Making Systems Work How and for Whom

1
Making Systems Work How and for Whom?
European exchange programfor
vocational-guidance counsellors
Who are the last 20? Understanding and
responding to the complex needs of the most
vulnerable groups

• Reykjavík, April 2008
• Jón Torfi Jónasson (jtj_at_hi.is) and Kristjana
  Stella Blöndal (kb_at_hi.is)
• Social Science Research Institute
• University of Iceland

2
The content of this presentation

• The Icelandic system or setting
• The studies on which this analysis is based
• How is the group defined?
• What are its characteristics?
• What is the system they are in?
• A reflection on the notion of discrepancy
• What is their problem or the problem?
• What is the aim of an intervention?
• What might the intervention be?

3
The Icelandic system or setting

• The drop-out situation
• We apparently still have a drop-out rate
  amounting to 20 (females) and 30 (males)
• The economy is booming, with relatively little
  unemployment
• The school system is characterised by 4 years
  (kindergarten 2-5), 10 years primary school
  (6-15), four years secondary (16-19), with a
  Bologna type tertiary (university) system.
• The secondary system is essentially a
  comprehensive system. The students are quite free
  to choose the option (or track), i.e. academic or
  vocational, as they like, when they like.

4
The studies on which this analysis is based

• A number of studies
• The cohort 1969 study (1991-1994)
• The 1975 cohort study (2000-2004)
• The 2006-2008 school efficiency (or value added)
  study (2006-2008), all data based on personally
  traceable information, primary school
  standardised competency tests, PISA, detailed
  progress report from secondary and tertiary
  education and sample questionnaires.

5
Clarification of terms Three dimensions of the
drop-out discussion

• The school level
• Compulsory, upper-secondary, tertiary,
• The type of drop-out
• Not beginning, discontinuing, stop-out,
• The causal agents or reasons
• Another school, a job, disinterest, problems at
  school, personal problems, social problems,

6
Three important dimensions of the drop-out
discussion
7
Clarification of terms the flow of students
through the system
8
How is the group defined? And why?

• A major conclusion of previous studies
• When considering intervention, dont think of it
  as one group there are many fundamentally
  different groups.
• Why use the reference to secondary school
  completion?
• Is it important to society in general?
• To the education system?
• To the employment market?
• Some Icelandic data (next slide)

9
Secondary school completion as a function of age
(2003)
10
What are the groups characteristics?

• Relationship between non-completion and
  performance in primary school
• Reading difficulty (Nordic data)
• Self-esteem (No dramatic pattern)
• Attitude to education in general (to obtaining
  educational credits)
• Attitude to the credentials they can aim for
• 2007 88 females 79 males, would like to go to
  tertiary-university, same for How likely do you
  think you will continue after secondary?
• Attitude to the types of courses on offer
  practical vs. academic subjects
• 2007 Only 25 did not want more vocationally
  oriented courses at secondary level several
  other indications of very positive interest in
  vocationally oriented study. But this is not
  reflected in their choices.

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Cumulative distribution of reading scores
according to PISA 2003
Level 4
Level 5
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level 0
15
What is the system they are in?

• The school, but how important is it?
• Making school interesting??
• Its support system
• The family, the notion of discrepancy
• The labour market
• The credential system (see later)
• But note also
• The retrospective wisdom of dropping out

16
A reflection on the notion of discrepancy?

• Discrepancy
• In family-student attitudes or aspirations
• In conflicting family-friends advise
• In the students interests and choice of
  programme of study
• In the students competence and aspirations
• In the signals the student receives from the
  employment market
• In the students competence and the content of an
  educational programme

17
Is there difference in support? Yes, but perhaps
not very dramatic?
18
The discrepancy for the vocationally inclined may
be of special interest. The parental support or
interest in UEE. 2007 data.
19
The discrepancy between the parental and student
aspirations and progress through the system. The
2002 data.
20
The discrepancy for the vocationally inclined may
be of special interest. The parental support or
interest in UEE. 2007 data.
21
The academic - vocational dimension. The 2002
cohort data.
22
Predictors of drop-out from the discrepancy pool
of questions. The 2007 data
23
What is their problem or the problem?

• Having dropped out?
• Not having the competence implicit in the
  programmes?
• Having obtained a negative attitude towards
  schooling, which in turn negatively affects
  continuing education?
• Not having the credentials?
• Not having the social support afforded by the
  school?

24
Was is defensible to drop out?
25
What is the aim of an intervention?

• Correcting some or all of the above mentioned
  problems
• Competence, which is typically quite meagre
• Credential, status, competitive assets
• Attitude towards school or study
• Providing social support
• Or just getting them to complete school?

26
What might the intervention be?

• What do these groups need?
• In this order of importance?
• Harmony? Vis-à-vis the notion of discrepancy.
• Analysis of their aspirations rather than their
  needs or interests?
• Support to sustain their choice
• Programmes that are economically viable, but also
  have affinity with the students individual
  interests.

27
Thank you
Jón Torfi Jónasson and Kristjana Stella
Blöndal University of Iceland
28
The Icelandic educational system