Education systems must adapt to these new requirements and ensure that all young people have the opportunity of acquiring these necessary skills and competencies. This chapter considers how systems might best respond, through the introduction of a new policy emphasis on inclusion, and by improving the attractiveness of vocational education and training. It also focuses on innovation districts, a new approach to inclusion which is being tested in a number of locations throughout the European Union. The initial results of these pilot districts are encouraging and demonstrate that a coordinated, interagency approach can generate new services and a wider range of opportunities for disadvantaged young people.
Schools are realizing that they must take a constructive and leading role in facing this change. They must develop new forms of learning. Their new role extends beyond that of a conveyor of knowledge and know-how to that of an organizer of a wider learning process. In the future, they will need to act more effectively as a switchboard linking and combining different learning environments, and tapping resources outside the school: in the world of work, in the community, and in other sectors of society.
Education must change if young people are to develop their own initiative. And, since learning can take place in a variety of contexts, during compulsory schooling and throughout life, schools must help youngsters develop a lifelong capacity to learn. These ideas are shared by educators and governments. Throughout the EU, different networks of pilot projects in the past decade have been concerned with innovation in this field.1
Europe does not so much lack models of good practice as much as it lacks more systematic approaches to their wider implementation. Like supertankers, most education systems take a long time to change their course, but now they have to navigate in an ocean of challenges at full throttle.
At the same time, there is now shocking evidence showing that large numbers of young people cannot benefit from these possibilities. Preparation for the knowledge society must imply that young people have information about the opportunities that exist for them, and that they are fully prepared to make successful use of them. However, this appears to be the case only for high achievers in our education and training systems, and access is denied to the "difficult" students.
Placing these figures in a wider context shows their real significance. Job opportunities for the unqualified are disappearing from the labor market. According to the European Commission (1995), youth unemployment, at a current rate of more than 20 percent in the European Community, is nearly double the average for all age groups. Unemployment among young people is also up to four times higher among those lacking vocational qualifications than it is among their better qualified peers.2 And in many cases, the combination of unemployment, lack of qualifications, dependence on social security, housing difficulties, and health problems creates a situation in which various disadvantages are mutually reinforced. Thus, the fraction of young people among the 52 million who live at or below subsistence level is increasing rapidly. In addition, young people are a growing proportion of the EU's three million homeless.
For many European countries, redressing this situation feels like a race against the clock. Disadvantage of this kind damages individuals' social and economic prospects, but on this scale it also makes a mockery of the EU's social commitment. For those "locked out" of the world of work, the advantages of the single European market, and the promise of increased prosperity and employment, must now seem quite empty. As the former European Commission President Jacques Delors has put it: "It is the continued existence of our European model of society which is at stake."
Shutting out whole sections of the younger generation is also a risk factor for the medium-term economic development of the EU. Several member-state forecasts already point to a marked shortage of qualified workers in the years ahead.3 In economic terms, the productivity and development of the EU turn largely on whether disadvantage and exclusion can be halted. On this topic, Jacques Delors has said, "The tensions which the job crisis has revealed show that maintaining social cohesion--and hence the battle against exclusion--is one precondition for productivity and competitiveness."
A further, highly charged political issue is the dangerous vacuum produced when the transition from school to working life fails to open up a realistic chance for young people to get a job. Would-be agitators exploit this vacuum to preach racism and hatred of foreigners.
The continued exclusion of so many young people also threatens the implicit contract between the generations on which so much social welfare provision is based. A generation that feels rejected by its predecessors is less likely to make adequate provision for subsequent generations.
New education and training policies in the EU are challenging this model: For instance, the "Education for All" plan in Denmark offers new ways to qualification for unqualified school-leavers based on a two-year education/training plan individually tailored to the needs of the young people. In each case, the model combines work experience placements, practical training, and periods in mainstream education and training institutions.
Another example is the Youth Employment Guarantee Program in the Netherlands. It aims to encourage and qualify young people to enter the apprenticeship system by offering six-month (renewable) work placements in the public or private sector. The program combines the placements with training, and they are finding that about one-third of the young people have entered a mainstream training course or found work within one year from joining the program. More examples can be provided by other member states.4
The EU actively supports national initiatives to better prepare young people for their transition from school-to-work through its new programs in the field of education (the SOCRATES program) and training (the LEONARDO DA VINCI program). They also have helped to develop and implement youth guarantee schemes across the EU in order to ensure that, in time, all young people enter training and employment (the YOUTHSTART Program).5
None of these policies questions the need for a complementary provision of alternative or second chance programs. But they aim to ensure that such provision is not used, deliberately or unconsciously, as a dumping ground for young people who are rejected by the mainstream education systems. The protagonists want alternative and second chance programs to reside close to the mainstream institutions, but at the same time to capitalize on the greater flexibility characteristic of alternative provision. It is essential to succeed in these objectives, to both offset the stigmatizing image of such provision and to build bridges for re-entering the mainstream systems.
Models based on a philosophy of failure should also be challenged because they are cynical. In reality, compulsory schooling is often the last organized chance for society to offer some compensation to the disadvantaged, and to help them acquire the capacity to develop a perspective for their life, their projet de vie. Thus, schools have not only an opportunity, but a responsibility, to accommodate the needs of those who require special support and consideration.
To meet this responsibility, schools can promote an ethos based on the belief that nobody is excluded once and for all, and that everyone is recoverable. This approach helps develop a pedagogical strategy of success for all pupils. Success in this case is not defined as "winning the competition," but, rather, as generating an environment of solidarity and support. This conception of success demands different forms of teaching and assessment, different ways of organizing the curriculum, and a different focus on the "difficult" pupil as a person. This approach does not categorize the student as an underachiever or a slow learner. It requires a different, more adult relationship between the student and the teacher, tutor, or trainer.
But perhaps the most important requirement is the teacher's attitude and pedagogical approach. Teachers see their main objective as developing in young people the self-esteem and self-confidence they need to make active use of what they learn. Disadvantaged young people with low achievement suffer from the lack of such encouragement. They often feel that, while there may be new chances in work and life, these chances are for others, not for them. Disadvantaged young people have little opportunity to formulate or enforce their own claims. And society does not provide a guaranteed chance of entry into social and working life from which such self-initiative can develop.
A short anecdote illustrates this point. In most parts of Germany, and perhaps also in some parts of the United States, buying the right Christmas tree is a very difficult task. It can sometimes take hours because it often involves different members of the family, each with a different set of expectations to be satisfied. The size and shape of the tree must be considered, since it has to fit into the traditional place at home. It must have the right combination of density and width to carry the candles and decorations. And it must be fresh to prevent it from bursting into flames prematurely. Once, my family was in the process of debating the merits of the fifth tree to be considered that day, when a big flashy car pulled into the Christmas tree market. A man in a great hurry jumped out, ran to the checkout, and demanded: "Sell me your best Christmas tree." The salesman looked at him blankly and replied, "Sir, we have hundreds of them." But then the clerk saw his chance and quickly continued: "However, this one beside me is the most expensive." So the deal was made, and both were happy--the customer because he thought he had the best tree, and the salesman because he had sold the first tree at hand at twice the normal price.
The analogy should not be overemphasized. But the task of finding out what is best for disadvantaged young people requires more consideration than that method of buying a Christmas tree. Nations should certainly not be content with the first solution at hand, even if it is the most expensive. Providing access for the disadvantaged to training, employment, and active participation in society requires a whole package of differentiated measures because the types and causes of disadvantage are as varied as the groups affected. Action during compulsory schooling should be aimed at prevention. But, beyond that stage, the emphasis must be on open access to vocational training and on encouraging individuals to participate. Alternative paths to qualification must be opened up within the education and training system, and special parallel support needs to be provided. Teachers, trainers, and counselors need better preparation for these tasks, and priority must be given to raising the status of vocational training.
However, as elsewhere in the world, many young Europeans and their parents only perceive vocational education and training as a second choice. They tend to prefer the more academic, general education options that open up the route to higher education. In their eyes, a university qualification not only confers a higher social status but also provides better chances of employment, job security, and career perspectives. As a result, we can see that while the overall participation of young people in postcompulsory education or training has been growing steadily in almost all member states, in most of them, the growth in participation in vocational education and training has been significantly lower than in general education (see Table 3 at end of chapter). In addition, demographic changes will sharply reduce the number of young people in the initial training age group. Thus, in order to simply maintain the present number of young people in vocational education and training, an increasing proportion of this age group will need to be attracted to it.
The issue of how to raise the attractiveness of vocational education and training is a priority, both at the level of the EU and in the member states (European Commission, 1993, 1994b; European Commission, Directorate Generale V, 1994). However, the solutions being considered do not point in the direction of merging the general and the vocational education streams. More practical options are being introduced into general education, and a broader curriculum is being used in vocational training, but the tracks remain distinct. Current policy initiatives advocate other approaches to making vocational education more attractive. These include designing a closer correspondence between vocational qualifications and their academic equivalents, creating more flexible pathways to higher education, and developing high-quality vocational education options as an alternative to higher education. Vocational guidance has also been strengthened and broadened. In addition, efforts have been made to relax the rigid regulations that have traditionally linked levels of formal qualifications to status and income. These linkages have had the effect of limiting the prospects of career promotion for many young people with vocational qualifications.
This idea of innovation districts is not new, but it is proving to be a good approach. Its appeal lies less in the definition of the concept than in its effective implementation. It exploits the critical importance of local community networks in mobilizing the innovative forces too often constrained by institutional and administrative barriers. Getting such a district network started is not easy. It requires political will at the top, and at the decisionmaking levels in the administration and other establishments, to alleviate fears of losing control of institutional boundaries. At the operational level, it requires recognition that practical cooperation generates added value and encourages leadership, not dependence.
Several large district projects are currently being planned or implemented in different parts of the EU.6 One of them that has been started in Germany is the "Innovation District Cologne," which has combatting disadvantage and underqualification as its aims.
In 1994, the administration took the initiative to convene an informal meeting of the key actors and decisionmakers in Cologne. Everyone came with a belief that they had a perfectly clear understanding of the objectives, the beneficiaries, and the funding of all these initiatives. However, the longer the discussion went on, the more it became evident that this was not the case. Participants realized that not only was there some overlap between their activities, but that there were also major gaps. Thus, there was considerable scope for improving provision and achieving synergy at low or no additional cost. This was the starting point for a healthy new development.
Now, a more stable working group is being established at the city government level called the "Innovation Circle." It brings together senior representatives of the Schools Department; the Youth Department; the Labor Office (and its vocational guidance service); and the Chambers of Industry, Commerce, and Craft. Other providers of training, voluntary bodies, and representatives of the regional government also participate. Collaboration between these parties is based on a formal written convention, including a jointly agreed upon set of policy objectives and a plan for action. The primary role of this group is to eliminate administrative and institutional obstacles to innovation and cooperation between different actors in the different local areas of the city. Thus, schools can now work together more flexibly with firms and other institutions, without fear of being in breach of overprescriptive regulations. Decisionmaking is brought closer to the level of action. Other functions of the Innovation Circle include coordination of resources and information, links to the regional environment, and cooperation with parallel initiatives in Germany and other member states. A special unit in Cologne's Schools Department coordinates the work of the Innovation Circle and acts as its secretariat.
At the decentralized level, local projects are encouraged to create and to cooperate in a so-called "Innovation Pool." The pool is a local-area network of projects that tries to put new ideas into practice. Cologne's coordination unit has actively supported such a network in each administrative district of the city. The projects provide a starting point for the dissemination of innovative approaches. The objective is to develop, through networking, a coherent system of education, training, job placement, and other support for disadvantaged young people. The eventual aim is to achieve a de facto training guarantee that offers the prospect of employment. These networks link different types of projects, ranging from those concerned with curriculum change or staff development, to initiatives promoting intercultural teaching and combatting racism. Models of good practice resulting from the local projects are gradually transferred into the mainstream education, training, and guidance provision. This has been accomplished through local contact groups, inservice staff training, and information campaigns. To this end, each Innovation Pool establishes its own tailor-made work program, and designates a representative to participate in the Innovation Circle, which coordinates the overall strategy at the city level.
The first results of this new approach have been encouraging. New working relationships have developed, based on cooperation rather than competition. New learning structures have arisen: Partners listen to each other and learn. They learn from the different clients and target groups, too. These new patterns and structures have enhanced the autonomy of local actors, and strengthened their motivation. The actors enjoy a broadened capacity to create the future by generating new services and a wider range of opportunities for disadvantaged young people.
Such hope is not unfounded. A groundswell of concern has been gathering throughout Europe. Exclusion and underprivilege have topped the agenda at all European Council summit conferences since 1993. Two new EU education and training programs--SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI--offer a solid infrastructure for new action in favor of the disadvantaged. They took effect in January 1995 and are complementary to the EMPLOYMENT Community initiatives and its YOUTHSTART strand (European Commission, 1994a).
Along with other services, education and training providers are engaged in a race against the clock to redress this situation. Europe needs education policies, and a whole new educational ethos, based on the belief that nobody is excluded once and for all, and everyone is recoverable. This strategy for success must also be reflected in the implementation of flexible alternative and second chance programs as close as possible to, and preferably within, the mainstream systems.
The innovation districts mentioned above can be the incubators for such developments. They can also coordinate local resources and EU funding to support the needs of disadvantaged young people. In addition, the networking of such districts, and the encouragement of cooperation between them, may lead to a more rapid spread of innovative and successful working methods. District projects can also contribute to the effectiveness of national programs aimed at disadvantaged young people such as Youthreach in Ireland, the "Education for All" plan in Denmark, and the Youth Training and Work Guarantee scheme in the Netherlands. If all this happens, education and training in Europe may actually stand a chance of winning the race against the clock.
| Year | Without ANY Formal Qualitication (in %) | With No Qualification Beyond Compusory Education (in %) | Total (in %) | |
| Belgium | 1992 | |||
| Demark | 1990 | 7 | 18 | 25 |
| Germany | 1990 | 6 | 8 | 14 |
| Greece | ||||
| Spain | 1992 | 7 | 33 | 40 |
| France | 1989 | 15 | ||
| Ireland | 1991 | 9 | ||
| Italy | 1991 | |||
| Luxembourg | 1988 | 10 | 35 | 45 |
| Netherlands | 1992 | |||
| Portugal | 1991 | 30 | 10 | 40 |
| United Kingdom | 1990 | 10 | ||
| Europe | 10 | 20 | 30 | |
| Total | 4.7 million | 9.4 million | 14.1 million | |
| Source:European Commission estimates based on national data | ||||
| Total (in '000) | General Education (in %) | Vocational Education and Training, Apprenticeships (in %) | |
| Belgium | 619 | 42 | 58 |
| Demark | 222 | 33 | 67 |
| Germany | 2.563 | 20 | 80 |
| Greece(1) | 397 | 79 | 21 |
| Spain | 2.879 | 64 | 36 |
| France | 2.497 | 46 | 54 |
| Ireland | 161 | 78 | 22 |
| Italy | 2.856 | 29 | 71 |
| Luxembourg | 12 | ||
| Netherlands | 748 | 30 | 70 |
| Portugal | 321 | 83 | 17 |
| United Kingdom | 3.917 | 80 | 20 |
| Europe(12) | 17.192 | 51 | 49 |
| Japan | 72 | 28 | |
| United States | 70-75 | 25-30 | |
| Source:European Commission estimates based on EUROSTAT and OECO data (figures for 1990, not including apprenticeship) | |||
| Years of Comparison | General Education | Vocational Education and Training | Total Increase | |
| Belgium | 1986/91 | +4.5 | ||
| Demark | 1986/90 | -1.5 | +2.5 | +1.0 |
| Germany | 1986/90 | +4.5 | -4.5 | +0.0 |
| Greece | 1986/90 | +5.0 | +2.0 | +7.0 |
| Spain | 1986/90 | +3.5 | -0.5 | +3.0 |
| France | 1986/91 | +5.0 | ||
| Ireland | 1986/90 | +9.5 | -1.5 | +8.0 |
| Italy | 1988/91 | +1.0 | +5.0 | +6.0 |
| Luxembourg | ||||
| Netherlands | 1986/89 | +1.0 | +0.0 | +1.0 |
| Portugal | 1988/90 | +6.5 | +2.0 | +8.5 |
| United Kingdom | 1987/90 | +4.0 | +5.0 | +9.0 |
| Source:European Commission estimates based on EUROSTAT and OECO data | ||||
1 Such networks of pilot projects covering a wide range of specific thematic areas were implemented in the framework of two major European initiatives:
(1) European Community Action Programme on the transition of young people from education to adult and working life (Transition Programme, 1978-1987)
(2) European Community Action Programme for the vocational training of young people and their preparation for adult and working life (PETRA, 1988-1994)
Further information on these programmes, thematic publications, and evaluation reports is available from the European Commission, Directorate Generale XXII--Education, Training and Youth, Rue de la Loi 200, B--1049 Brussels.
2 Estimates based on data from national reports (e.g., Ministère de l'éducation nationale--direction de l'évaluation et de la perspective, 1992; Department of Enterprise and Employment [Ireland], 1993).
3 For example, there has been a marked shortage in certain branches of the craft sector in Germany, and in the construction industry in Belgium. For a general overview on skill shortages, see Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the European Commission (IRDAC) (1991) and European Commission, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth (1992).
4 For a general overview, see European Commission (1994a, 1995).
5 SOCRATES
* See Council Decision 819/95/EC (1995), which establishes an action
programme for the implementation of a European Community education policy.
LEONARDO DA VINCI
* See Council Decision 94/819/EC (1994), which establishes an action
programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training
policy. Also see European Commission, Directorate Generale XXII (1995a,
1995b).
YOUTHSTART
* YOUTHSTART is one of the strands of the Community Initiative on
EMPLOYMENT and Development of Human Resources. See European Commission,
Community Structural Funds (1994), p. 60; European Commission, Directorate
Generale V (1994, 1995).
6 See The District Approach to the Prevention and Remediation of School Failure, 1995--joint report prepared for the European Commission by seven district projects (involving projects in Germany, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Available from the European Commission, Directorate Generale XXII, Rue de la Loi 200, B--1049 Brussels.
Council Decision 819/95/EC. (1995, March 14). Official Journal of the European Communities, No L 87.
Department of Enterprise and Employment (Ireland). (1993). Economic status of school leavers. Dublin: Author.
European Commission. (1993). Turning growth into jobs. In Growth, competitiveness, employment: The challenges and ways forward to the 21st century (European Commission White Paper) (Chapter 8, section 8.8). Brussels: Author.
European Commission. (1994a). Report on the implementation of the PETRA Programme--Action programme for the vocational training of young people and their preparation for adult and working life (COM [93] 704 final). Brussels: Author.
European Commission. (1994b, December 5). Resolution by the council on the quality and attractiveness of vocational education and training (94/C374/01). Official Journal of the European Communities, p. 374.
European Commission. (1995). The prevention of school failure and marginalization among young people. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Community Structural Funds. (1994). Guide to the community initiatives, 1994-1999. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Directorate Generale V. (1994). Community initiative EMPLOYMENT--Practical application guide for project managers. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Directorate Generale V. (1995). The EMPLOYMENT initiative--From plans to action. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Directorate Generale XXII. (1995a). LEONARDO DA VINCI programme--Vademecum. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Directorate Generale XXII. (1995b). LEONARDO DA VINCI--Promoters guide 1995. Brussels: Author.
European Commission, Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth. (1992). Skills for a competitive and cohesive Europe--A human resources outlook for the 1990's. Brussels: Author.
Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the European Commission (IRDAC). (1991). Skill shortages in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Ministère de l'éducation nationale--direction de l'évaluation et de la perspective. (1992). L'état de l'école. Paris: Author.
