes as well as of locally or Area-Based Partnership interventions. Althoughthe recommendations of these case studiesand evaluations differ on issues regardingthe running of their respective projects, ageneral overview of the projects concernedallows certain general points to bedeveloped. These can be divided into fourdistinct categories — human resources,material resources, internal organisationand external organisation. These categoriesare outlined below.

The elements of the four categories canbe described as follows:

HUMAN RESOURCES

❑ Staff Sensitivity❑ Staff Commitment and Expertise❑ Full-time Co-ordination of Project


Table 3.1: Early School-leaving: Elements of a model for best practice

Elements involvedCategory

Staff SensitivityStaff Commitment and ExpertiseFull-time Co-ordination of Project

Human Resources

Adequate FundingAdequate TimeEarly Intervention

Material Resources

Adaptable and Flexible OrganisationsGood Working RelationshipsClear Lines of CommunicationCo-ordination and Integration of Services

InternalOrganisation

Local ApproachesInvolvement of Pupils and ParentsDissemination of Information

ExternalOrganisation

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Staff Sensitivity

Several programmes pointed to the need forsensitivity training for teachers in relation toproblems faced by educationally disad-vantaged children. Boldt and Devine (1998:12), referring to the work of Hannan, statethat there is a need for awareness amongteachers of the cultural and value differ-ences which children bring with them intothe classroom. The Special Initiative inSchools Project believes that this differenceneeds to be taken into account, particularlywhen it comes to the problem of discipline:

Children are not interacting with theeducational system if they are regularlyremoved from it. This method of disciplinedoes not promote children’s engagement inthe school, or their retention within thesystem. The schools should look at the issueof discipline and rewards, and could, forexample, research the feasibility of runningtraining courses in positive discipline forteachers. This is a problem area and apriority for action. (Special Initiative inSchools Evaluation, 1998: 40)

The issue of staff sensitivity is frequentlymentioned in the literature and this needsto be considered more fully. The ESFevaluation of the Department’s preventativeeducation measures emphasises this:

Criticisms were also made of lowexpectations and negative attitudes held byteachers of children coming frombackgrounds of educational disadvantage…it was suggested that part of the problemarises in the existence of different and…clashing sets of cultural values, withteachers either unable or unwilling toengage the culture and values of thechildren who are presenting problems.(ESF, 1997, pp. 92-93)

This issue of staff sensitivity extends to alllevels of the system, and its importance wasreferred to recently by the Taoiseach in anaddress to senior civil servants (Ahern,1999).

Staff Commitment and Expertise

Both the competence of the staff and theirlevels of commitment to preventativeeducation projects have a crucial role to playin their success. This is the case with thePotential Early School-Leavers programmein Blanchardstown:

The impact and effectiveness of the PESLprogramme largely depends on the qualityand management of the staff who aredelivering the various actions andactivities.... The calibre and enthusiasm ofthe programme staff is a key ingredient inthe evolution of the overall programme –regardless of the overall design of theinitiative it will not reach its full potentialunless the people invested withresponsibility for delivering the programmehave the necessary skills and experiences.(Rourke, 1998b: 23)

The level of teacher commitment can havemajor implications for a project’s success.Boldt pointed this out with regard to thePrimary School Initiatives:

The pivotal role of teachers in the success ofany initiative was clear.... Respondents feltthat some teachers may not see the value ofthese initiatives and therefore would notsupport them or adopt their methods in theclassroom. There was a sense that teachersmay be fearful of losing control in the classif they were to adopt a new approach orbecome involved in a new initiative.(Boldt, 1996: 51)

Full-time Co-ordinators

The importance of having a full-time co-ordinator was expressed in several of thereports examined for the study. The JETSevaluation was adamant that a large part ofits success was due to their co-ordinator:

The employment of a full-time co-ordinatorhas been quite central in the developmentand evolution of the JETS. The projectwould not have achieved what it has


31


without the employment of this person. Theco-ordinator has had the time and the skillsto carry out tasks which otherwise wouldnot have been possible. Given the other timeconstraints on teachers it would beextremely difficult to create the spacerequired to have such an intensiverelationship with the parents of the youngpeople in the JETS project, to co-ordinatethe different aspects of the project, toorganise various events, to arrange andparticipate in various planning and reviewmeetings, to disseminate the outcomes of theproject to organisations like the TallaghtPartnership and URBAN, to producepolicy documents on issues relating to earlyschool-leaving and educational disad-vantage, to closely track and monitor theattendance and academic progress of theyoung people on the project. (Rourke, 1998b: 11)

MATERIAL RESOURCES

❑ Early Intervention❑ Adequate Funding❑ Adequate Time

Early Interventions

One factor emphasised by most research,evaluations and policy statements is thepositive influence of early interventions onfuture retention levels and on transferbetween primary and post-primaryeducation. As ADM (1999a: 37) put it:

in relation to the age or stage at whichpreventative education measures can bemost effective, there was a generalconsensus that interventions need to takeplace as early as possible within theprimary school system when they are mostlikely to influence long-term positiveoutcomes.

Hayes made this point in 1995 as part of hercase for a national policy on early education.According to her, longitudinal research over

a twenty-year period “clearly indicates thatgood quality early education is successful inimproving not only educational achieve-ment and behavioural adjustment but alsoin encouraging a greater sense of res-ponsibility and self-control in later life”(Hayes, 1995: 8).

According to the White Paper on EarlyChildhood Education (DES, 2000), earlyinterventions are essential in reducing botheducational disadvantage and the need forfurther interventions later:

Most children enter the primary schoolsystem well-equipped to learn and to copewith the transition to formal education.However, for various reasons, some childrenhave problems coping with this transition.Such children do not have a solid foundationupon which to accumulate knowledge andbuild their education. Without this initialfoundation, the gap between these childrenand their peers tends to widen over time, andthis creates the need for subsequentintervention to narrow the gap.(DES, 2000: 6)

This was a point also made by the NationalEconomic and Social Council, when theystated that “any attempts to sustain equalityof opportunity at second or third leveleducation are too late and greater long-termimpacts could be made at the primary level.”

The JETS evaluation (Rourke, 1998a: 8-9)provided evidence for a belief in the notionof “the earlier the better,” concluding that:

the decision to begin the JETS project withinthe primary school system (rather thanstarting it within the post-primary system)was a sensible and wise decision … There isstrong evidence to suggest that many earlyschool-leavers never really make aneffective transition from primary to post-primary education and that although theymight turn up they never really settle in totheir new environment. The JETS projectwas of significant assistance in easing thiscrucial transition …


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Devine’s overview of the EducationalSupport Project argued that “most, if notall, of the available research would indicatethat the earlier the intervention occurs thehigher the likelihood of future success”(1999b: 36).

Adequate Funding

Preventative education measures are nodifferent from any other measure,programme or organisation in their heavyreliance on their funding mechanism(s).This is particularly true of the more locally-based responses to early school-leaving,which are dependent on Partnerships andthe Department of Education and Sciencefor their yearly budget. The issue of financesis particularly troublesome, as a lack ofmoney can have serious implications for thefuture of the project. Where finances areavailable, staff training can be paid for whilewithout it there are no staff. It provides thebase upon which the other areas of themeasures are built and developed. Adequatefunding also ensures at least the possibilityof continuity and development over a longerperiod of time. In this way adequate fundingis also linked to the issue of adequate time.

Adequate Time

Time is an important factor in the work ofthese initiatives and it operates on twolevels. The first relates to the length of theinterventions themselves. Questions havebeen raised regarding the benefits ofinterventions that lasted only one year.Secondly, time impacts on the workings ofinitiatives in terms of time available topeople to work on the project. Many pointedto a high turnover of staff - which may relateto the heavy workload on such projects - andthe added complexities of working on amulti-agency basis.

There is also a likelihood that projects maynot last longer than a year. It is important torealise that too many of the early schoolinterventions are pilot programmes addedon to existing mainstream provision.

INTERNAL ORGANISATION

❑ Adaptable and Flexible Organisations❑ Good Working Relationships❑ Clear Lines of Communication❑ Co-ordination and Integration of Services and

Support

Adaptable and Flexible Organisations

This is particularly important when it comesto inter-agency work, and is a litmus test forthe development of integrated services.According to Rourke (1999: 13):

participating organisations and agenciesshould be prepared to adapt traditionalprocedures and work practices, in order toprovide a meaningful response to the needsof potential early school-leavers… Theorganisations which participate inintegrated responses should also aim toadopt an open-ended and person-centredapproach to the needs of young people, anapproach which is not overly constrainedby time limited projects or programmes.

One of the benefits of such adaptability is areduction in bureaucratic time delays, whichgreatly eases the burden on multi-agencyapproaches to intervention.

Good Working Relationships

Good working relationships, according tothe research, are a crucial aspect in thedevelopment of preventative educationmeasures and further enhance multi-agencyapproaches. The Youth Support andTraining Unit (Unique Perspectives, 1999:72), based in Clondalkin, placed this factorhigh on its list of achievements:

The establishment of good workingrelationships with local schools and trainingproviders, local community support groupsand statutory agencies has been a keydevelopmental achievement of the Unit. Ithas been a catalyst for interagency co-operation in dealing with early school-leavers. While some relationships have


33


taken longer to build than others there isnow a very sound platform from which thewhole issue of early school-leaving can beaddressed.

The literature on partnership and localdevelopment points to parity of esteem ascrucial to the success of integratedapproaches to local development (Walsh etal, 1998). In a sense, good workingrelationships are the product of such parityof esteem, where each organisation orrepresentative feels they have an equal say inthe development and management of theproject. In this regard, the Primary SchoolsInitiative has “demonstrated what can beachieved when schools work togethertowards common goals, pool their resourcesand share their experiences and expertise”(Boldt, 1998a: 22).

Clear Lines of Communication

This was a structural aspect oftencommented on in the local approaches toearly school-leaving. According to the casestudy of Blanchardstown Partnership’sPreventative Education Programme (1998:47), “central to the effectiveness of theprogramme is having clear managementstructures in place to develop and managethe specific actions.” Good avenues ofcommunication are also essential in co-ordinating and integrating multi-agencyresponses to early school-leaving.

Co-ordination and Integration of Services and Support

On the basis of the experiences andperceptions at least of those involved inprovision, the benefits of networking, co-operation and integration are many. Thisissue of integration is the major focus ofrecent debate in theoretical and policycircles. As the previous Minister forEducation, Micheál Martin (1999: 5), put it:

one-dimensional approaches (involvingonly one organisation or agency) are likelyto be limited in their impact. Multi-

dimensional approaches, with a range ofdifferent organisations and playersworking together in the best interests ofyoung people, are much more likely to beeffective and sustainable into the future.

It seems that this emphasis on integratedservices is based on sound practice. Themajority of studies, evaluations and casestudies carried out on Dublin’s preventativeeducation measures indicate that anintegrated approach is either an essentialaspect of current provision or a desireddevelopment for the future. This applies toboth national and local approaches. TheJETS evaluation (Rourke, 1998a)emphasised the importance of suchintegrated services when it comes to helpingyoung people reach their full potential:

It is evident that an integrated, co-ordinated and ‘whole community’approach is required if the JETS project is tosucceed in retaining the participating youngpeople in the school system. The needs of theyoung people are multifaceted, therefore thesolutions or remedies should also bemultifaceted. It is recognised that amultiplicity of approaches is required andthat it will require effective co-ordinationand information flow between a number ofagencies and organisations if young peopleat risk (of dropping out, getting involved indrugs and crime, etc.) are to progress safelyand satisfactorily through their teenage,adolescent years. (Rourke, 1998a: 9-10)

O’Brien (1999: 15) made a similar point inhis conclusions on the Department ofEducation and Science initiatives:

It is clear that agencies will have to worktogether because individually they do not seemto be solving the problem. The integratedapproach, such as is outlined in the IntegratedServices Project where all agencies virtuallypool resources and work together in the fightagainst poverty and deprivation, is obviouslythe way of the future.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

EXTERNAL ORGANISATION

❑ The Use of Local Approaches❑ Involvement of pupils and parents❑ Disseminating Information

The Use of Local Approaches

This refers to capacity building at a locallevel and is one of the main aspectsemphasised in policy concerningeducational disadvantage and socialexclusion. The objective of Partnership-based programmes is to develop localownership in many instances, somethingthat the CHOICES programme views as alargely positive aspect of its involvement.That said,

work needs to be undertaken to developconfidence and capacity in local people sothat the programme can be genuinelycommunity based and community led.CHOICES is now Partnership led withsome sense of ownership in schools. Thesteering group needs to be established withgenuine local community representationthat is supported through training inleadership skills, communication and groupdecision-making. If community represent-atives do not feel that they are equalpartners in the steering group it is unlikelythat there can be movement towards acommunity-based scheme. (CHOICES evaluation, 1999: 36-37)

Involvement of Young People andTheir Parents

Again, the involvement of both youngpeople and parents emerged as either abeneficial aspect of a programme, or washighlighted as an area in need of develop-ment. Rourke (1999: 20) summarises theview of many initiatives when he states thatresponses to educational disadvantage “areultimately more sustainable and more

valuable if they engage young people andparents as active participants at all stages inthe lifespan of individual projects andinitiatives, i.e. at the planning stage, at theimplementation stage, and at the evaluationand review stage.”

The Discipline For Learning Programme ofthe Southside Partnership (Boyle, 1999: 83)emphasises the involvement of students inparticular:

Schools should teach their pupils the skills ofconflict resolution, and schools shouldinvolve pupils, where appropriate, in theresolution of discipline issues. At thesecondary level, again where possible, thestudent council should be involved in thedesign of the Discipline For LearningProgramme and encouraged at all stages toactively contribute to its successfulimplementation in the school.

In relation to the Department of Educationand Science programmes, the ESF evalua-tion found that the role of parents wasviewed as crucial to the success of anyintervention:

Home support was seen to be crucial towork effectively with a child. Moregenerally, the existence of a relationshipbetween the school and parent wasidentified as creating the context for theoperation of specific interventions to help achild. Working in a situation where thechild is teacher dependent is less likely to besuccessful, both in the specific case ofremedial education and across allinterventions. In the absence of parentalinvolvement, the view was held that theinputs of outsiders are less likely to succeedand the efforts of parents themselves willnot be harnessed. (ESF, 1997: 90)

Devine’s (1999b: 32) review of the Stay inSchool Project operating in the KWCDpartnership area outlines some methods bywhich parents can become more involved:


35


❑ Provision of more flexible and informalmeeting structures through which theirchild’s progress can be monitored.

❑ Provision of parenting awareness coursesfor individuals who may have hadnegative school experiences themselvesand who may not fully understand theoptions available to their children.

❑ The presence of the parent(s) when thestudents profile report is being presentedand explained.

However, it is wise to point out that aconcept such as ‘parental involvement’ cancause some confusion. The Dublin InnerCity Partnership case study of the PrimarySchool Initiative (1999: 22) found this to bethe case:

Terms such as parental involvement meandifferent things to the various schoolsinvolved in the PSI. Some may considerimparting information to parents as a wayof involving them, or parents may beinvolved in the school through having theirown Parent’s Room. Yet others wouldunderstand parental involvement to meaninclusion and consultation in the planningand delivery of education services.

Planning

Another factor pointed to as an essentialelement in any successful interventionmeasure was planning. As Sproule et alsummarised (1999: 33), advocates of thelocally-based integrated response “agreethat the full development of such a responsecannot proceed before the necessaryplanning for full-interagency co-operationtakes place.”

Dissemination of Information

Cullen (1997b: 19) argued that an impor-tant issue for the Educational SupportProject to consider was to

ensure there is an effective dissemination ofinformation to the varied publics andgroups that in recent years have shown an

interest in tackling educational disad-vantage and who are keen to hear of newapproaches and to gain insight into hownew initiatives translate into meaningfulpractice. In particular this needs to happenwithin the local catchment area…

Others argue strongly that the connectionbetween local and state interventions andpolicy is crucial. Hayes (1999: 70) arguesthat the lack of such a connection when itcomes to early childhood education is adeterrent to developing models of bestpractice:

For early education to have a positive anddifferential impact on young children andtheir families it must develop in the contextof a clear national policy which is supportiveof local policy. Promising developments atlocal or pilot level will not succeed if they arenot taken on board and reinforced bynational policy making. By the same token,high quality national policy initiativeswhich are not sensitively transferred to locallevel will ultimately fail.

The Irish Vocational Education Association(1999: 2) also argues that an integratedapproach can only become a reality “if it istied to a statutory structure where itsexistence can be guaranteed and its progressmonitored and evaluated.” Crooks (1999:12) widens this argument and argues thatthere is a need “to learn the lessons fromlocal experience and to apply them both –horizontally – to other local situations and –vertically – to enable policy to develop atnational level.”

CONCLUSION

The large quantity of research, reviews andevaluations of early school-leaving inter-ventions reveal a considerable degree ofconsensus on the ingredients of effectiveinterventions. In the next and final section,this outline of a model for best practice isdiscussed in relation to the social contextwithin which they operate.



Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary

Discussion

Recommendations


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Aim of the Study

The aim of the present study was to examinethe structures, reviews and evaluations ofpreventative education measures in Dublinin order to develop recommendations fordeveloping models of best practice. Thestudy was commissioned by the DublinEmployment Pact, which was concerned toestablish the extent, aims and outcomes ofthe wide range of measures beingimplemented to tackle early school-leaving.The study was based primarily on reportsand evaluations published by the differentorganisations involved. The Report consistsof three main sections, dealing respectivelywith an overview of policy, preventativeeducation measures in Dublin and analysisand recommendations .

Overview of Policy

The first section of the Report provides anoverview of the policy context ofpreventative education in Ireland. It wasevident from the literature that early school-leaving is an issue receiving significantattention from Government. The majorityof social policy measures introduced overthe last few years have included elementsdesigned to combat early school-leaving.

Another issue addressed was the highcorrelation between socio-economicbackground and early school-leaving. Giventhe stark nature of this relationship, it wasconsidered strange that relatively littlecomment had been directed towards thisissue, policy being geared instead towardsschools, communities or individual pupils.

In terms of the debate on best practice inpreventative education, governmentagencies and other organisations havetended to focus on two issues – organisationand resources. In particular the debate hasplaced heavy emphasis on developing an

integrated services approach to preventativeeducation. Like ‘social exclusion,’‘integration’ has become the latestbuzzword in public policy. It is assumed thatan integrated approach - meaning co-ordination and effective partnership acrossand between sectors and agencies - can laythe foundation for successful models ofpreventative education. The literatureappeared to argue that an integratedapproach, including a re-structuring ofavailable resources, would benefit not onlythe organisations involved but also thestudents ‘at risk’ of early school-leaving.

Preventative Education Measures in Dublin

The second section of the Report provides adescription of the different types ofpreventative education measures beingimplemented in Dublin. These were dividedinto three groups – Department ofEducation and Science programmes (suchas the Home School Community Liaisonand the Early Start Programme), otherNational Programmes and the variouslocally based preventative educationprogrammes (such as JETS etc.). We foundthat they have certain shared characteristics,the most obvious being their preventativenature. Another shared characteristic,regardless of the scale and objectives of theprogrammes concerned, is that they all basetheir work on certain assumptionsregarding the causes of early school-leaving.These tend to be either personal, cultural,social or economic in nature, and theseassumptions determine both theorganisation of programmes and theresources made available to them. Aperceived understanding of early school-leaving and its causes is embedded in theprocess of each individual intervention.

Analysis and Recommendations

In the third section, the various analyses andrecommendations from the reports andevaluations available were put together to


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

identify the elements of a model of bestpractice for preventative education inDublin. These fell under two headings –organisation and resources – and, as such,are in line with current debates concerningpolicy and practice. But the findings fromthe overview of programmes suggest otheraspects of a model for best practice that tendto be blurred or ignored in the literature.There include, for instance, two types oforganisational factor in shaping theeffectiveness of programmes – internal andexternal. An internal issue such as goodworking relationships was viewed as crucialby many organisations, but so also was theexternal issue of involving parents andpupils in the decision-making process. It islikewise with resources: the reports andevaluations emphasise both humanresources - particularly the issue of staffing,- and material resources, especially finance.

This overview enables us to develop a moreabstract model for best practice inpreventative education, which is detailed inFigure 4.1. The figure includes the fourdifferent factors and the elementscomprising them. Thus, for instance, thehuman resources element includes dealingwith staff factors like expertise andsensitivity, while the internal organisationelement incorporates issues involving goodworking relationships and adaptable andflexible organisations. The circle is encasedin an outer frame, with the four societalinfluences or sources of capital – personal,cultural, social and economic capital -placed within this square. The model is atentative one, but it is an attempt to situateour model of best practice within a capitalcontext.

DISCUSSION

The model forms the base for thisdiscussion of early school-leaving measures.There are two main issues in particular thatrequire closer examination – the issue ofintegration and the capital context of earlyschool-leaving

Integration and early school-leaving

The aspect of programmes most discussedin both the policy literature and the reviewsof on-the-ground measures is the integra-tion of services. This is consistent with theproposal put forward by the communityplatform in 1999 for a new nationalPartnership Agreement, which advocated:

developing a locally based integrated strategyto address the problem of early school-leaving.Schools, parents, communities and youthservices should be involved in the developmentof this strategy. (O’Donoghue, 1999)

A great deal of the rationale for thedevelopment of integrated initiatives makessense, and it would be unwise to ignoreissues of duplication and fragmentation ofprogramme delivery. Whether or notintegrated approaches are more successfulthan non-integrated approaches in reducingearly school-leaving remains to be seen, butthey certainly appear to generate a great dealof goodwill. But the overview in the previoussection of the elements of a model for bestpractice suggest that the current widely useddefinition of integration — in terms ofservices — is too narrow and restricted. Thefindings of other reports indicate that theunderstanding of integration needs to bebroadened to the integration of the fourfactors identified in Figure 4.1 below. Inessence, what the reviews are suggesting isthat while clear lines of communication arevital in programmes, this will be enhanced ifthe parents and pupils are also involved inthese communications. There is little pointincreasing teacher sensitivity to the needs of‘disadvantaged’ children if enough time ormoney is not provided for them to functionas part of the initiative. Good internalworking relationships are more effectivewhen relationships are developed with localinitiatives and organisations.

A truly integrated initiative would thusinvolve the four factors in a way that valuedeach and recognised that without any one of


39


them a programme would be much lesslikely to be effective. Each of the four factorsis dependent on the other.

The capital context of early school-leaving

This broader definition of integration isconsistent with the wider context of earlyschool-leaving, combining the personal,cultural, social and economic factors in away that reflects a properly functioningsociety. It also reflects the set ofassumptions about early school-leavingupon which preventative measures arebased. We saw earlier how measures can becategorised depending on the paradigmwithin which they operated – essentialist,consensual, and so on. Put simply, theseassumptions range from seeing theindividual, the parents, the local commun-

ity, the schools or society as the cause ofearly school-leaving.

Sproule et al (1999) argued that all of thesefactors are equally valid. While the fourelements of best practice each have their ownrole to play in the effectiveness ofinterventions, each type of capital – personal,cultural, social and economic – plays a role indeciding whether or not a child stays atschool. Just as the four elements – humanand material resources, internal and externalorganisation – need to be integrated to avoidfragmentation of service delivery, so too dothese four factors need to be taken intoaccount to avoid fragmentation of the widercontext for the pupil.

Integration, therefore, is really a process ofde-fragmentation, combining not onlydelivery mechanisms and service provision,but also re-assembling the broader contextin which early school-leaving occurs.


Fig 4.1: Elements of a model for best practice in preventative education

PERSONALCAPITAL

SOCIALCAPITAL

ECONOMICCAPITAL

integrated intervention

InternalOrganisation• Adaptable & Flexible• Good working relationships• Clear communication lines• Co-ordination & integration

ExternalOrganisation• Local approaches

• Involve pupils & parents• Disseminating information

policy

Material Resources• Adequate funding

• Adequate time• Early targeting

CULTURALCAPITAL

Human Resources• Staff sensitivity

• Commitment and competence• Co-ordinator

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

This leads to the final point, the issue ofsocio-economic background or social class.There is a strong correlation between socialclass and early school-leaving, and anymeasure that regards itself as an integratedapproach would be expected to incorporatethis aspect. But this is not the case. It isunclear whether this is because of an over-attachment to more recent notions of socialexclusion and marginalisation or whetherthe concept of social class is regarded ascarrying too many ideological connotations.Of course, this correlation can also beregarded as emanating from personal,family or community factors.

But a closer at geographical patterns of earlyschool-leaving in Dublin indicates anotherkey issue involved.

In researching this study it rapidly becameclear that the majority of early school-leaving interventions in Dublin were locatedin the post-1960s local authority housingestates that surround Dublin City. Theseroughly form a circle around the city andinclude the huge areas of Tallaght,Clondalkin, Blanchardstown, Finglas/Cabra, Ballymun, Kilbarrack and Coolock.Many of these estates were developedwithout adequate economic andcommunity facilities. Furthermore, many ofthe families involved were removed fromInner City communities that previouslyprovided them with a sense of communityand a network of family and friends. It canbe argued that the development of theselarge estates produced a form of socialfragmentation in which a previouslyintegrated way of life was effectivelydisintegrated.

The impetus behind integrated approachesto early school-leaving represent an attemptto de-fragment these communities, to providethem with adequate personal, cultural,social and economic capital and thus ensurea stable base for their children’s education.There are few preventative education

measures in more affluent, middle-classareas of Dublin. Instead, they areoverwhelmingly concentrated indisadvantaged areas. This stark factillustrates that middle-class areas alreadypossess an integrated approach topreventative education, with personal,cultural, social and economic capital allbeing available to the pupil.


41


RECOMMENDATIONS

The study of existing provision suggests amodel of good practice and the followingrecommendations were developed to assistthe institutionalisation of this model.

1. Context

That early school-leaving be seen as theconsequence of a range of interlinkedfactors that have personal, social, culturaland economic causes and consequences.

That solutions therefore also need to bemulti-faceted address all elements of thepersonal, social, cultural and economicfactors.

2. Principle of Integration

That integrated programmes andinterventions be given priority so as toreduce the danger of fragmentation andduplication.

That measures operating in an integratedmanner be adequately funded to supportthe process of integration.

That criteria for funding clearly outlinewhat is involved in an integrated approach,i.e. involve the integration of all the fourelements in the framework outlined in Fig.4.1 above.

That both forms of integration — theintegration of services provided by agenciesand the integration of capital – bepromoted.

3. Human Resources

That staff training and development — bothinitial and in-service — include dedicatedelements on how to work with marginalisedyoung people and their families in schooland out of school.

That full-time co-ordinators be appointedto early school-leaving projects andprogrammes.

That the increased availability of expertise -e.g. guidance counsellors - be continued andexpanded.

4. Material Resources

Though not arising from the written reportsand evaluations reviewed for this study, it isclear that projects and programmes aresometimes in competition for resources andfunding. We recommend that it is notappropriate that resources for the least well-off and marginalised in society bedistributed on the basis of competitivepractices.

All programmes reviewed and found to beeffective should be mainstreamed and nothave to survive on a pilot/temporary/short-term basis.

That research be initiated to evaluate thecost effectiveness of interventions.

That all reviews and evaluations ofprogrammes and interventions address theissue of cost effectiveness in a satisfactorymanner.

That staff in school and outside schoolsappointed to work in these programmes areappropriately sensitive and competent inthis area.

That long-term funding be secured forintegrated, co-ordinated programmes.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

5. Internal Organisation

That all school programmes and thecurriculum be early school-leaver proofed.

That organisational structures be adaptableand flexible so as to respond to the needs ofchildren at risk of leaving school early.

That good working relations be regarded ascrucial to the success of a programme.

That clear lines of communication beestablished between partners, between staffand at all levels of any programme.

That literacy be a key element in the processof facilitating retention in schools.

6. External Organisation

Though the school is frequently seen as thekey player in early school-leavinginterventions and the priority location formajor funded programmes, an increasingemphasis must be given to projects,programmes and interventions that arecommunity based or involve localapproaches which network with the schoolsystem.

That all interventions involve parents andchildren in the design, planning andimplementation of interventions inaccordance with good adult and communityeducation practices.

That when examples of good practice andinnovative policy have been identified andtheir characteristics described, thesefindings be disseminated among allinterested practitioners.That a forum for the young people involvedin programmes be integrated as much aspossible into the planning andimplementation of interventions.

7. Future Research

That future research and evaluations on theoutcomes of interventions includeconsideration of whether the young peopleconcerned continued with their educationor schooling.

That future research be initiated to studythe cost-effectiveness of programmes andthat the issue of cost-effectiveness form partof the review/evaluation process of everyproject.

That longitudinal research be carried out onthe range of progression routes pursued byparticipants involved in the variousinterventions and programmes.

That a comprehensive cultural study ofyoung people from working classbackgrounds be initiated so that a morethorough understanding of their world-viewcan inform future programmes, projects andinterventions.


43

Ahern, B. (1999) Speech by the Taoiseach, Mr. BertieAhern T.D. on the progress being made in theimplementation of the Integrated Services Process: Meetingfor senior public service managers. Dublin Castle,Thursday 25 November 1999.

Area Development Management (1998) Baseline DataReport. Dublin: Gamma.

Area Development Management (1998) Preventativeeducation: A review of learning and good practice. Dublin:Area Development Management.

Area Development Management Limited (1999a)Preventative education strategies to counter educationaldisadvantage: A compilation of case studies on themes andissues within the Local Development Programme. InsightsSeries Number 10. Dublin: ADM.

Area Development Management (Ed.) (1999b)Partnerships in education: Learning the lessons from localdevelopment. Proceedings of conference held in theGreat Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999.Dublin: ADM.

Atherton, V. (1999) “A partnership strategy – earlyintervention,” In Area Development Management,Partnerships in education: Learning the lessons from localdevelopment. Proceedings of conference held in theGreat Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999.Dublin: ADM.

Ballyfermot Partnership (1997) Making connections:Access to and education in Ballyfermot. Dublin:Ballyfermot Partnership.Ballymun Partnership (No Date) Information brochureon BITE. Dublin: Ballymun Partnership.

Blanchardstown Partnership (July 1998) Case study:Preventative Education Programme. By MargueriteHanratty. Dublin: Blanchardstown Partnership.

Boldt, S. (1994) Listening and Learning: A study of theexperiences of early school-leavers from the inner city ofDublin. Dublin: Marino Institute of Education.

Boldt, S. (1996) Primary school interventions. Dublin:Christian Brother Justice Group.

Boldt, S. (1997) Hear my Voice: A longitudinal study ofthe post-school experiences of early school-leavers in Ireland.Dublin: Marino Institute of Education.

Boldt, S. (1998a) Primary School’s Initiative: Evaluationreport. Dublin: Marino Institute of Education.

Boldt, S. (1998b) Unlocking potential: A study and anappraisal of the Leaving Certificate Applied. Dublin:Marino Institute of Education.

Boldt, S., Devine, B., MacDevitt, D. and Morgan, M.(1998) Educational disadvantage and early school-leaving.Dublin: CPA.

Boyle, P. (1998) Report on Discipline for Learning seminar6th and 7th of March 1998. Dublin: SouthsidePartnership.

Boyle, P. (1999) Positive reactions to positive actions: Acase study on preventative education for ADM. Dublin:ADM.

Breen, R. (1984) Education and the labour market: Workand unemployment among recent cohorts of Irish school-leavers. Dublin: ESRI.

Central Statistics Office (1998) Census 1996: Principlesocio-economic results. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Central Statistics Office (1998) Census 1996, Volume 8:Education, scientific and technological qualifications.Dublin: Stationery Office.

Clondalkin Partnership (1999) Clondalkin arearesponse to absenteeism (CARA): Progress report, February– June. Dublin: Clondalkin Partnership.

Clondalkin Partnership (No Date) Informationbrochures on APPLE, CLOVER and The Get Ahead Club.Dublin: Author.

Clondalkin Travellers Development Group (1997)Travelling through our family lives. Dublin: ClondalkinTravellers Development Group.

Clondalkin Travellers Development Group (No Date)Travellers and education in Clondalkin. Dublin:Clondalkin Travellers Development Group.

Collins, C. & Williams, J. (1997) Annual school-leavers’survey. Dublin: ESRI/Department of Enterprise,Trade and Employment/Department of Educationand Science.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Combat Poverty Agency (1998) Investing in children.Submission to the Minister for Social, Communityand Family Affairs on the 1999 Budget. Dublin:Combat Poverty Agency.

Combat Poverty Agency (No Date) Information pack,Demonstration Programme on Educational Disadvantage.Dublin: Author.

Coolahan, J. (1994) National Education Conventionreport. Dublin: National Education ConventionSecretariat.

Coveney, E., Davis, A., Murphy-Lawless, J. &Sheridan, S. (1998) An evaluation of the Special Initiativein Schools. Dublin: Finglas Cabra Partnership(Unpublished Report).

Crooks, T. and Stokes, D. (1987) Disadvantage, learningand young people. Dublin: CDVEC CurriculumDevelopment Unit.

Crooks, T. (1999) Addressing social and economicdisadvantage through education and lifelonglearning: The contribution of local development. InArea Development Management (Ed.), Partnerships ineducation: Learning the lessons from local development.Proceedings of conference held in the Great SouthernHotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999. Dublin: ADM.

Cullen, B. (1997a) Integrated services and children at risk.Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

Cullen, B. (1997b) Educational Support Project (ESP).Review report. Trinity College Dublin: The Children’sCentre.

Cullen, B. (1998) Exploring issues of theory andpractice while working with parents in the home,school and community. In YOUTHSTART (1998)Prevention of early school-leaving: The YOUTHSTARTexperience. Dublin: Youthstart.

Department of Education (1994) School attendancetruancy report. Dublin: Department of Education.

Department of Education (1995) Charting oureducation future, White Paper on Education. Dublin:Stationery Office.

Department of Education (1996) Circular to primaryschools on Breaking the Cycle. Dublin: Department ofEducation.

Department of Education (May, 1997) TheHome/School/Community Liaison Scheme, Informationbrochure. Dublin: Department of Education.

Department of Education and Science (1998) Reportof the Task Force on Guidance, Counselling andPsychological Services for YOUTHREACH. Dublin: CDU.

Department of Education and Science (April, 1998)Press release by Minister for Education and Science,School drop-outs top of Government priority list, Ministerwants parents and teachers on school boards. Associationof Secondary Teachers of Ireland, annual conference,Tralee 14 April 1998. Dublin: Department ofEducation and Science.

Department of Education and Science (October,1998) Press release by Minister for Education andScience, New school attendance legislation “Legislationmarks major departure in approach to attendanceproblem,” 14 October 1998. Dublin: Department ofEducation and Science.

Department of Education and Science (June, 1999)Press release by Minister for Education and Science,Major Stay-in-School initiative, 4.5 Million initiative aimedat keeping pupils to end of Leaving Certificate, “Schemewill empower schools themselves to tackle theproblem,” 7 June 1999. Dublin: Department ofEducation and Science.

Department of Education and Science (September,1999) Press release by Minister for Education andScience, Over £5m to support phase one of first curriculumchange since 1971. 9 September 1999. Dublin:Department of Education and Science.

Department of Education and Science (November,1999) Press release by Minister for Education andScience, National Development Plan provides £5.35bn foreducation, “Social inclusion and life-long learning keybeneficiaries,” 15 November 1999. Dublin:Department of Education and Science.

Department of Education and Science (December,1999) Press release by Minister for Education andScience, £194 million plan to tackle educationaldisadvantage, “Unprecedented plan represents largestever effort to make education system responsive toneeds of all.” 15 December 1999. Dublin:Department of Education and Science.Department of Education and Science (2000) Readyto learn, White Paper on Early Childhood Education.Dublin: Stationery Office.

Devine, B. (1998) A study of progression routes for earlyschool-leavers in the KWCD Partnership Area. Dublin:KWCD Area Partnership.

Devine, B. (1999a) Tackling early school-leaving –how local strategies fit into the national approach,”in Area Development Management, (Ed.), Partnershipsin education: Learning the lessons from local development.Proceedings of conference held in the Great SouthernHotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999. Dublin: ADM.

Devine, B. (1999b) The Educational Support Project andthe Stay In School Project as preventative strategies whichaddress the issue of potential education disadvantage in theKWCD partnership area: A case study. Dublin: ADM.

Devlin, M. (1998) Youth and community work andearly school-leaving. In YOUTHSTART (1998)Prevention of early school-leaving: The YOUTHSTARTexperience. Dublin: Youthstart.

Doran, P. & Quilty, A. (Forthcoming) Early school-leavers. A report by County Dublin VEC toDepartment of Education and Science. Dublin:Department of Education and Science.

Doyle, M. (1999) Education (Welfare) Bill, 1999:Foundation for an integrated approach to educationdisadvantage or exclusion? Paper presented to the

Bibliography

45

Bibliography

Consultative Seminar on the Education (Welfare)Bill, 1999 at Clontarf Castle, Dublin 3 on 21September 1999.

Doyle, M. (2000) Education (Welfare) Bill 1999.Breaking Through: The Journal, 1, pp. 16-17.

Dublin Employment Pact (1999) Recommendations ofthe Youth Unemployment and Education Focus Group.Dublin: Dublin Employment Pact.

Dublin Inner City Partnership (1999) Dublin InnerCity Partnership preventative education: Case study of thePrimary School lnitiative. Dublin: Dublin Inner CityPartnership.

Durand-Drouchin, M., McKenzie, P. & Sweet, R.(1998) Opening pathways from education to work.OECD Observer 24, October-November.

Durkin, C., Leonard, T. & Mernagh, E. (1999) “Area-based strategies to promote participation in highereducation,” in Area Development Management (Ed.),Partnerships in Education: Learning the Lessons from LocalDevelopment. Proceedings of conference held in theGreat Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999.Dublin: ADM.

Education (Welfare) Bill (1999). Dublin: StationeryOffice.

EURYDICE (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities: Task Force Human Resources,Education, Training and Youth) (1994) Measures tocombat failure at school: A challenge for the construction ofEurope. Brussels: EU Publications Office.

ESF (1996) Evaluation report: Early school-leaversprovision. Dublin: ESF Evaluation Unit

ESF (1997) Preventative actions in education: Preliminaryevaluation. Dublin: ESF Evaluation Unit.

Fagan, G. H. (1995) Culture, politics and Irish schooldropouts: Constructing political identities. Westport,Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.

Fleming, T. & Kenny, D. (1998) Early school-leaving inmid-Kildare. Maynooth: MACE.

Foroige (1998) Mentoring as a possible intervention inMinister Fahey’s pilot project for children at risk.

Giblin, M. (1999) CHOICES, Urban report, January1999 to June 1999. Dublin: URBAN.

Grant, M. (1999) “An overview of the earlyimplementation of the Breaking the Cycle project,” inArea Development Management (Ed.), Partnerships inEducation: Learning the lessons from local development.Proceedings of conference held in the Great SouthernHotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999. Dublin: ADM.

Hannan, D. (1986) Schooling and the labour market:Young people in transition from school to work. Dublin:Shannon Development Curriculum DevelopmentUnit.

Hannan, D. (1998) Early school-leaving: Its nature,consequences and policy identification. InYOUTHSTART, prevention of early school-leaving: TheYOUTHSTART experience. Dublin: YOUTHSTART.

Hayes, N. (1995) The case for a national policy on earlyeducation. Poverty and policy discussion paper No. 2.Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

Hayes, N. (1999) What is meant by “early yearseducation?” in Area Development Management (E.),Partnerships in Education: Learning the Lessons from LocalDevelopment. Proceedings of conference held in theGreat Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999.Dublin: ADM.

Integrated Services Initiative (1998) Integrated ServicesProject: Report for Dublin’s North East Inner City. Dublin:ISI.

Isis Research (1998) Evaluation of the Special Initiative inSchools, Finglas-Cabra Partnership. Dublin: TrinityCollege, Centre for Women’s Studies.

IVEA (Irish Vocational Educational Association)(1999) An integrated approach to the needs ofdisadvantaged and early school-leavers. Dublin: IVEA.

Kellaghan, T., Weir, S., O’Huallachain, S. andMorgan, M. (1995) Educational disadvantage in Ireland.Dublin: Department of Education/CPA/EducationResearch Centre.

Kennedy, O. and Fleming, B. (1999) Young people,living in a severely disadvantaged area, and their experiencesof third level education: Some observations andrecommendations. Dublin: Clondalkin HigherEducation Access Project.

Larkin Community College (2000) Brief report onmonitoring committee of first year students in LarkinCommunity College, Champion’s Avenue. Dublin: LarkinCommunity College.

McCormack, T. & Archer, P. (1998) Government policyon early school-leaving. Submission to Joint Committeeon Education and Science by the EducationCommittee of CORI, December 15th 1998. Dublin:CORI.

McCoy, S., Doyle, A. & Williams, J. (1999) 1998 annualschool-leavers’ survey of 1996/’97 leavers. ESRI,Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employmentand Department of Education and Science.

McGough, A. (1999) “The Early Start interventionprogramme – An initiative in combating educationaldisadvantage,” in Area Development Management(Ed.), Partnerships in education: Learning the lessons fromlocal development. Proceedings of conference held inthe Great Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February1999. Dublin: ADM.

McSorley, C. (1997) School absenteeism in Clondalkin:Causes and responses. Dublin: Clondalkin Partnership.

Magill, D. (1998) South Dublin Schools BusinessPartnership: End of year review 1997-1998. Dublin:South Dublin Chamber of Commerce.


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Martin, M. (1999) Speech by the Minister for Education andScience, delivered at the Education (Welfare) Bill 1999Consultative Seminar, Tuesday 21st September 1999.

Montgomery, A. Rossi, R. (1994) Educational reformsand students at risk: A review of the current state of the art.Washington DC: Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

Morgan, M. (1995) Ballymun Initiative for third-leveleducation and Limerick Community-based educationalinitative. Dublin: Education Research Centre.

Morgan, M. (1996) Early school interventions: Thelessons from other countries. Poverty Today,December 1995/January 1996, Dublin, CPA.

Morgan, M., Hickey, B., & Kellaghan, T. (1997)International adult literacy survey: Results for Ireland.Dublin: Stationery Office.

Murphy, P. (2000) URBAN after-school action: EvaluationReport. Dublin: URBAN.

National Anti-Poverty Strategy (1996) Working groupon educational disadvantage, Draft consultative document.Dublin: National Anti-Poverty Strategy.

National Anti-Poverty Strategy (1997) Dublin:Stationery Office.

National Association of School Attendance Officers(1994). School attendance and education welfare – the wayforward. A response to the Department of Education’sSchool Attendance/Truancy Report. Dublin:National Association of School Attendance Officers.

National Economic and Social Forum (1997) Earlyschool-leavers and youth unemployment. Dublin: NationalEconomic and Social Forum.

National Youth Council of Ireland (1994) Towards thedevelopment of a comprehensive youth service. Dublin:National Youth Council of Ireland.

National Youth Council of Ireland (1996) Puttingyouth on the agenda. The state of youth report. Dublin:NYCI.

National Youth Council of Ireland (1999) Workingtowards work: Youth unemployment & employment.Dublin: National Youth Council of Ireland.

National Youth Federation (1999) Pathways: Atracking model: An integrated response to early school-leavers. Dublin: NYF.

National Youth Federation (1998) Opening horizons: Aprogressive policy of inclusiveness for young people who leaveschool early. Dublin: Irish Youthwork Press.

Nexus (1998) Progression routes for early school-leavers:Tracking and profiling. Dublin: Nexus Research Co-operative.

Nolan, B. and Callan, T. (Eds.) (1994) Poverty andpolicy in Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Northside Partnership (1998) Responding to change: a

mid-term adjustment of the Northside Partnership’s fouryear plan 1996-1999 ‘From welfare to work’. Coolock:Northside Partnership Limited

Northside Partnership (No Date) Under resourced,under threat: A report of youth disadvantage and youthservice provision in the Northside Partnership area. Dublin:Northside Partnership.

Northside Partnership (No Date) Higher education:Dream or reality? A practical model for supportingstudents in higher education. Evaluation report ofthe Higher Education Support Scheme. HigherDublin: Northside Partnership.

O’Brien, J. (1999) An overview of Department ofEducation and Science policy in combatingeducational disadvantage and promoting socialexclusion. In Area Development Management (Ed.),Partnerships in Education: Learning the Lessons from LocalDevelopment. Proceedings of conference held in theGreat Southern Hotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999.Dublin: ADM.

O’Donoghue, S. (1999) Community paper of theCommunity Platform for a New National PartnershipAgreement. Unpublished Paper.

OECD (1995) Literacy, economy and society: Results of thefirst international literacy survey. Paris: OECD.

OECD (1996) Integrating services for children at risk.Paris: OECD.

OECD (1998) Education at a glance: OECD educationindicators 1998. Paris: OECD.

O’Sullivan, L. (1999) Youthreach social inclusion report:Early school-leaving in Dublin city. Dublin: CDVEC.

Patrician College (1999) 1st and 2nd year project: ReviewSeptember - December 1999. Dublin: Patrician College.

Patton-Harrison (1999) An Evaluation of the CHOICEScareer and study support programme for primary andsecond-level students. Dublin: Finglas-CabraPartnership.

Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (2000) Dublin:Stationery Office.

Quinn, M. (1995) Narrow paths and distant horizons.Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National University ofIreland Maynooth.

Rourke, S. (1994) Young disadvantaged people 14-17years of age: Needs and opportunities. Dublin: CPA.

Rourke, S. (1995) Barnardos and the Blanchardstownyouth service: Programme for potential early school-leavers.Dublin: CPA.

Rourke, S. (1998a) Jobstown Education and TrainingStrategy (JETS) First evaluation report (June 1996-February 1998) Summary of Report.

Rourke, S. (1998b) Evaluation of pilot programme 1994-1997: Blanchardstown Potential Early School-leaversProgramme. Dublin: Blanchardstown Partnership.

Bibliography

47

Bibliography

Rourke, S. (1999) A learning experience: Case studies onlocal integrated strategies to tackle educational disadvantage.Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

Ryan, S. (1995) The Home-School-Community LiaisonScheme. Final evaluation report. Dublin: EducationalResearch Centre.

Ryan, S. (1998) Perceived needs for guidance, counsellingand psychological services in VEC YOUTHREACH Centres,Community Training Workshops and Senior TravellerTraining Centres. Dublin: The National Coordinators,YOUTHREACH.

Sexton, J., Whelan, B. and Williams, J. (1988)Transition from school to work and early labour marketexperience. Dublin: ESRI.

School Attendance Department (1997) Annual report.Dublin: School Attendance Department.

South Dublin Chamber of Commerce (No Date)Information pack. Dublin: South Dublin Chamber ofCommerce.

South Dublin Chamber of Commerce (1998) SchoolsBusiness Partnership: End of year report. Dublin: Author.

Sproule, B., McSorley, C. & Lynch, C. (1999)“Preventative education initiatives in urban Area-Based Partnerships – theory and practice,” in AreaDevelopment Management (Ed.), Partnerships ineducation: Learning the lessons from local development.Proceedings of conference held in the Great SouthernHotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999. Dublin: ADM.

Stewart, J. (1999) “Interagency involvement with anArea Based Partnership - a personal perspective,” in

Area Development Management (Ed.), Partnerships ineducation: Learning the lessons from local development.Proceedings of conference held in the Great SouthernHotel, Galway, 23-24 February 1999. Dublin: ADM.

Stokes, D. (1995) YOUTHREACH: An overview –developments and future trends. Paper presented atNational Conference of YOUTHREACH co-ordinators, Bray, Co. Wicklow.

Stokes, D. (1999a) Working with early school-leavers:Youthreach’s message to the mainstream. LEARN.

Stokes, D. (1999b) Guidance in the 21st century: Amessage from the margins. Institute of GuidanceCounsellors: Journal, 55-65.

Stokes, D. (2000) YOUTHREACH 2000: A Consultativeprocess – A report on the outcomes. Dublin: NationalCoordinators, YOUTHREACH.

Unique Perspectives (1999) Evaluation report of theClondalkin Youth Support and Training Unit. Dublin:Clondalkin Youth Support and Training Unit.

URBAN (1998) Annual Report for South Dublin URBANInitiative Ltd. – 1998. Dublin: South Dublin URBANInitiative Ltd.

Walsh, J., Craig, S. & McCafferty, D. (1998) Localpartnerships for social inclusion? Dublin: Oak TreePress/Combat Poverty Agency.

YOUTHSTART (1998) Prevention of early school-leaving:The YOUTHSTART experience. Dublin: Youthstart.




Appendices

A: List of Organisations Contacted

B: List of Preventative Education Measures Included in Report

C: Education at a Glance: OECD Education Indicators 1998

D: Census Data for Dublin Partnership Areas

E: Department of Education and Science Measures to Tackle Educational Disadvantage

F: Outline of Local Measures

Note:The full text of Appendices E is available on the website www.dra.ie/dublinpact

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ORGANISATIONS CONTACTED

Partnerships

Finglas/Cabra PartnershipKWCD PartnershipNorthside PartnershipSouthside PartnershipTallaght PartnershipBallyfermot PartnershipBallymun PartnershipClondalkin PartnershipDublin Inner City PartnershipCanal Communities PartnershipPavee PointBlanchardstown Area Partnership

Government Departments and Agencies

Department of Education and ScienceFASCombat Poverty AgencyNational Economic and Social ForumCDVECCurriculum Development UnitIntegrated Services Process

European Union

YOUTHSTARTTask Force Human ResourcesEuropean Social Fund

Other Organisations

Irish Vocational Education AssociationIrish National Teachers AssociationArea Development Management NEXUSSchool Attendance ServiceChildren’s Research CentreDublin Chamber of CommerceDublin Employment PactCORIETC ConsultantsNational Early School-leaving NetworkMarino Institute of EducationEducation Research Centre

Youth Organisations

National Youth CouncilForoigeNational Youth FederationCity of Dublin Youth Services BoardCatholic Youth Council


SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Department of Education and Science

Early Start ProgrammeHome School Community LiaisonRemedial teachersSupport TeachersBreaking the CycleEducational psychologists8-15 initiativeStay in School InitiativeJunior Certificate School ProgrammeLeaving Certificate Applied

Other National Programmes

Urban Initiative Integrated Services Project Demonstration Programme on EducationalDisadvantage

Local Initiatives

APPLE (Area Partnership Programme for LanguageEnrichment)CARA (Clondalkin Area Response to Absenteeism)CHOICES (Finglas-Cabra Partnership)CLOVER (Children Learn on Very Early Reading) YSTU (Youth Support and Training Unit)BEST (Ballymun Educational Support Team)ESP (Educational Support Project)SIS Project (Stay in School)JETS (Jobstown Education and Training Strategy) PSI (Primary School Initiative)DFL (Discipline for Learning)SFP (Stengthening Families Programme)PESL (Potential Early School-leavers Programme)The Life Centre Early School-leavers ProjectSchool’s Business PartnershipSpecial Initiative in Schools (Finglas-Cabra)Pathways Through EducationGet Ahead Stengthening Families ProgrammeExcel (Northside Partnership)Challenger (Northside Partneship)Art Therapy Project (Patrician College) BITECAPELarkin Community CollegeNICKOLCASPNorth Inner City Home Support Service

APPENDIX B: LIST OF PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN REPORT

51

APPENDIX C: EDUCATION AT A GLANCE — EDUCATION INDICATORS 1998

The findings from the InternationalAdult Literacy Survey (Morgan et al,1997 and OECD, 1995) are useful in

placing Ireland in an internationaleducational context. Internationally, onlyMexico has a higher percentage of adults atthe lowest level of literacy. In contrast tothis, only Mexico and Turkey have a higherpercentage of the total population atprimary school. Ireland has a youngpopulation, a high percentage of which isstill at school. Compared to other OECDcountries Ireland has a high percentage ofadults who left school before the end of thesecondary cycle (Table C.1). However, we dowell when we compare the percentage ofpopulation who attended non-universitythird level education.

Ireland has nearly the same number ofyoung people at school as there are people inthe 25-64 age group, 96 per cent, the highestpercentage in all OECD countries. Thenumber of young people in school inSwitzerland is only 43 per cent of those aged25-64 (Table C.1). This places a burden onthe Irish wage earning population.

How much is spent on education in Ireland?If the change in spending is measured as apercentage of GDP and how that haschanged between 1990 and 1995, Irelanddoes not fare well. Of greater importancemay be the amount spent per pupil. Theexpenditure per student on public andprivate institutions in Ireland is $2,108 forearly childhood (OECD mean is $3,224);$2,144 for primary schooling (OECD meanis $3,546); and $3,395 for secondary (OECDmean is $4,606). The significance of this isthat only the Czech Republic, Korea,Hungary and Mexico spend less thanIreland among countries for which statisticsare available in 1995 (Table C.3).Switzerland, in contrast, spends almost$7,600 per secondary student and the UK$4,246.

Teacher pupil ratios can also provide an ideaof how the educational system is organisedrelative to other countries. Of all OECDcountries Ireland has the highest ratio ofstudents to teachers in primary schools(22.6), with the exception of Mexico (28) andKorea (31). Sweden and Austria with 12.7students per teacher and Denmark with 11.2are among the best proportioned. Thestatistics are equally poor in secondaryschool. Ironically Ireland has a teacherstudent ratio in third level education that isbetter than the OECD mean (Table C.4).

How long can students in Ireland expect toremain in school? On average 11.8 years, ifwe include only primary and secondaryschool. This statistic is nearer to a measureof early school-leaving. Only Greece (11.6years), Poland (11.7) and Mexico (10.3) havea lower mean score (Table C.6). Thecomparative figures for Australia (15.6years), Belgium (14.5), Iceland (14.8) andSweden, New Zealand and Netherlands(14.2) indicate the gap to be bridged (TableC.5).

In addition to this the unemployment ratesamong young people are equally revealing.When this is linked to level of educationthere is an unemployment rate of 32 percent for young people ages 15-19 who leaveschool below upper secondary level. OnlyHungary, Italy and Spain have higher ratesthan this (Table C.6).


SQUARING THE CIRCLE


53

Table C1: Distribution of the population 25 to 64 years of age by level of educational attainment



Table C2: Number of people at the age of basic, upper secondary and tertiary education as a

percentage of the total population (1996) and projected size of population in 2006

SQUARING THE CIRCLE


55

Table C3: Expenditure per student (US dollars converted using PPPs) on public and private institutions

by level of education (based on full-time equivalents) (1995)



Table C4: Ratio of students to teaching staff by level of education

(calculations based on full-time equivalents) (1996)

SQUARING THE CIRCLE


57

Table C5: School expectancy (1990,1996) and index of change in enrolment

(1990 = 100, 1996, 2005 [projected], 2015 [projected]



Table C6: Unemployment rates of youth by level of education attainment and age group (1996)

SQUARING THE CIRCLE

THE Census of Population (1996) and theTrutz Haase Deprivation Score providesome important data on the historical

and social context of early school-leaving inIreland. Clondalkin is one example that can helpidentify aspects of the background to earlyschool-leaving. For purposes of comparison, twoDistrict Electoral Divisions (DED) in Clondalkinare used. Clondalkin-Rowlagh DED is in thelowest decile of deprived areas and Lucan-EskerDED is in the top decile of affluence.

In the area included in the Clondalkin AreaPartnership Company (APC) 30 per cent of thepopulation is under 15 years of age and 20 percent under 10 (national figures are 25 per centand 15 per cent respectively). Ten per cent ofhouseholds consist of lone parents with at leastone child under 15. This is significantly higherthan the region (6 per cent) and the state (5 percent). In Clondalkin-Rowlagh DED the figure is19 per cent.

In the APC area, 37 per cent of the adultpopulation left education at or before 15 years ofage. In Clondalkin-Rowlagh this figure was 57per cent. The figure for the Dublin region was 32per cent, and the national average is 19 per cent.

Nine per cent of the Clondalkin APC populationremained in education beyond the age of 20compared with a 15 per cent National average. InLucan-Esker 22 per cent of the population agedover 15 and out of education had remained inthe system up to and beyond the age of 20. Thepercentage thus classified in Clondalkin-Rowlagh DED is 2 per cent.

In 1996, 26 per cent of the people aged 15 yearsand over had no formal education or had primaryeducation only at the APC level. This figure wasin line with the region (25 per cent) and less thanthe country as a whole (30 per cent). InClondalkin-Rowlagh 43 per cent of thepopulation (15 years and over whose educationhad ceased) had no formal education or had onlyprimary education. In the region, in 1996, 25 percent of the population aged 15 years and overwhose full-time education had ceased, hadreceived a third level education, while in thecountry as a whole the average was 20 per cent.The comparable figure in the APC is 15 per cent.Thirty three per cent of the population (whoseeducation has ceased) in Lucan-Esker hadreceived a third level education but in the poorestarea this figure fell to less than 4 per cent.

In 1996, the percentage of men who had leftschool with no formal education or with primary

education only was 24 per cent in the APC. ThePartnership figure was again in line with theregion (23 per cent) and less than the Nationalaverage (31 per cent). Sixteen per cent of men inthe APC had completed third level education.The figure for the region was 27 per cent and 20per cent in the population as a whole.

Twenty eight per cent of women in the APC leftthe education system with primary level or noformal education. The figures of the region andthe state were 26 per cent and 29 per centrespectively. In the APC, 14 per cent of womenhad attended third level education, less than inthe region (24 per cent) and the state (20 percent). Historically, women have left school earlierthan men but the gap between men and womenis least in the more affluent areas and greatest inareas of greatest disadvantage.

Thirty six per cent of the total unemployedpopulation in the Clondalkin APC (includes firsttime job seekers) had no formal education or hadprimary education only. The comparable figure forthe region and state were 33 per cent in each case.

What is significant about this data, replicatedacross the region, is that not only is the DublinRegion an area of disadvantage but that thedisadvantage is particularly acute in identifiableDED areas. Using the Haase Index of RelativeAffluence and Deprivation, the AreaDevelopment Management, ClondalkinPartnership Baseline Data Report — 1998 identifiesthe DED areas with relative affluence anddeprivation.5 A score of 10 indicates that a DEDis part of the most disadvantaged decile ofDEDs. In Clondalkin, Clondalkin-Rowlagh was10 in 1991 and 10 in 1996. But Lucan-Esker inthe same period moved from 3 to 1.

While the National Mean factor Score hasimproved from 5.1 (1991) to 4.6 (1996) and theClondalkin APC Mean Factor Score hasimproved from 7.0 (1991) to 5.5 (1996) the areasof greatest deprivation have shown leastmovement. Clondalkin-Rowlagh is at 10 in both1991 and 1996. For the poorest DEDs this is thecase across the Region. There are 223 DEDs inthe Dublin Region Partnership areas. Of these 76were in the poorest decile in 1991. By 1996, 54continued in the poorest decile. As in any race, ifone does not keep up with the pace, the gapwidens. This is the case with the poorest DEDs inDublin. This has implications for how funding istargeted.

APPENDIX D: CENSUS DATA FOR DUBLIN PARTNERSHIP AREAS

59

5 The Haase Index was first established to facilitate the designation of Partnership areas forinclusion in the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development (1994-1999)..

APPENDIX D: CENSUS DATA FOR DUBLIN PARTNERSHIP AREAS


Table D1: Summary of Census Data for Clondalkin Area Partnership Company

SQUARING THE CIRCLE


61

Table D2: Percentage who left school at or before 15 years of age and percentage

with no formal education or with primary only by Partnership area.

Table D3: Percentage who remained in education beyond 20 years of age and percentage of the

population aged 15 and over whose full time education has ceased and who went to

third level by Partnership area

APPENDIX E: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE MEASURES TO TACKLE EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE

T his Appendix, which classifies and gives full details of the following Department ofEducation and Science measures listed below, is available on the website of the DublinEmployment Pact (www.dra.ie/dublinpact).

The 1999 Package of Measures Education Act (1998) Disadvantaged Areas Scheme New Targetting Scheme for disadvatnaged pupils Education (Welfare) Bill School Development Planning Initiatives National Educational Pychological Service Curriculur Reform - LCA, LVCP, JCSP, New Primary Curriculum Home School Community Liaison Scheme Remedial / Resource Teachers Guidance / Counselling Service Book Grant Scheme Additional Teacher Posts National Reading Initiatives Third Level Access Initiative

Special ProjectsEarly Start Breaking the Cycle 8-15 year olds Initiative Stay in School Project Support Teacher Initiative Youth Encounter Projects

Traveller EducationPre-School Funding for tuition transport Special Primary Schools Resource Teachers in National Schools Increased capitation at second level Junior + Senior Traveller Training Centres Visiting Teacher Service

OtherYouthreach 15-18 year old Early School-leavers Area Partnerships - Education Co-Ordinator in 38 partnerships-part or full funding byDepartment of Education and Science


Designed and printed by Printwell, Dublin 1.

squaring the circle report - maynooth...

Documents