working group schools policy: early school...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Group Schools Policy: Early school leaving
Country focus workshop: Portugal, 11-14 November 2014
School governance and collaborative practices
Contents
1 Overview of the country focus workshop in Portugal ............................................3
2 School autonomy ..................................................................................................3
3 Towards increased school autonomy – key features of the Portuguese approach ..7
4 Key findings from the workshop ...........................................................................8 4.1 School governance .................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Learner support ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Stakeholder involvement ........................................................................................................ 12
5 Concluding comments ........................................................................................ 14 5.1 School governance ................................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Learner support ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Collaborative approaches ...................................................................................................... 15
Annex 1 Brief description of key initiatives ........................................................... 17
Annex 2 Country reflections .................................................................................. 21
Annex 3 References .............................................................................................. 24
3
1 Overview of the country focus workshop in Portugal
The first country focus workshop for the early school leaving part of the Working Group on
Schools Policy took place in Portugal, 11th-14th November 2014. The workshop was hosted by
the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science in Lisbon. The Ministry organised valuable
contributions from different units across the Ministry, from the National Council for Education in
addition to a range of other national, regional and local stakeholders, including student
representatives. The workshop gathered experts from Belgium/NL, Denmark, Estonia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, France, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The objective of the workshop was to reflect on the opportunities that schools with different
levels of autonomy have to increase teacher-teacher and teacher-student collaboration, to
enhance stakeholder involvement, and to promote distributed leadership at the school level.
Over the course of the workshop a series of visits and presentations were organised.
The programme included a discussion on school autonomy and accountability in response to
the school autonomy mapping research undertaken by the group. The main discussion points
from this debate are synthesised in section 2 below. The programme also included
presentations on the Portuguese education system and approach to school governance and
school autonomy. Visits to three different schools and a series of presentations were provided
on a range of initiatives and policy measures.
School Principals and members of the education community were invited to participate in a one
day International Seminar on school leadership, governance and ESL. Following input from the
European Commission on ESL within the EU policy context, a presentation on leadership and
school autonomy from a Portuguese perspective was provided. This was complemented by a
presentation from Spanish members of the Working Group on its new legal framework for
school leadership. The International Seminar hosted three parallel workshops, providing
contrasting examples of initiatives from Portugal and members of the Working Group:
■ Governance and leadership: Cristelo School Cluster (Portugal) and Dobbanto programme
(Hungary);
■ Innovative governance and cooperative practices to support students at risk: Aga
Khan Foundation (Portugal) and the Vocational School BAHK Wien 10 (Austria);
■ School-business cooperation: Microsoft (Portugal) and Kinsale Community School
(Ireland).
Visits to schools across Lisbon, namely the Dr. Azevedo Neves School, the Antonino Arroio Arts
Secondary School and Vasco da Gama Integrated Basic School together with the International
Seminar provided excellent opportunities for Working Group members to compare and contrast
views and experiences with each other and their Portuguese colleagues. This paper
summarises key points put forward by the participants as key learning points for both policy and
practice for their countries and is structured as follows:
■ Section 1: Overview of the workshop
■ Section 2: School autonomy
■ Section 3: Towards increased school autonomy – key features of the Portuguese approach
■ Section 4: Key messages from the workshop in relation to school governance, learner
support and stakeholder involvement
■ Section 5: Concluding remarks
Specific details of the individual initiatives presented in Portugal are provided in annex one.
2 School autonomy
In advance of the country focused workshop in Portugal, the ESL sub-group undertook a
mapping study on school autonomy. The aim was to collect information on the current state of
play with regards to policy, context and reform in relation to aspects of school autonomy,
including for example human resources, school management, organisation of teaching/learning,
decision making at different levels, accountability and stakeholder collaboration. The outcomes
4
of the mapping exercise provide helpful insights to the degree of school autonomy in both
decentralised and centralised systems. In contexts of reduced autonomy, the research findings
shed some light on the degree of flexibility schools, teachers and leaders have within a
centralised framework to introduce measures/initiatives that seek to address ESL and engage
parents and key stakeholders in this endeavour.
Following a brief presentation of the key findings of the school autonomy mapping exercise, a
discussion on the rationale for, and impact of school autonomy ensued. In the remainder of this
section, the commentary that follows seeks to capture and conceptualise key aspects of the
debate that took place during the workshop.
The fact that education systems across Europe are changing in the way they are regulated and
governed is well documented in the literature1. The discourse illustrates how convergence in
education policies in the last two decades has resulted in increased school autonomy – typically
controlled by a range of accountability arrangements.
In short, school autonomy is not necessarily a set of predetermined policies and procedures, but
a continuum of activities and policies put into place to improve the functioning of schools by
allowing parents and teachers to focus on improvements in learning, and as such, foster a new
social contract between schools and their community in which local cooperation and
accountability drive improvements in school performance.
A key rationale for supporting school autonomy is that local decision-makers have a better
understanding of the capacity of their schools and the demands that are placed on them by
varying/diverse student populations. This knowledge in turn permits them to make informed
resource decisions, to improve the productivity of the schools, and to meet the varying demands
of their local constituents2. However, concerns about the degree of autonomy that should be
given to schools emphasise the risks associated with: the potential impact of variable and poor
quality local decision-making capacity; and, the potential threat local decision-making may have
for maintaining common national standards.
Assessing the effects of school autonomy
The relationship between school governance, autonomy and performance within countries is
complex, and the relationships vary according to the extent of accountability arrangements
national systems have - both centrally and locally. In relation to national governance structures,
despite an increasing trend toward decentralisation in many countries, clear differences remain.
This is especially evident between those countries where most power lies at the centre (such as
France), where regional control is strongest (such as Germany and Switzerland), where local
control predominates (the Nordic countries), and where substantial power has been devolved to
schools and the market-place (the Netherlands and the UK). These different governance
structures in place impact/influence the relative distribution of power and in effect the level of
autonomy within systems. In most countries schools are largely or wholly a government
responsibility and, as such, the factors shaping government priorities are potentially important
influences on the perceived necessity for school reform, the resources available for reform, and
the direction of reforms. High level reform of activity in many countries also means national
governance structures are often in considerable flux.
National systems are located in different school autonomy and accountability
frameworks
An important aspect to acknowledge when assessing the impact of school autonomy is the
different models of school governance that exist, a view clearly endorsed by the range of
different approaches to autonomy and accountability members of the Working Group debated.
Here, research has identified models of school level governance3 that are useful for providing a
framework within which the notion of school autonomy and accountability can be located and
understood4:
1 OECD (2013). Hooge, E., T. Burns and H. Wilkoszewski (2012). Green, A, Wolf, A and Leney,T (1999)
2 Ouchi, W. G ( 2003); World Bank, (2004).
3 See for example, Glatter,R. (2003), Glatter, R. (2007)
4 These models should be seen as ideal types and are by no means comprehensive; in practice, national education
systems will operate some composite of them - sometimes they may complement and reinforce each other as they
5
■ competitive market – where the school is viewed as a small-or medium-sized business with
a high degree of autonomy and few formal links with the governmental structure. The main
focus within the system is not on the individual school but on the relevant competitive arena
which will contain a group of (generally) adjacent schools in competition with each other for
pupils and funds;
■ school empowerment - the perspectives underlying this model can be political (in the broad
sense of dispersing power) and/or managerial (based on the principle that decisions are
best taken as closely as possible to the point of action and/or in terms of freedom and
choice). Although this model in practice often occurs in a competitive market scenario, the
focus is more on the operation of the schools themselves (rather than in competition with
other local schools) and is based on participation and partnership – the school conceived of
as an extended community;
■ local empowerment – this reflects devolution to local and municipal authorities rather than
directly to schools. The school in this model is viewed as one of a “family” of schools, as
part of a local educational system and as a member of a broader community in which there
are reciprocal rights and obligations; the main focus is on the locality as a social and
educational unit and its representative bodies; and,
■ quality control – this model reflects a high degree of government control over the quality of
key school processes and products operating through set procedures, controls and
monitoring arrangements. The implied picture of the school is of “point of delivery” of many
of the educational “goods” on offer. Established targets (course mix and quality) are set at
either the central or regional level, depending on the constitutional arrangements.
Naturally school systems differ in the degree of autonomy granted to schools, and at the school
level, relationships vary greatly, depending on the national system. High degrees of school
autonomy can be found in countries such as Bulgaria, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and
the UK; countries such as Greece and Turkey grant lower levels of autonomy to schools. The
very concept of local decision-making and local autonomy, however, is also multifaceted. The
recent mapping exercise has shown that certain decisions are made locally (by teachers,
heads) whilst others are made centrally. Indeed, research evidence has shown that,
conceptually, some decisions are more appropriately made locally (such as operational
decisions like hiring and budget allocations where local knowledge is needed and
standardisation is not crucial) whereas for others standardisation may be more desirable (for
example determining school curricula)5. This has been reflected in practice in countries such as
the UK and Bulgaria where higher levels of school autonomy have been accompanied by an
increase in central control in areas related to curriculum design, development and assessment.
Does school autonomy make sense everywhere?
In recent years there has been a trend across many Member States to introduce more market-
like measures in state education. As part of this approach, schools are held accountable
through hierarchal structures for a variety of aspects of their performance. Parents (consumers)
can also hold schools to account in the market place. Information is made available to parents in
a variety of forms – some countries make extensive use of examination data and/or external
evaluation reports (inspection) as the mechanisms through which schools are held to account.
The crucial question is whether these uses have a positive impact on student
performance.
Where accountability encourages school competition, it is important to consider the extent to
which school competition can work to raise overall educational attainment. Research evidence6,
while still being developed, points to a combination of variables in being crucial for fostering
improved learning outcomes as part of school autonomy-based systems, that is: managerial
autonomy, the assessment of results, and the use of assessment to promote accountability
among all stakeholders. An important point to emphasis here is that the concept of performance
measures is much broader than raw test/examination data, and that a much broader
impact on localities and schools but their interaction is also likely to cause tensions (between integration and fragmentation, competition and co-operation, central and local decision-making) which participants must seek to resolve. 5 Bishop, J.H and Woessmann, L (2004)
6 Bruns, B. Filmer, D and Patrinos, H, A (2011)
6
perspective on accountability should be considered in order to reflect the diversity of activities
for which schools are responsible beyond purely academic outcomes.
Research evidence also highlights that the impact of school autonomy may well vary with other
elements of education systems. For example, local autonomy permits using localised
knowledge to improve performance, but it also potentially opens up the possibility for more
opportunistic behaviour on the part of the school. As a result, the impact on student outcomes
may well interact with the level of accountability7. In a broader sense, the results of school
autonomy may depend on the performance level and – as a corollary – on the overall
development level of the country and the entire school system8. Furthermore, the effect of
autonomy may not only depend on the level of development, but also on the extent to which a
school system directly monitors results through accountability systems9.
Challenges and risks associated with school autonomy
As debated during the Portuguese workshop, there are a high number of challenges and risks
related to increased school autonomy. In some countries this has resulted in evidence of
‘extreme autonomy’ leading to huge competition between schools to attract and retain the ‘best’
students. In countries where student achievement targets are in place for example, this
potentially puts immense pressure on teachers to improve results - running the risk of driving
certain behaviours, including ‘teaching to the test’, or a focus on areas of the curriculum that are
subject to targets (should they exist) at the exclusion of others. A further consequence of league
tables is that they potentially create incentives for schools to enter students for ‘easier’ subjects.
National test results and external evaluation reports (where publically available) collectively
inform consumer choice and impacts upon a school’s reputation - particularly where a negative
inspection can have serious consequences for the viability of the school. This is important in so
far that if consumer demand declines, the most likely outcome is a reduction in funding,
potentially resulting in school closure.
Ultimately this contributes to and significantly influences the creation of a system that is unfair to
all students. This may be associated with the student profile and/or where schools are working
at a disadvantage. What must be avoided is the introduction of adverse performance measures
– for example, in the UK, where the ‘contextual value added’ measure led to the expectation of
different levels of progress from different groups of young people on the basis of their ethnic
background or family circumstances. This measure has now been removed; the argument being
that this measure entrenched low aspirations. Nevertheless, certain countries have recently
introduced and/or are introducing added value indicator for school evaluation, such as Portugal
for example.
As evidenced across Europe10
, accountability is now a common feature of political plans for
education – providing a variety of information to the public about each school. It is important
however to also appreciate the limitations of such measures. As Ready (2012) argues, those
responsible for school accountability systems need an awareness of issues together with a clear
understanding of appropriate uses of different accountability models. Different modelling
strategies produce different estimates of school performance. Some countries consider
outcomes across the breadth of performance measures – this might include pupil attainment,
but also incorporating factors such as student well-being, a school’s success in reducing the
impact of disadvantage; and parents’ and pupils’ views of the school and the support they
receive. Whilst there continues to be great dispute about autonomy and how it is managed at
school level – members of the Working Group argued that autonomy requires virtue and
courage.
Greater freedom and experimentation to find out what works
One of the key arguments made in favour of school autonomy concerns allowing schools to
experiment and find what works11
. The idea is that innovation increases as school leaders use
7 Woessmann, L (2005)
8 Mourshed et al. (2010)
9 Hanushek and Woessmann, L (2011); Woessmann, L (2005)
10 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015)
11 Jensen, B (2013)
7
their enhanced freedom to devise new solutions allowing schools to operate differently and
affording families greater choice12
. What is particularly important in this debate, is that schools
and teachers need to develop ‘good teaching’ in their own context and that the needs of the
pupil and the relationship between the school and the pupil should not be forgotten or
overlooked. In centralised systems, reduced autonomy can still result in the implementation of
innovative measures to address early school leaving. In this context, the paper now turns to
school autonomy in the context of the Portuguese education system.
3 Towards increased school autonomy – key features of the Portuguese approach
National programme to support schools in disadvantaged areas
A further key development to highlight was the introduction of the TEIP13
national programme in
1996. This programme targets schools and school clusters with a majority number of
disadvantaged and ‘at risk of social exclusion’ children. An important point to highlight here is
that selection of the schools benefiting from the TEIP is based on social and economic
indicators of the areas where schools are located (discussed below). Schools develop specific
improvement plans, based on an agreement between the school, school authorities on
measures, results, evaluation and additional resources. TEIP initiative represents 17% of all
school clusters. Schools are afforded the opportunity to diversify their ‘offer’ in order to meet the
needs of the student population.
Creating frameworks for a gradual move towards decentralisation
Portugal represents a country where historically there has been a progressive move from a
highly centralised education system towards gradual decentralisation. Overtime and over the
course of different leading political parties, this has led to the greater/gradual autonomy of
public schools.
Clustering of schools
Key developments (as reported in more detail in the accompanying background paper),
influenced by an accession of political decisions and policy interventions over years have
included the major reorganisation of the school system. This reorganisation followed the results
of PISA 2000 and in part, led to the introduction of a network of ‘school clusters’ that bring
together several schools (of different levels – from pre-school to secondary) in a single
educational project. There are currently 811 clusters and non-group secondary schools in
operation.
Legislation formalising autonomy contracts for schools
A further key development is the introduction of ‘autonomy contracts’ following a series of
historical developments14
in the move towards decentralisation and significantly, legislation
passed in 200815
and in 201216
. This legislation paved the way for the allocation of greater
responsibility to schools to enable them to develop their own educational project. Since
February 2014, schools with autonomy agreements have full autonomy to manage up to 25% of
their curriculum contents/time. To date, schools with autonomy agreements represent more than
26% of all school clusters. The allocation of an autonomy contract represents a move towards
trust and better educational outcomes, it does however require strong and committed leadership
as agents of change and improvement.
12
See Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (2008); Witte (1990) in Jenson, B (2013) 13
Regulated in Despacho Normativo N.º 20/2012 (Diário da República, 2ª série, Nº192 – 3 de outubro de 2012). Available at: http://www.dgidc.min-edu.pt/teip/index.php?s=directorio&pid=10 14
Dating back to 1890 which witnessed the creation of the Ministry of Public Instruction and Fine Art. The 1974 Revolution which included a speech in favour of decentralisation. 15
Decree Law No 144; Dec Law No 75/2008 16
Decree Law No 137/2012; Ordinance No 265/2012
8
A system of publically rewarding schools for their efforts in reducing early school
leaving
Support measures for autonomy include the Education Efficacy Indicator (EFI) and the Drop Out
Risk Indicator (RA) with the aim of promoting quality, improvement of students performance and
recognising/rewarding good work undertaken by schools. These indicators are used to allocate
credit hours to school for the purpose of hiring additional teachers/professionals to support and
promote school success. The total number of credit hours depends on the calculated values for
indicators of student outcomes (EFI indicator) and on the evidence that there has been a
significant reduction in the number of ESL (RA Indicator).
In summary, the EFI Indicator assesses the annual evolution of educational achievement of
students, the alignment between internal evaluation results and results of external evaluation (in
this case, national examinations) and academic success achieved by students. The school
improvement is measured against the starting point of the school (in relation to the previous
year) and not in absolute terms. The RA indicator calculates the status of students at the end of
the academic year who is recorded as school leaver, annulled registration or excluded/retained
due to absenteeism are classified as Risk of Abandonment (RA). The criteria for obtaining 30
credit hours is to reduce to less than half the level of drop-out. This Classification of data in
relation to ESL in effect, provides schools with additional resources to tackle ESL.
Such key features of the Portuguese approach provide helpful background and context to the
range of initiatives and visits that were organised as part of the workshop. The next section now
turns to the key findings from the workshop in relation to the three sub-themes of the Working
Group: school governance, learner support and stakeholder involvement.
4 Key findings from the workshop
4.1 School governance
Promoting freedom and experimentation
As evident during the workshop, Portugal is a country that operates a relatively centralised
education system with limited school autonomy. However it represents a country that affords a
moderate degree of flexibility within the context of school governance and continues to support
experimentation through the development and implementation of a range of bottom-up/top down
initiatives. This approach is facilitated by the fact the Ministry acknowledges the issue of early
school leaving and continues to retain it as a high political priority. The Ministry also undertakes
evaluations of key initiatives with the view to either scale-up and/or roll out successful initiatives
nationally.
Legislation on school autonomy contracts (as introduced above) with agreed targets; defined
roles and responsibilities of partner organisations, together with the involvement of parents and
young people themselves represent key drivers for creating more flexible, experimental
approaches to enable schools to address ESL.
As indicated in the previous section, over many years a range of interventions have been
introduced at national level – including the TEIP programme, the introduction of school
autonomy contracts and allocation of credit hours. Teacher training, programmes for school
leaders and programmes for parental involvement together with new structural interventions
such as the Commission for the Protection of Children (CPCJ) have also been introduced.
During the workshop, participants had the opportunity to visit the Dr. Azevedo Neves TEIP
school in Amadora. With more than 52% of the school population coming from outside of
Portugal, the school is rich in culture and diversity, however over 50% of students receive
economic aid. As a school offering provision across pre-school, primary, basic education,
secondary education and vocational education, it offers students and their families a range of
support measures to facilitate their integration and to develop values, beliefs, citizenship right
through to training and employability skills and opportunities.
Positive results of enhanced flexibility and freedom for experimentation for schools in more
centralised context were also highlighted by the presentations of Vocational School BAHK Wien
10 and of the Dobbanto project (HU).
9
Highly motivated school leaders and need for 'distributed leadership’
Common to all initiatives experienced during the workshop, was motivated leaders, with a
strategic vision on the school, able to implement a system of ‘middle management’ and to
promote and support teamwork among the school staff. Leaders met during the workshop, were
highly skilled in their capacity to exploit new and existing opportunities in the aim for school
improvement. In the case of the Dr. Azevedo Neves school, there was clear evidence of the
school leader continuously identifying and quickly acting on opportunities to improve school
performance – often going beyond the remit of the school and resources as a school leader.
Opening the school on a Saturday morning not only provides students with a safe place to be,
to take on extra tuition but also to reassure the principal that the child has access to food during
the weekend. Providing a range of vocational courses in the catering (in collaboration with local
enterprises) not only enhances employability prospects for students but also ensures that
students have regular access to shower facilities (a mandatory requirement set by the school
before a student can enter the kitchen). The school also offers other support to fragile families
during the Saturday morning sessions – such as help with documentations/applications etc.
The importance of 'distributed leadership' and of a 'middle management' in schools was also
highlighted. In big schools this may require setting up special arrangements or structures. The
importance of the training schemes for future school leaders and of CPD was also stressed;
competence frameworks for leaders, as developed in Spain, could also be an option.
Promoting flexibility within the curriculum
During the visit, participants also received at first hand an insight as to how the system of credit
hours is being used for school improvement in the context of creating and enabling greater
flexibility within the curriculum. As described in more detail in annex one, the More School
Success Programme was based on a three year pilot study17
. Following the success and
external evaluation of the pilot, the original programme ended in 2012/13. Since then the
methodology associated with the pilot has been available for schools to adopt. During the
workshop, examples were provided from two different schools that have utilised their credit
allocation to implement the Fénix and Class +. In summary, the main idea is that within the
context of a heterogeneous class, it is difficult to implement differentiated pedagogy. Both
programmes share the basic idea that for a variable amount of time, pupils are taken from class
and regrouped (as a remedial class) according to their levels of proficiency and extent to which
they require personalised learning. The programme runs in parallel with the original class and
both groups follow the same curriculum, through different methodologies, different learning
paces and environment. These parallel groups are always temporary and, in some cases, all
pupils from the class participate in them.
Scope to establishing concrete collaborative models
A further important intervention that has impacted on school governance arrangements and the
approach to tackling ESL in Portugal follows the introduction of the Municipal Commissions
(CPCJ) and Safe School Programme. As detailed in annex one, Municipal Commissions are
multi-lateral institutions aimed at promoting children and youths rights and preventing child
abuse. The CPCJ is composed of teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, security forces,
parents and youth associations, private organisations and NGOs. Schools together with key
partners agree a plan to address ESL. Key to the success of the model is the training and
development of teachers as integral partners of the model that in turn aid strong collaboration
between schools and the CPCJ. Schools are considered the ‘eyes’ of the CPCJ and very much
involved in the follow up on each student case. Though the model is considered highly
organised and is based on legislation18
, this model also requires the consent of parents – some
of who are unwilling; in such cases, a judge is involved and may order actions to protect the
child. It is also an expensive model and concerns have been raised about its longevity. Though
the creation and introduction of the CPCJ is based on legislation, it was noted that there is no
official framework for the model.
17
The pilot study was based on an initiative originally created by a single school. At the time, it was outside the legal scope of the school to change class sizes/structures. However the success of the programme was unprecedented – reducing ESL rates to zero. 18
Law 147/99
10
The Safe School Programme as also described in annex one is a school-police collaborative
model. It is a well-established national programme and represents an example of schools
working in partnership with key stakeholders in society. The aim of the model is to promote a
culture of safety in schools. The police work with the school but are not a formal part of the
school governance arrangement. Activities include bullying prevention, road safety,
environmental education and drug prevention. Where students have high truancy rates and
where efforts by the school fail, police visit the family home to determine the reason behind
absenteeism. This however does raise questions regarding the role of the police carrying out
roles that should be undertaken by others where arguably there is a blurring of roles and
responsibilities between the police, social services and the school. It is clear however that there
is a high degree of mutual respect between the school community and the police and that the
clear message is that the police are primarily concerned with prevention and not repression.
The importance of monitoring and internal/external assessment
The commentary above reflects on a number of inspiring and creative initiatives, despite the fact
schools operate within the context of limited autonomy in Portugal. An important point to
consider here is the balance between enhanced flexibility (within the context of school
governance) and accountability. The majority of initiatives identified above (and throughout this
paper) have been subject to external evaluation, with the exception of the Safe School
Programme. As a number of the initiatives outlined above are also both resource and cost
intensive, annual assessment (both in terms of external evaluation and self-assessment) is
critical. Reaching a clear understanding of the value added and impact of the initiatives (for
example in relation to student performance in a reduction in ESL rates) is clearly important for
the sustainability of any initiatives. An evaluation of the Fénix demonstrates improved success
rates, a more homogeneous class, enhanced student motivation and improved success in
teaching and learning quality.
Teacher training is essential – schools are an important resource for each other
The interventions described above are unique models in their own right and require an
exceptional set of skills, attributes and qualities from teachers and their leaders to support and
drive the successful implementation of the initiatives. Teacher training is therefore crucial,
particularly around relational expertise that arguably should be compulsory in all teacher training
programmes. As experienced during the workshop, the delegation of responsibilities to teachers
can also be a challenge, particularly when new and different models are being introduced, such
as Fénix, Class + for example. Overtime and with adequate training, leadership, support and
clear evidence of student success, teachers have stepped up to the challenge and now apply to
work on new approaches. Supporting teachers to develop the skills and expertise to work
alongside new and different stakeholders is also an important aspect of teacher training (as
experienced in the Safe School Programme and EPIS).
Parental involvement makes a difference
An important feature is the initiatives outline above is that of parental and pupil consent. In the
case of the CPCJ, it operates as a consensus institution whereby consent from
parents/guardian and the young person (aged 12 and above) is mandatory. It should be
observed that difficulties can and do arise when consent is not forthcoming and where reluctant
families choose not to participate. Participation in the Fénix and Class + initiatives and in
mediation and tutorship schemes also require parental consent, as do strategies identified as
part of the Safe School Programme to re-engage young people in school life. To encourage
greater parental involvement in school life, a number of initiatives also include programmes for
parents.
School governance: key remarks
■ Allow for greater flexibility/freedom to find out what works best
■ Do teachers want more autonomy?
■ What evidence is there to suggest enhanced school autonomy and
accountability raises educational attainment?
■ Is school autonomy enough – other measures required too
11
■ Need for smart autonomy – school leaders to use their freedom to find out
what works, devise new solutions, afford families greater choice
■ Crucial role of competent school leadership – how to identify and support
good school leaders?
■ Relationship between the school, its teachers and students is of utmost
importance
4.2 Learner support
During the Portuguese visit, a number of measures focusing on learner support were presented.
Key examples include the Mediation and Tutorship initiative, EPIS model and the Safe School
Programme (as introduced above). Discussed in more detail in annex one, the EPIS (a privately
funded NGO) programme is an intervention model and its focus is to support and empower low
performing students and those at risk of ESL through a methodology based on the development
of non-cognitive skills outside of the classroom environment. There are a number of important
features of this initiative from a learner support perspective to emphasise.
Firstly though decision-making is formalised using a risk factor tool through an initial screening
phase, no child is turned away from the EPIS model. As no child is left behind (even when there
is no improvement in results), questions were raised if this space should be freed up for other
needed learners? A challenge for the future will be in meeting the needs of those with more
specific and challenging needs. Secondly, the model is delivered by a team of full-time
mediators who work with young people before, during and after school, typically over a period of
2-3 years. A key point to highlight here is the fact that a number of the mediators (employed by
the municipalities) are teachers by profession.
With previous experience of teaching, learning and understanding of the role of teachers and
the environment in which they work, EPIS mediators are supportive, understanding of and
complementary to the role of teachers. This is important insofar that historically there has not
been a culture of external experts coming into a teacher’s classroom. The role and experience
of the mediators developing and maintaining relational skills with teachers, young people
themselves and other key experts (e.g. psychologists, social workers), local enterprises and
families (who need to agree child participation in the programme) is critical to the success of this
intervention. Through working in partnership with social players, mediators tap into existing
networks in order to identify solutions that support young people and complement the model.
As a learner support initiative a key challenge is that it is resource intensive where the human
resource element (e.g. mediators) is the most expensive component of the model. As an
externally driven initiative with a highly established methodology (as verified in recent external
evaluations), the time has come to question if the state can continue to financially support the
model or if it can now be left to schools to embed.
In addition to EPIS both the Mediation and Tutorship initiative and the Safe School Programme
also represent strong learner support measures that draw on the expertise of external
stakeholders to support teachers, the school as a whole and students themselves. The
Mediation and Tutorship initiative for example engages members of the local community as a
mediator and key collaborator between the community and school. Similar to the EPIS model,
the role of the mediator/tutor (in this case the example of the Roma individual) is critical to the
success of the initiative: he/she must develop strong relational skills in order to gain the trust
and respect from students, their parents, the school and from within the local community. It is a
highly individualised support measure for students with behavioural problems, which shows
positive results due to the personal engagement of the mediator and intensive work with the
pupil, family and community.
There is a degree of uncertainty about the continuity of the initiative given that it is currently
subject to short-term extra funding through an annual allocation. Should funding cuts be
introduced, there is a concern this could reinforce a culture of low trust between the school and
community. Ensuring staff are adequately trained and have the financial and technical
resources are also critical to the success of the initiative, but inevitably resource intensive.
12
Though the focus on funding learner support measures thus far has been in relation to specific
initiatives, an important point to highlight more generally is that there is evidence of ‘long-term
within school resources’ being used to fund learner support arrangements. This includes non-
teaching hours for psychological service and guidance in schools for example.
An important aspect of both the EPIS and Mediation and Tutorship initiative is a relatively flat
hierarchical structure between the school, the students, their families and stakeholders involved.
Parental consent and agreement across all stakeholders is an important characteristic of the
learner support measures presented in Portugal. Developing a clear understanding of the
respective roles of the school, the teacher and the external stakeholder takes time to develop.
As evident in the case of the EPIS and Mediation initiatives, collaborative models face a
continued risk of a blurring between roles and responsibilities. An important point here is that
the overall responsibility for the learner and their learning support needs are not lost or
overlooked in this potential mismatch. As in the case of the previous learner support initiatives
described, whilst there is some evidence of the success of the programme (though in the
absence of an official external evaluation), more resources – both in terms of human resources
and funding are required.
Learner support: key remarks
■ The implementation of effective learner support measures (be they top down
or bottom up approaches) require a clear vision with strong and distributed
leadership
■ Support measures naturally vary in their approach and will depend on the
individual needs of the learner. They require the involvement of a range of
internal and external stakeholders, including multi-professional teams,
parents, local players (including local authorities)
■ Teachers who may be unfamiliar with the benefit of external input require
time, support and training.
■ Teachers need time for reflection, peer learning and to networking between
schools
■ Students need to be listened to and should be given a physical space where
they feel safe and valued
■ Evaluating/monitoring support systems is key – examples from Portugal
include internal monitoring, external evaluations, performance indicators,
data collection on absenteeism
■ Learner support measures can be resource intensive – short term models run
the risk of inadvertently causing longer term problems. Creativity in sharing
limited resources and expertise is encouraged
4.3 Stakeholder involvement
As all of the initiatives presented in Portugal represent examples of stakeholder involvement,
this section will not reflect on individual models as such, but rather highlights key points and
some emerging lessons from collaborative approaches presented.
An important point on stakeholder involvement evident in a number of the initiatives presented is
that stakeholder engagement may be based on a formal requirement (e.g. CPCJ founded on
legislation) or on a needs-based requirement. Stakeholders primarily participate as equal and
willing partners and their involvement, as reported above, is typically based on a relatively flat
hierarchy.
Conditions for stakeholder collaboration
Important conditions for successful stakeholder collaboration in Portugal are that the student
remains at the centre of the approach, surrounded by strong and distributed leadership.
Creative and flexible school governance arrangements have resulted in schools coming
together with their community stakeholders to create and implement innovative, successful
models to address ESL and support those at risk. In a system with limited school autonomy, the
13
current degree of freedom/flexibility (through credit allocation for example) works well and for
some countries, arguable preferable to an approach where ‘increased autonomy’ limits flexibility
and experimentation. Some necessary sequential steps in developing a collaborative approach
between key partners are however critical.
Experience from Portugal shows stakeholder involvement and collaboration within and beyond
the school takes time. It is part of a much broader social/economic narrative that is not
necessarily about convincing stakeholders to engage with the school; but to raise awareness
amongst stakeholders so that they understand the contribution they can make to reduce ESL
and support those at risk. Working collaboratively in the context of ESL requires stakeholders to
understand their role from a strategic, socio-political perspective to address ESL. This requires
a critical shift in mind-sets as stakeholders come together to work as a team and not as
individual organisations.
Evidence from Portugal also shows that willing stakeholders bring to the table a shared sense of
commitment and intent. Notwithstanding the fact, friction may occur between stakeholders and
ultimately, change takes time. As evident in the EPIS model, bringing together
professionals/individuals from different domains can be challenging. In the case of large clusters
and collaborative models between schools and external stakeholders, respective partners
inevitably exhibit different/challenging leadership and governance styles. Developing trust,
mutual respect and understanding needs nurturing. Respective partners need time, strong
leadership and support in order to maintain an on-going effective partnership. An important
element here is in understanding the scope and limitations of respective partners and to be
creative and smart in the allocation of human and financial resources.
The presentation on Industry Support for Schools in Ireland provides a contrasting and positive
example of effective school-business cooperation. This model represents a coming together of
minds between a community school in Kinsale and a local manufacturing/pharmaceutical
employer, Eli Lilly. In partnership, the two stakeholders developed a programme aimed at
encouraging and supporting young people engage in science education and develop a greater
understanding of the manufacturing/pharmaceutical industries.
The initiative included an ‘Introduction to Science Day’, work experience programmes and
voluntary involvement by Lilly employees. The success of the model is attributed to
stakeholders listening and committing to a long term partnership to add value for the students;
strong leadership/foresight and freedom to develop school-business cooperation within the
national framework of the Department for Education and Skills. Establishing and agreeing a
common understanding of the initiative together with clear roles and responsibilities between
partners is critical. Realising that mind-sets need to change and allowing time for partners to
listen to each other and embed change in the different cultures of each party is key.
Facilitating effective stakeholder engagement
Clear allocation of roles and responsibilities between the school and its stakeholder community
is key, generating mutual respect. Establishing a formal network with clear roles and structures
can potentially extend to contractual arrangements between partners. One option is to create a
central coordination point and/or evaluation body in order to create an environment of
continuous feedback, adaptation and change. Another option is to develop a common strategy
and clear action plan.
Though stakeholder collaboration in the context of the Safe School Programme is well
established and generally considered to work well, there is arguably a potential blurring of roles
and responsibilities between the police, social work and the school. Therefore the model makes
clear that the school retains the overall responsibility for students and relationship with families.
The focus is on a school-family model not a police-family model. Exploring good practices and
learning from established approaches, research, analysis and data collection is encouraged.
The learner must remain at the centre of collaborative approaches and the relationship between
the school and the pupil should not be forgotten or overlooked.
Finally, monitoring/evaluating the impact of stakeholder collaboration is essential. In a climate of
reduced fiscal funds, value added demonstrated by a % improvement in reduced ESL rates or
achievement rates for example should be encouraged.
14
Stakeholder involvement: key remarks
■ All stakeholders need to share a common goal/approach and agree
respective roles and responsibilities
■ Accept that friction, possible problems will occur between stakeholders –
establish an environment and necessary arrangements to ensure problems
are addressed and discussed
■ Change takes time
■ Students remain at the centre of all collaborative approaches
5 Concluding comments
The Portuguese workshop provided members of the Working Group with a highly valuable and
rewarding professional experience. This section brings together some final concluding remarks
to take away from the Portuguese workshop on school governance and collaborative
approaches. The commentary below reflects some of the country reflections offered by
members of the Working Group.
5.1 School governance
School autonomy must be smart
School autonomy is important but must be accompanied by strong accountability, clear roles
and responsibilities, clear rules (legal framework), monitoring and self-evaluation mechanisms
that are aimed at school improvement. School autonomy alone is not the solution and should be
accompanied by other measures, supported by national/local authorities.
Performance measures to assess schools results need to be broader than raw test/examination
data, in order to reflect the diversity of activities for which schools are responsible and the
different starting point/context in which schools are operating (measures to address the school's
'added value').
Allow for flexibility and experimentation
In countries that have a highly centralised system, greater flexibility/freedom should be granted
to schools to test and experiment solutions adjusted to the specific context (flexibility in the
implementation of curricula). School leaders should use their freedom to explore what works
best and afford families greater choice. Portugal provides an example of how school leaders
and teachers devised new solutions that enable them to diversify their ‘offer’ in order to meet the
needs of the student population were observed.
Highly motivated and distributed leadership is essential
Competent and motivated school leaders have a crucial role to play in all schools – even more
so in centralised systems where they can serve as agents of change. School leaders should
implement 'distributed leadership' in schools (e.g. delegation of tasks to middle management)
with an objective that is focused on improved learning. Distributed leadership includes student
participation that allows the student voice to be heard.
A common vision and shared goals across the school community is necessary. The selection
and continued professional development of 'good' leaders is therefore essential.
Teacher training is critical
Teacher training is essential not only in raising awareness on early school leaving but also in
terms of supporting teachers to acquire the necessary skills and expertise. There is a need for
teachers to develop relational expertise and capacity to work in teams with other professionals
and wider community stakeholders. Incorporating relational skills development as a mandatory
15
component of initial and continued professional development is one option for consideration.
Dedicated trained staff with dedicated roles and responsibilities is essential.
Supporting teachers to develop and promote a culture of peer learning (among teachers, but
also with pupils) is also essential. Schools should serve as a resource for each other; tapping
into existing networks, working with and learning from other schools within the context of peer
learning amongst schools and between teachers should also be encouraged. It is necessary to
take care of the emotional well-being and professional development of staff. Allow and facilitate
the rotation of staff in key roles – every five years for example.
5.2 Learner support
The need for a holistic approach to education
Recognising the need for a more holistic rather than strictly academic approach to education is
essential. Such an approach should take into account the physical, personal, social, emotional
and spiritual wellbeing of the learner as well as cognitive aspects of learning.
The importance of a wide and varied range of measures to prevent ESL
Conducive and supportive learning environment that offer rich and varied physical learning
spaces and learning resources, provide important opportunities for young people to engage with
learning. Schools should be encouraged to draw on resources from within the classroom,
across the school and in conjunction with local communities to offer a range of different and
complementary measures to prevent ESL. Local authorities have an important role to play role
in the coordination of different resources and services available to the school and young person.
Empowering young people to have their say
It is important to consult young people about their learner not only to keep them informed as to
how decisions are taken and the processes involved, but also to provide young people with the
opportunity to have their voices heard and encourage ownership of their own learning. For
example, devising a learning agreement/plan as a collective agreement between the pupil, the
school, family and other stakeholders (where applicable) is highly desirable.
A structure approach to support the implementation of measures
A clear and structured framework to support the effective implementation of measures designed
to address early school leaving/support young people is necessary. This may be in the form of a
nationally recognised programme such as TEIP, or a decision at school level. Teachers should
also be given the necessary time and opportunities for personal development to support the
implementation of such measures.
5.3 Collaborative approaches
Supporting and facilitating collaborative approaches
All stakeholders need to share a common goal/approach and agree respective roles and
responsibilities. Clear arrangements are needed (depending on the administrative tradition and
culture of the country: from more formalised structures to more flexible platforms/networks. A
coordinating body may be an option. Legislation to facilitate stakeholder involvement is a further
consideration. Policy makers need to ensure that stakeholders as education partners are
listened to.
Collaborative approaches take time but can be hugely powerful
Establishing cooperation between stakeholders takes time and commitment from all
stakeholders as equal and willing partners. Developing trust, mutual respect and understanding
needs nurturing; time and strong leadership. It is important to accept that friction and possible
problems will occur between stakeholders. Establishing an environment and the necessary
arrangements to ensure problems are addressed and discussed is desirable.
Children should be the centre of any form of collaboration.
16
Parental involvement and their consent make a difference
The importance of parental involvement in school life and in their child’s educational
development is well documented in the literature19
. When a student’s family chooses to
cooperate with an initiative on offer, this can amplify a positive impact - but if the family is
uncooperative, this can act as a disruptive or blocking factor. The school can serve as an
institutional and informative resource for families to benefit from. The role of mediators can be
crucial for creating and maintaining trust among the school, pupil, family and community.
19
OECD (2012), Borgonovi, F. and G. Montt (2012)
17
Annex 1 Brief description of key initiatives
Municipal Commissions for the Protection of Children and Youth Learner support
Every municipality in Portugal has a Commission for the Protection of the Child and Youth
(CPCJ). As set out in legislation20
, the commissions are official, non-judiciary institutions with
functional autonomy to promote and protect children’s rights and prevent child abuse. The
commissions are managed by the local authorities and are composed of teachers, doctors,
nurses, social workers, security forces, parents and youth associations, private organisations
and NGOs. As an intervention model, the CPCJ requires consent from parents/legal
representative/guardian, agreement between all parties involved and consented participation
from the young person involved (aged 12 years and above).
All schools are obliged to report repetitive absences to the CPCJ in line with current legislation21
that provides the legal basis of what constitutes as absenteeism. Once reported, the
Commission undertakes an immediate diagnosis to determine if a child protection issue is
evident and if appropriate measures are required. Once ruled out then the CPCJ works with its
partners to determine a mutually agreed action plan (known as the Promotion and Protection
Agreement – APP) for the student. This may include psychological counselling sessions and a
wide range of support measures that aim to prevent the student from leaving school. The
student’s progress and/or school integration is monitored closely by the school and its partners.
The model has a strong prevention element and requires clear articulation between the CPCJ
and the school. This is facilitated through the appointment of a member of staff within the school
to be the main contact between the school and the CPCJ. Annual school meetings, training and
design and development of tailored document also support clear communication and articulation
between partners.
5.3.1 School-Police cooperation - The Safe School Programme
The main aim of the safe school programme is first and foremost to promote a culture of safety
in schools. It was first introduced in 1992 and is well structured and nationally recognised. With
a focus on prevention and early intervention, the idea of school-police collaboration is to avoid
the risk of illicit behaviour in and around the school. With key partners, the programme aims to
encourage citizenship and promote the school as a space of integration and socialisation. As an
illustration of how the programme works in practice, within the West Amadora School Cluster
(consisting of 5 schools consisting of 2500 students from 25 different nationalities in total), there
are two chief police officers and 4 police offers who are assigned to work daily on the
programme. Officers typically move between the different schools – note that the police do not
have a permanent base in any of the schools – in part this reflects the fact the police work with
and for the school but are not part of the school and under no circumstances can they
jeopardise their role of the police. Activities and training sessions organised as the programme
include bullying prevention, road safety, environmental education, drug prevention, cultural
awareness and understanding (e.g the meaning of the Portuguese flag). The police also host
community events, such as policy dog shows and have also taken groups of young people to
football matches for example.
In the case where students have a high truancy rate, and where initial efforts made by the
school have failed, police as part of this programme, visit the family home to ascertain reasons
for truancy. As part of this ‘out-reach’ approach, the programme also aims to raise awareness
with parents concerning the risks and consequences of early school leaving/drop out. In parallel,
the school notifies the Mission for the Child and Youth Protection who ensures legal procedures
for children and youth welfare are adhered to.
A particularly strong dimension of the Safe School Programme is that the school community,
police and families share the common objective to ensure the school and the surrounding area
is safe and inclusive. What is clear and important from a learner support perspective, is that the
image of the police for many students and their parents has evolved from a traditional
20
Law No 147/99. 1 September 21
Law No 24/2012. 5 September
18
repressive framework to the idea of the police being effective partners in the development of the
school as a space for inclusion, pluralism and socialisation. Indeed it is reported that the
majority of students – indicative of over 80% them accept and welcome police presence.
5.3.2 EPIS
The programme from the association Business People for Social Inclusion (EPIS)22
, “mediators
for school success” was launched in 2006. It is a partnership between the public and private
sector and promotes school success and social inclusion. In April 2014, a protocol was signed
by EPIS and the Ministry of Education and Science in order to extend the implementation of the
“mediators to success” programme to more schools and levels of education, with the support of
the Ministry and municipalities.
As a 360 degree intervention model, the methodology has a clear set of principles:
■ Non universality. Focus is on performing students and those at risk of ESL selected by
using risk factor analysis tools as part of an initial screening phase. No child is turned away
from the EPIS model No child left behind (though does this mean places become limited for
other needing students?)
■ Proximity and intensity of intervention. It is performed by full-time dedicated mediators
(teachers, psychologists or equivalent).
■ Strong methodological approach. The empowerment is focused on non-cognitive skills
‘outside of the classroom’ to improve school performance. Mediators help student develop
these skills which include: conscientiousness, openness to experience, extraversion,
agreeableness, emotional stability. EPIS has packaged a large range of modules of
intervention that are written and published in manuals.
■ Life cycle change. This model is applied during 2 to 3 school years, from 12-15 years old in
order to allow and consolidate structural changes in the skill profile of students involved.
■ Results drive. Performance appraisals are undertaken every term and school success
improvement is measured at the end of every year.
The working process includes two sequential phases:
■ A screening phase, with a tool/algorithm to select students at risk based on 4 dimensions:
(1) student´s performance/background and key non-cognitive skills, (2) family and social
capital of the student, (3) relationship of student with teachers/peers/school, (4) social and
economic background of student/family.
■ An empowerment phase, with routines/modules applied in individual or group sessions or
seminars with students, family, teachers and other stakeholders.
The performance of the mediator is key to the success of the programme both in terms of time
allocation (full-time and committed) and the proficiency of the mediator (good practitioner).
Mediators must also demonstrate skills required to work in close partnership with other project
stakeholders. For example, EPIS has established a strong network with local enterprises (EPIS
associates) that support vocational programmes and offer visits with volunteers from
companies. A related point here is that whilst the EPIS model is focused, dissemination is
facilitated through drawing on local resources. Similar to other initiatives, parental involvement
and consent is required.
5.3.3 School-business cooperation: vocational courses
Vocational courses are an integral feature of the school-business cooperation between the
school and local enterprises. Students participating in catering vocational provision within the
school prepare and sell catering produce to local enterprises as part of the programme. The
profits are used by the school to provide new equipment and material. Catering equipment and
experienced in-house teaching staff support students develop the skills and foresight involved in
catering and selling produce which currently enables to school to generate extra funds. To
support the integration between the theoretical component of the programme and practical
22
In Portuguese, Empresários para a Inclusão Social (EPIS).
19
element, students participate in practical sessions every afternoon following the 3-4 week of the
programme. The school works in partnership with the local enterprises who in turn suggest the
type of skills and expertise they would like to see developed in prospective employees (e.g,
potentially students of the school). As a result communication and relations between the school
and enterprises works well and employability rates are high.
It is noted however that the extent to which enterprises inform the curriculum, largely depends
on the programme – this is because many programmes are part of the national qualifications
framework and thus linked to the EQF and so some courses are more flexible than others.
5.3.4 Mais Sucesso - More School Success Programme
The More School Success Programme (PMSE) – Known as Fénix and Turma Mais, aims to
reduce the number of students repeating academic years and to improve the schools and
performance of its students by implementing different organisational models in schools, in
partnership with universities.
The evaluation of the programme Mais Sucesso Escolar has identified a positive relationship
between the initiative and better results in basic skills in Portuguese, Mathematics and English
(in particular in the second year and ninth year of education). It thus suggests that the initiative
was successful in improving learning support in participating schools.
The success of the programme depends on several key factors: - this includes, the willingness
of teachers to be involved, resources to support the professional development of teachers,
parental approval, efficiency in use of materials and resources across different groups of
learners (mainstream, small sub-group) as additional credit hours are not always sufficient
whereby non-teaching time was being used to support the programmes. Though concerns were
raised about the socialisation effect of selecting small groups of learners and moving them into
smaller sub-groups for a variable period of time, the results have nevertheless been positive
and students benefit immensely from dedicated, one-one intervention in much smaller group
environments. An external evaluation reported better results in basic skills in Portuguese, Maths
and English and improved learner support.
5.3.5 Mediation/tutorship (Santo Antonio School Cluster)
The Santo Antonio school cluster is part of the TEIP programme and located in between a large
Roma and African community neighbourhoods – hence rich in culture and diversity. Many
students ranging from nursery to secondary education have at least one foreign parent. The
number of students reported to the CPCJ is high and many students exhibit clear signs of poor
psychological, cognitive, affective development and a minimum sense of responsibility.
To address the problem of truancy, prolonged absenteeism and disruptive behaviour, mediation
and tutoring classes are considered essential for the integration of students into school life and
prevention of ESL. By working in partnership with other institutions, the idea is to make students
more motivated and integrated in order to promote their well-being, approach to learning and to
recognise their achievements.
Mediation and tutorship support measures offered included bringing together a team of teachers
(including new recruits), establishing a board of social and psychological intervention, a self-
evaluation team and improving existing learning strategies - e.g. devising training plans and
developing a variety of different approaches to address ESL. Regular presence of mediators in
and outside the classroom has proved positive on different levels – emotional connection
between the mediator and student, increased self-esteem and motivation and improvements in
reading, attendance and behaviour. The example was provided of an individual from the Roma
community as a mediator (relationship based), a role model and key collaborator between the
community and school. It has proved to be effective for the child in the school but also the
community and results show that the approach demonstrates positive reinforcement of
behavioural change.
5.3.6 Guidance and Psychological support at schools
The António Arroio Escola Artistica school hosts a School Psychology Service, with one full time
psychologist and team of trainee psychologist. The aim of the service is to support students and
provide support in relation to career guidance, academic/learning support and in relation to
20
socio-economic and well-being. The objective is to reduce the rate of absenteeism and early
school leaving.
Support is provided to students on an individual basis, in groups, and in consultation with
teachers and parents. Additional expertise is also brought in when required. Activities include
career guidance, screening for learning disabilities, a bullying prevention program and through a
multidisciplinary team, activities to prevent truancy and drop-out.
The multidisciplinary team consists of the class director as coordinator, the school psychologist
and a group of four other teachers from different subjects. The team meets twice a week to
discuss individual situations and identify risk/engagement factors; define procedures that foster
the early identification and intervention of students at risk; teacher training to empower them to
promote school engagement and better learning; promoting collaborative work between
teachers.
The model provides holistic approach where parents are involved from an early stage. Through
the work of the multidisciplinary team, staff can identify and then offer different levels of
intervention (individual activities, activities for groups at risk, school-wide activities) and types of
intervention (school psychology, referral to health services, reorientation). A key strength of the
model is that it is located within the school. As resources are relatively limited, non-teaching
hours are spent in the school to support the implementation of the service. In the absence of an
overarching strategy (or checklist) to support teachers identify and respond to those at risk,
there are some concerns about the transferability of the model.
5.3.7 Portuguese as a second language and cultural diversity
Linguistic and cultural diversity has been a challenge for Portugal. In the context of immigration
associated with the processes of globalization and mobility in Europe, Portugal has become an
increasingly multilingual and multicultural country. Located in an area that is primarily inhabited
by diverse migrant communities, Nuno Gonçalves Group of schools has been faced with the
challenge of responding to the linguistic diversity of its students and local community members.
Through a range of formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities, a rich and full range
of language learning options are on offer.
In order to meet the linguistic and cultural diversity of the school, a ‘transformational type of
leadership’ has been employed by the Director of the group of schools. The Director supports
and encourages strong stakeholder involvement in order to provide innovative, creative ideas
and educational responses that are valued and successful. In turn, teachers are encouraged to
provide a range of different learning opportunities (formal, non-formal) and language learning
and cultural diversity is developed and expressed through music in order to enhance greater
integration of migrant communities.
Promoting flexibility in the approach to learning and timetable has also been successful. One
school within the group works closely with its community, particular the Chinese community and
offers language learning at weekends. The group of schools also works in close partnership with
the High Commissioner for Migrations (ACM) offering Portuguese as a Foreign Language for
the migrant communities.
In a school with such a highly diverse population, the methods offered by Nuno Gonçalves
Group of schools are common across schools with a similar student profile. During the
workshop, questions were asked about the extent to which family learning is supported. The
school noted that language learning materials are available online and can also be shared with
family members. It was also noted that opportunities for adult education is also important given
that language proficiency levels required for citizenship in Portugal. There was a concern
regarding the continuity and allocation of funding is unclear despite there being high demand for
language learning.
21
Annex 2 Country reflections
Austria:
■ New insights: Special programme for schools for students from socio-economic/migrant
background. Clear role of school and police, classification on ESL data to allocate
additional resources to school, members of local community as role models
■ Aspect to retain: quality management systems, middle management, youth coaching
■ Aspects to improve: Raising awareness of consequences of ESL; resources for middle
management in schools; reduce bureaucracy for measures on school autonomy; better
resourced ESL programmes for learners with challenging needs linked to QA systems;
ESL programmes supported with role models from challenging backgrounds; programmes
for parents
■ Actions at national level: Awareness project; resources for middle managers; holistic pilot
project for ESL with role models; Task Force to reduce bureaucracy.
Denmark:
■ New insights: School autonomy (and its complexity) must be seen in a national context. In
PT schools are under the responsibility of the national government. In DK the municipalities
run the schools.
■ Aspect to retain: Schools have the freedom/autonomy they need and want to be able to
adapt to local conditions.
■ Actions at the national level in co-operation with the local level: The Danish Ministry of
Education, Local Government Denmark (KL), The Association of Public Administrators for
Children and Culture and the Danish Association of School Leaders have worked closely
together with the university colleges, universities and other relevant providers of
competence development for school leaders on developing seven fields of competences
with objectives for competences that school principals and municipalities should have. This
ensures a common focus on the schools’ needs in regard to leadership. In connection with
the reform of the public primary and lower secondary school, there has been allocated 60
million DKK to development of school principals’ and municipalities’ competences. The
municipalities should spend the money for competence development within the seven fields
of competences in order to reach the competence objectives.
Germany:
■ New insights: PT Ministry of Education increased accountability of schools by providing
incentives and using HR more effectively: Insights from PT has potential for transferability
to DE, relating to the introduction of the annual measurement of school quality and link to
extra human resources (through credit hours) for schools. A further insight is the support
system for students at risk – namely through the CPCJ providing a binding and
standardised approach to deal with students at risk. The composition of these
commissions is multi-professional, allowing for consultation between all, resulting in a
mutually binding agreement with the student and parent.
■ Aspects to improve: Within the German context, improvement to the learner support
systems as evidence in PT should be improved. With the exception of some local
initiatives, there is no binding or coordinated approach in relation to support systems for
students at risk.
■ Actions at national level: As education is the responsibility of the Lander in Germany, it is
not possible to define what actions have to be taken, how and by whom. At lander level,
one step would be the establishment of a Commission for the protection of children and
youth – but this requires commitment from different ministries. There would also be a need
for a change of legislation.
22
Hungary:
■ New insights: At the level of macro level policies – the notion of school autonomy is being
used in a sensible way, through the allocation of autonomy status only to individual
schools that are able to use it in an appropriate way. The idea of credit hours is creative.
The National Education Council seems constructive, responsible and independent with
good ideas. At middle level policies, municipality level committees are good examples of
an intervention across different sectors. At school level policies, school clusters, schools
and teachers encouraged to cooperate and represent examples of distributed leadership.
Middle management and different committees are strong with strong cooperation within
and between schools and different education levels. School level programmes are well
based from a theoretical and methodological perspective and work well for this reason.
The contribution of universities gives them more stability and can result in better quality.
Italy:
■ New insights: Adoption of a national strategy to combat school failure and ESL – clear sign
for all stakeholders that ESL is a national priority; school autonomy to tackle ESL through
introduction of autonomy agreements to create school networks for example; improvement
and enhancement of the VET system
■ Actions at national level: Recommend establishment of a Steering Committee to be tasked
with designing national strategy in line with the ‘Good School’ publication that sets out
plans to tackle ESL also through the creation of functional teaching staff, implementation
of a national system of school evaluation and enhancement of work based learning
programmes.
Malta:
■ New insights: School contract of autonomy and the fact schools can approach the Ministry
for autonomy status; quality assurance evaluation of development plans – evaluation
important to ensure that autonomy schools are accountable for the terms they have
agreed.
■ Aspects to retain: Schools producing their own development plans; autonomy in teaching
methods; collaboration with employers for work tasters; collaboration with other services
(child protection etc);
■ Aspects to improve: Greater freedom over choice of text books (requiring higher degree of
financial resources); Funding – should schools with high rates of ESL learners be
allocated more funding? Should core curriculum programmes for students at risk of
disengagement/ low academic levels be followed in all schools or school schools design a
plan according to the needs of their students with effective monitoring and evaluation?
■ Actions at national level: Collaborative practices – The Inter-ministerial Committee is in
place and has as part of its mandate, to assess, propose strategies, policies and actions
relating to ESL; ESL working group within the Ministry for Education and Employment has
recently been established (Dec 2014)
Spain:
■ New insights: Development of education policy and cooperative practice that can be of
interest to WG members in the potential implementation of certain models. PT showed the
importance of implementing and managing school autonomy gradually and over time. Of
interest was the model of implementation through school associations with a certain level
of autonomy, self-decision, self-management and the system to identify and evaluate the
outcomes and to manage general/specific resources within each school. A further insight
was the creation of an ideal atmosphere where teachers, learners, members of the
community are part of a process that is essential for all. This creates a strong sense of
buy-in from all stakeholders working towards a shared goal of improvement.
23
Sweden:
■ New insights: School autonomy (and its complexity) must be seen in a national context. It
can relate to curriculum, aspects of teaching and learning. Understanding school
autonomy in a local context is also important. In PT schools are under the responsibility of
national government, whereby in SE, local governments run schools.
■ Aspect to retain: In SE, schools have the freedom/autonomy they need and want to be
able to adapt to local conditions.
■ Aspects to improve: Schools may be left too much on their own and may require stronger
support; more time for implementation and evaluation of government initiatives as well as
longer term initiatives; Strengthen the relationship and roles and responsibilities between
schools and municipalities who are responsible for offering measures to young people
below the age of 20. The CPCJ model provided in PT will be helpful in this context.
■ Actions at national level: Continue to disseminate lessons learnt from the WG activities.
UK:
In the context of extending the age at which there must be some involvement in learning in
England, it was interesting to observe the range of learning programmes that are
alternative to national academic learning programmes in PT. Interesting to note that those
opting for VET programmes in PT instead of academic programmes continue with a fairly
broad programme of basic/general education. The fact that cooperation between schools
and education and training partnership is based on legislation and that clustering ‘basic
education’ schools in groups allows for a broad and varied curriculum across schools was
interesting and enhanced by cooperation between clusters/schools. This kind of co-
operation would be difficult to achieve in England as education is based on competition
between schools.
■ New insights: School autonomy can be a diversion. Autonomy is limited as the
Government adheres to its policies through a national inspection – the results of which are
published. The national system of performance measures means that the results of each
school in national examples are also published. The impact on school can be negative and
ensure autonomy of the school is limited in reality.
■ Aspects to retain/improve: In the English context, parts of the system that allow school
autonomy in terms of styles and modes of teaching should be kept and recognised in
inspection. Cooperation between schools should be encouraged. Role of local authorities
in education should be improved.
■ Actions at national level: Continue to disseminate papers and discussion that are taking
place as part of the WG to the relevant government department in England (despite
efforts, no success thus far). Areas identified for change/improvement have been identified
by the WG representative. These include ending of competition as the basis for English
education and replacement by active cooperation and collaboration between education
and training providers; restoration of the local authorities back into education; identification
of existing partnerships between education and training providers which can be built on for
effective work with ESL at local level.
24
Annex 3 References
Arcia, G. Macdonald, K. Patrinos, H. A. and Porta, E (2011) School Autonomy and Accountability. System assessment and benchmarking for education results: SABER. The World Bank, Washington DC. Internet: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1290520949227/School_Autonomy_Accountability_Framework.pdf
Bishop, J. H. and Woessmann, L. (2004). Institutional effects in a simple model of educational production.
Education Economics, 12(1):17:38.
Borgonovi, F. and G. Montt (2012), “Parental Involvement in Selected PISA Countries and Economies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 73, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k990rk0jsjj-en Bruns, B. Filmer, D and Patrinos, H, A (2011) Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms. Washington DC: The World Bank. Internet: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1298568319076/makingschoolswork.pdf
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (2008). Raising the Stakes: From Improvement to Transformation in the
Reform of Schools. London: Routledge.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015) Assuring Quality in Education. Internet:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/178EN.pdf
Glatter, R. (2003). ‘Governance and Innovation’. In Davies, B. and West-Burnham, J. (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Pearson Longman. Chapter 27, pp. 229-237.
Glatter, R. (2007). ‘Schools and School Systems Facing Complexity: Organisational Challenges’. Invited
keynote presentation at a conference of the Presidency of the European Union on the theme ‘Schools
facing up to new challenges’. Lisbon, Portugal, 2-3 November. (Pre-publication draft of the presentation
provided by Professor Glatter).
Green, A, Wolf, A and Leney, T (1999) Convergence and Divergence in European Education and
Systems. Institute of Education, London, UK.
Hanushek, E. & Woessmann, L. (2011b). How much do educational outcomes matter in OECD countries?. Economic Policy, 26(67), 427–491. Hanushek, E. Link, S. Woessmann, L (2013) Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics 104 (2013) 212–232. Internet: http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%2BLink%2BWoessmann%202013%20JDevEcon%20104_0.pdf
Hooge, E., T. Burns and H. Wilkoszewski (2012). Looking Beyond the Numbers: Stakeholders and Multiple School
Accountability, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing.
Jensen, B (2013). The Myths of Markets in School Education, Grattan Institute. Internet:
http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/myth_of_markets_in_school_education.pdf
Mourshed, M. Chijioke, C. and Barber, M (2010). How the World's Most Improved School Systems Keep
Getting Better. McKinsey and Company.
OECD (2011) School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? PISA IN
FOCUS 2011/9 (October) 2011. OECD Publishing. Internet:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48910490.pdf
OECD (2012) Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD. Publishing: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
OECD (2013) School governance, assessment and accountability. OECD Publishing. Internet:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/Vol4Ch4.pdf
Ouchi, W, G. (2003). Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education
They Need. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Woessmann, L. (2005). The effect heterogeneity of central exams: evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat
and PISA. Education Economics 13 (2), 143–169.
25
World Bank (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.