NFS möde 2010 Reykjavík, Grand Hotel April 8 th 2010

NFS möde 2010

Reykjavík, Grand Hotel April 8th 2010

The question of drop-outsWhat are the issues ― and for whom?

Jón Torfi Jó[email protected] http://www.hi.is/~jtj/

School of Education, University of Iceland

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hi.is/~jtj/

What are the issues?

The drop-out issueSome personal remarks• Do I need to know? On the interaction between

educational research and the pragmatics of everyday schooling

• How does research affect the practice of education?• My present position: Researcher-Administrator

Jón Torfi Jónasson - NFS April 2010

What are the issues?

The drop-out issue

• The study of drop-out, a long time interest• Three projects

– A study of the efficiency of upper secondary schools– A Nordic drop-out study– An international drop-out study

• A return to the basic issues


Project: Efficiency of upper secondary schools

• The definition of an efficient school?• The dearth of evidence on the long-term added value

of individual schools• The evidence we have suggests the debate or

discourse shies away from data, but is nourished by hearsay


Project: Nordic project on droput

Markussen, Eifred (2010), Frafall i utdanning for 16-20-åringer i Norden. Nordisk Ministerråd: København.

Udgivet i April 2010



1. Frafald i de danske ungdomsuddannelser Christian Helms Jørgensen, Roskilde Universitet. 17

2. Frafall og videregående opplæring i Finland: en gjennomgang av nyere studier og tiltak for å holde flere i utdanning Risto Rinne & Tero Järvinen, Universitetet i Turku. 61

3. Frafall i skolen og tiltak mot frafall på Island: Ulike perspektiver Kristjana Stella Blöndal og Jón Torfi Jónasson, Háskóli Íslands 89

4. Frafall i videregående opplæring i Norge: Forskning, omfang, hva kan gjøres og hva virker? Eifred Markussen, Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning 121

5. Avhopp från svensk gymnasieskola Lars Petterson, Lunds Universitet. 149



6. Frafall i utdanning for 16–20-åringer i Norden Eifred Markussen, Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning.....191

6.1 Frafall – hva mener vi med det?...................................................................1916.2 Videregående opplærings struktur i de fem landene....................................1946.3 Forskning om frafall.....................................................................................1976.4 Hva viser forskningen – hvor mange faller fra?...........................................2026.5 Hva viser forskningen – hvorfor avbryter noen ungdommer videregående

opplæring?....................................................................................................2056.6 Politikk og tiltak for å redusere frafall og bedre gjennomføring og

kompetanseoppnåelse...................................................................................2106.7 Er det mulig å eliminere frafallet?................................................................2166.8 Tiltak på tre nivåer.......................................................................................2196.9 Forskningsbehov..........................................................................................223


Project: IRYNET

• Lamb, S., Markussen, E., Teese, R., Sandberg, N., & Polesel, J. (eds) (2010) School dropout and completion: international comparative studies in theory and policy, Springer: Dordrecht.

Published Autumn 2010Island, Norge, Finland, Scotland, England, Tyskland,

Polen, Sveits, Frankrike, Spania, USA, Canada og Australia


The Norwegian slides ara adapted from

Eifred Markussen

Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning

NIFU-STEPKøbenhavn 24.mars 2010

Frafall – hva mener vi med det?• Island: Andelen av en fødselskohort som ved 24 års alder ikke er i

utdanning eller ikke har bestått videregående opplæring. • Norge: De som fem år etter at de gikk ut av grunnskolen (eller begynte i

videregående) har gått mindre enn tre år i videregående og som på dette tidspunktet ikke er i videregående.

• Danmark: a) Alle som avbryter en utdanning som de er startet på, også om de begynner på en annen utdanning. b) De som ikke har fullført og bestått en videregående opplæring målt 25 år etter at de har forlatt grunnskolen (profilmodellen).

• Sverige: De som ikke har oppnådd ”slutbetyg”, dvs. at de har forlatt videregående opplæring (gymnasieskolan) før de var ferdige

• Finland: Definerer ikke frafall. Fokus på de som verken er i utdanning eller jobb – NEET (Not in Education, Employment and Training).


Behov for samordning av definisjonene?

• Ikke nødvendigvis, så lenge man vet hva man snakker om• Uten samordning: Vil fortsette å sammenligne ulike størrelser• Anbefaling: Skille de som slutter fra de som gjennomfører

uten bestått• Anbefaling:

– Nordisk forskningsprosjekt omkring frafall i videregående opplæring. – Felles datainnsamling i alle fem land – Analyser av offentlige registerdata, surveydata og kvalitative data – Longitudinelt perspektiv. – Ledes av et forskningsmiljø i et av landene – Gjennomføres i et samarbeid mellom forskningsmiljøer i alle de fem

nordiske landene.



Clarification of terms: the flow of students through the systemEmerging classification of different school-leaving groups

Compulsory education

Secondary education

Tertiary education Adult education

ab A1c A2d T1e T2

f S1g S2h C1i C2

1 Formally complete but do not continue2 Start but discontinue, perhaps come back later

C1 Formally complete compulsory education but do not continueC2 Leave compulsory education and do not complete

Hva med de som har gjennomført uten å bestå?

Er det frafall?

Island: jaDanmark: jaNorge: nei

Sverige: nei


Fullføring og frafall



School completion as a function of age (2003)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

years years years years years years years years years years years years years years

16-17 18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-67 68-69 70-74

Females Primary, but not completed secondary

Males Primary, but not completed secondary


The percentage of the age group 25-64 who is registered in any type of formal education in Iceland From the Statistics Iceland, national labour force survey.

6%

18%

8% 9%7%

25%

12%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Compulsoryeducation

Academic secondary Vocational secondary University education

Males Females

Den samfunnsmessige konteksten

• I takt med økende kompetansekrav: – Et tap for samfunnet: Mister verdifull kompetanse– Et tap for individet: Stiller svakere på arbeidsmarkedet– Eks. Frøseth (2008): Slutterne kommer klart verst ut

• Konsekvens: Alle bør oppnå så høy kompetanse som mulig gjennom videregående opplæring

• Når 60-80 prosent lykkes: videregående opplæring gjør ikke jobben

• Utfordringen: Bringe flere frem til fullført og bestått videregående opplæring


Den samfunnsmessige konteksten

• Skal det være et mål at alle skal bestå videregående opplæring?• Skal noen kunne gå gjennom videregående opplæring uten å

sikte mot full måloppnåelse?• Hva skal utdanningssystemet og samfunnet tilby disse i stedet?• Er det forsvarlig å utdanne folk til et lavere nivå enn full

kompetanse fra videregående opplæring?


Tiltak for redusert frafall og bedre gjennomføring

Tiltak for redusert frafall og bedre fullføring i Norden

• Rådgivning og karriereveiledning– Finland: Prioritert virkemiddel– Danmark: Ungdommens Uddannelsesvejledning– Island: Lovpålagt tilgang til rådgivning– Norge: Partnerskap for karriereveiledning, to nye fag– Internasjonal trend

• Økt innslag av praksis i yrkesutdanningen– Mindre teori – mer praksis– Finland: mer praksibasert arbeid inn i læreplanene: learning by doing– Sverige: styrke yrkesprofilen i yrkesutdanningene– Danmark: mer praksisorientering i yrkesutdanningene– Norge: Arbeidslivsfag - praksisbrev


Tiltak for redusert frafall og bedre fullføring i Norden

• Spesiell oppmerksomhet rundt unge i faresonen som krever ekstra tett oppfølging– Finland: 10.klasse, spes.und., ungdomsverksteder– Island: generelt program, arbeidstreningsprogrammer– Sverige: Det individuelle programmet– Danmark: Ny mesterlære, produksjonsskoler, ungdomsutdannelse

for unge med særlige behov– Norge: Lærekandidatordningen, praksisbrev

• Omfattende reformer– Danmark: 2000– Island: Under gjennomføring– Sverige: Planlegges– Norge: Reform 94 og Kunnskapsløftet (2006)


Four perspectives or levels of discourses

• Society and the school– How society moulds the school, e.g. by credentialism

• The school in society – How the school is affected by the students being parts of society

• The school and the student– How the school is affected by its dependence on students

• The student in the school– How the student can flourish, develop, and be encouraged by the

school


Brings up a number of issues

• Whom is the school for?

• Industry, the economy, the new skills, the 21st century skills• Society, its coherence, or harmony, equity, dynamic, democracy• The individual, his or her advancement, well being,

• A considerable effort should be spent probing this• Also it should be discussed which problems the school can solve or help to

solve; but if not the school, who then?


Kan bortvalget elimineres?

”arbeidet mot frafall må være ”Hele skolens oppgave”. (…) Arbeidet må være preget av system, ansvarsfordeling og plan, som bidrar til at det blir ”Hele skolens oppgave”, og får en kontinuitet som er nødvendig for å opprettholde en kontinuerlig beredskap”. (Buland og Havn 2007)

• En effektiv indsats mod frafald bør rettes mod de bagvedliggende sociale problemer, som medfører at unge efter afslutningen af grundskolen ikke kan gennemføre en ungdomsuddannelse . (Helms Jørgensen 2010)

• Ultimately, the ability to ”solve” the dropout problem (...) may depend more on the country’ ability to address widespread inequalities in the larger social and economic system. (Rumberger 2010)



• • “developmentalist strategies focus on the most vulnerable young

people and on those who drop out, or are at risk of dropping out, because of specific developmental and social problems. Young people who drop out, and especially those who become NEET, are disproportionately likely to have low self-esteem and self-efficacy, low social, personal and cognitive skills, family problems, and/or a history of offending, alcohol and drug use or teenage pregnancy. Not all these problems are strictly described as ‘developmental’, but they all invite responses which focus primarily on the individual and his or her problems, rather than on the education system and its cultures and opportunity structures” (Raffe, 2010).



The importance of VET

• On the other hand, evidence from some countries, indicate that VET does not necessarily have to function as a way to increased completion and reduced dropout.

• The Scottish chapter states that providing vocational programs is not sufficient to guarantee high participation, and further, with reference to Steedman and Stoney (2004) that evidence from other countries suggest that vocational programs may not be the most appropriate way to engage the most disaffected young people. This is supported by the Norwegian case, where the lowest completion rates are found within VET.


Some issues brought up by the drop-out research

The universality of both the problems and patterns The question about the role of the school system and also

individual schools or even individual staff

The serious issue of what is the downside of a drop-out

Interventionat the level of the teacher or councillorthe school, school system, the social system


Thank you

Kærar þakkir









Norway: The growth of female attendance at tertiary level 1971-2001(Universiteter og högskoler)

The number of female students in Norwegian universities and colleges expressed in terms of the 20-24 year cohort

y = 3E-55e0,065x

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Kvinner 1971-1980

Kvinner

Expon. (Kvinner 1971-1980)




y = 3E-55e0,065x

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Kvinner 1971-1980

Kvinner





y = 3E-55e0,065x

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Kvinner 1971-1980

Kvinner




Sweden: Growth coefficients for examination profiles 1978-2004 for different female and male age groups: First examination 160 poang or more

(four years or more)

Growth coefficients for each cohort at 160+ poang 1978-2004 for males and females

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,222 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40-4

9

50-5

9

Age of graduates

expo

nent

ial g

row

th c

oeff

fo

r ea

ch c

ohor

t

Growth females: Sweden

Growth males: Sweden


Higher education: enrolment in the US 1900-2004

Growth rates in US higher education 1900-2004. Actual growth compared to the 1900-1939 exponential and logistic predictions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Females corrected for cohort1900-1939

USA 1900-1939 Femalesexponential prediction

USA 1900-1939 Females. S-logistic Limit 700




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010




Females corrected for cohort 1940-1970




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010




Females corrected for cohort 1940-1970





0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

USA Females corrected forcohort 1900-2004




The growth of the world tertiary student population relative to total population in the 20th century: number of

students per million inhabitants

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000


The predicted growth of the world tertiary student population relative to total population: number of students

per million inhabitants

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

World population 2008 6.700 million

4% growth of HE students 2000 100 million

2010 150 million2020 220 million

Society and the university

• Some of the implications of the credentialist or consumerist ethos

• This is not the sole concern of students, nor even an overriding one, but an important one, and

– Students will come to HE education in fairly massive numbers, but the competition (and probably increasingly a serious one) will be among, but probably mainly within the universities,

– Many students will adopt a consumer approach to the way they judge or value their programmes and decide to stay or leave.


Society and the university

• The gender issue, following Camilla Schreiner,

• I have come to analyse educational development differently for males and females, because of the systematic and robust differences.

• I have found in some instances increased polarisation, rather than reduced, e.g. in the choice of subjects.

• However given the ubiquitous and robust statistical differences, one should constantly be reminded, that boys differ and so do girls.


The university in society



• How the university is affected by the students being parts of society, by their age, many of whom are full adult participants in society,

and even though they take their studies seriously, they have a host of demanding pressures, commitments, situation constraints, priorities, ambitions,

these must be accepted by the institutions, but it is not clear to what extent this must be done nor what the implications are: this is an urgent topic for discussion.



The age of students in Nordic HE, % distribution (2007, 2008)


Tertiary education (ISCED 5+6)Denmark Finland Åland Iceland Norway SwedenM F M F M F M F M F M F

15-19 years 1 1 4 4 5 3 1 1 4 5 5 420-24 years 39 42 41 42 47 46 39 32 46 42 42 3625-29 years 36 31 27 23 25 23 28 23 22 18 25 2030-39 years 19 18 18 17 18 17 19 23 16 17 18 2140+ 6 8 10 13 5 11 13 21 12 18 11 19

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10025+ 60 57 55 54 48 50 61 67 50 53 53 60Source: Nordic databank, Nordic Council of Ministers


The age of students in the Icelandic university system


2008 All disciplinesAge range Males Females19-24 40,8 33,125-29 27,3 23,230-39 18,8 23,540+ 13,0 20,2

100 % 100 %Source: Statistics Iceland

2008 Social scienceMales Females

19-24 36,2 32,125-29 26,6 23,530-39 21,9 24,840+ 15,4 19,6

100,0 % 100,0 %

2008 EngineeringMales Females

19-24 56,4 66,625-29 27,7 23,130-39 12,0 8,240+ 3,9 2,1

100,0 % 100,0 %

The university and the student



How the university is dependent on students,• The culture of universities, Humboldt 1809 / Whitehead 1929H The goals of science and scholarship are worked towards most effectively

through the synthesis of the teacher’s and the students’ dispositions. The teacher’s mind is more mature but it is also somewhat one-sided in its development and more dispassionate; the student’s mind is less able and less committed but it is nonetheless open and responsive to every possibility. The two together are a fruitful combination.

W The justification for a university is that it preserves the connection between knowledge and the zest of life, by uniting the young and the old in the imaginative considerations of learning.



In order to fulfil the Humboldt / Whitehead ideal, there must be a temperate number of students, but there are certainly two issues that complicate the situation, i.e. cost and policy.

Government policy is twofold, one side is to reduce its financial contribution per student, but the other is to demand wider access, and that a steadily higher proportion of students, not only attend HE institutions, but also complete their courses.

These policies are implemented by a very direct and transparent tie between the financial contribution and the FTE; thus the institutions become very dependent on high student throughput, with an obvious threat to quality. This is to me an urgent topic for discussion.


The student in the university


The student in the universityThe point has been implied in the above that it would be problematic to deal with

issues within the institution, without taking into account, the three perspectives, already discussed.

We must understand in what way the university is seen as a vehicle of advancement, security and status, but of course also and important venue for education, by the student.

We must also understand in what way our students, even though keenly interested in their studies, are also active participants in other arenas of society.


The student in the universityFurthermore we must note that we should not treat them as customers, being

served, but as our active partners, they are as Humboldt noted, no longer at school, but adult participants in the quest for learning. Something the institutional ethos of mass education tends to ignore, being in danger of turning HE into a robust routine.

At the same time we might openly discuss to what extent we treat or serve our students for our somewhat selfish aims of financial well-being.

From both these perspectives, those who leave without obtaining their degrees are a particular concern.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Chart A3.5 Proportion of students who enter a tertiary programme and leave without at least a first tertiary degree (2005)

1. Only tertiary-type A.Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of students who enter into a tertiary programme and leave without at least a tirst tertiary degree.Source: OECD. Table A3.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009)

%

The student in the universityA survey

A study of those who drop or stop-out from the University of Iceland (May 2008, in Icelandic).

Survey of a sample of 350 students originally registered in under- or post-graduate programmes at the University of Iceland, selected from a larger group of dropouts.


From the sampleNo attendance 54%Attending for less than a month 7%Attending UI for more than a month 39% 350

Surveyed



Survey among those who dropped out and studied for more than a monthRegistered 2003-2006

63% decided what to choose only after UEE (stúdentspróf)and additionally 6% the day before registration

59% found it diffi cult to choose a disciplineMale 50%

Female 64%Post-grad 82%



They had reasonably good ideas about the respective programmesThe level of diffi culty did not differ from their expectationsThey were reasonably well prepared

About two-thirds had a job alongside their studies75% intended to complete some HE programme later

20% regretted having dropped out or stoppedM 32% 20-24 11%F 15% 31+ 32%



Less than a third sought counselling advice30% attribute their discontinuation to the institution

Attribution to three componentsThe institution StrongestStudent performanceInterest or relevance


Highest Lowest Median ofinstitutional institutional institutional

Subject mean mean meansSocial studies 35,8 14 21,6Law 44,8 18,7 26,2

English universities: Student workload by subject – highest and lowest institutional mean hours per week (average of 2006 and 2007 results combined)

The student in the university, but the institutions differ


Table 1: Student workload by subject – highest and lowest institutional meanhours per week (average of 2006 and 2007 results combined)

Highest Lowest Median ofinstitutional institutional institutional

Subject mean mean meansMedicine and dentistry 46,3 26,3 35,5Subjects allied to medicine 38,3 24,6 31,2Biological Sciences 39,9 15 24,5Veterinary agriculture and related 41,6 23,5 37Physical Sciences 45,3 19,8 27,6Mathematical & Computer Sciences 36,4 17,1 26,2Engineering & technology 41,2 20,8 28,7Architecture, Building & Planning 41,5 26,3 28,5Social studies 35,8 14 21,6Law 44,8 18,7 26,2Business & Administrative studies 28,3 15,5 20,8Mass Communications & Documentation 26,8 14,7 19,4Linguistics, Classics & related subjects 39,3 14,8 22,3Historical & Philosophical studies 39,5 14 21,5Creative Arts & Design 34,5 17,2 25,6Education 33,7 14,4 25,5

The Academic Experience of Students in English Universities 2009 ReportBahram Bekhradnia

Four perspectives

Four levels of the discourse suggested

• Society and the university• The university in society

• The university and the student• The student in the university


An institutional response to attending and leaving students

I have tried to argue above that understanding how choosing to go to university, and then attending, persisting or leaving the institution is very complex and we must be mindful to adopt a number of perspectives in order to understand the students and their behaviour, inter alia their attributions when asked about the university.

They live in many worlds, apart from their own.


An institutional response to attending and leaving students

I have lately come to the conclusion that we should couch our dilemmas concerning students, in cultural terms. What should be the operational culture of a university? Thus, rather than asking what specific responses might be appropriate when dealing with attending, or leaving students, we might ask ourselves what institutional culture we want to create. A culture that treats the students as co-workers and equals, rather than school students or customers. We should certainly be professional directors of the operation, leaders and mentors, shouldering our full responsibility – with them.


Documents

NFS möde 2010 Reykjavík, Grand Hotel April 8 th 2010