barcelona march 2014 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Barcelona – March 2014 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Barcelona – March 2014

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 106

Barcelona – March 2014 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated on

Steering Committee. Barcelona – March 2014. Presentation of the involved partners . CEC AECA ETCHARRY TRINIJOVE ESPERANCA ORCHIS FISSAAJ – SAS . Validation of the minutes of the kick off meeting in Brussels (9, 10, 11 October 2013)  The minutes are approved.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Barcelona – March 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Steering Committee Barcelona – March 2014

    2. Presentation of the involved partners • CEC • AECA • ETCHARRY • TRINIJOVE • ESPERANCA • ORCHIS • FISSAAJ – SAS SC-Barcelona March 2014

    3. Validation of the minutes of the kick off meeting in Brussels(9, 10, 11 October 2013) The minutes are approved SC-Barcelona March 2014

    4. The State of Art about the School drop-out in the Partner CountriesBy Mélanie Latiers - Orchis SC-Barcelona March 2014

    5. 4 contexts for Atom’s

    6. Why is it interesting to compare? • Any strategy to combat school drop-out must rely on a thorough analysis of specific national, regional and local context of this issue. • The compilation of accurate information about this issue allows to better target the measures to be taken, e.g. regarding training • We gathered and compared information on two dimensions. On the one hand we focus on the comparison of local contexts, specifying the causes and extent of drop-out in every region, but also the practices developed in connection with this problem. On the other hand, a focus on the needs of stakeholders in order to organize the future transfer of innovation.

    7. Which data is it necessary to compare? The comparison focuses on the following data provided by the partners : • Identification of factors and causes of dropping out; • Identification of groups at risk and therefore social, cultural, family and economic contexts of these groups, • Identification of already existing practices and tools to fight the school drop-out, • Identification of the needs of the partner countries in terms of adequate response to drop-out

    8. Multiple causes and factors

    9. Differentiating factors and public (1) • The scientific literature dealing with the issue of drop-out agrees to present it as multidimensional one, with causes described as multiple and interrelated (Robertson & Collerrette, 2005) • In the analysis, we distinguish six types of factors : social, economic, political, geographical, institutional and health factors.

    10. Differentiating factors and public (2) • ATOM 's project gathers actors that differ in terms of target audience and type of education : • Spanish and Italian partners : young people between 12 and 18 years, compulsory education • Belgian partners : young people between 15 and 18 years, compulsory education • French partners : young people between 18 and 25 years, engaged in a training process • These differences have an impact in terms of factors and causes of drop-out , especially regarding the difference between people being trained and people at school.

    11. 1. Social factors • To distinguish the factors mentioned by the different partners , we will indicate the source of each item with the first letter of the partner countries (I for Italy , B for Belgium, Spain and E ) • These factors relate to the environment and family situation of young people, their behavior, but also the socio-historical context (habits, especially related to culture and local identity).

    12. 1.1. Social factors for people being trained (F) • For people being trained, French partner insists on three elements : • The people being trained in Etcharry are largely women, who are often alone to raise their child(ren), usually after a long period of inactivity (unemployment, parental leave…) . These mothers may then find it difficult to manage a family organization that must adapt to the required availability . • A second element is related to the difficulty of matching the wishes and competencies of people on the one hand, and the perspectives and positions offered by companies on the other. • A third element is the difficulty of reintegration into a training process. For students, this process generates pressure, and there is a risk of drop-out if the difficulties are too big to overcomed.

    13. 1.2. Social factors for young people at school (1) For young people at school, the factors identified are quite different : The first factor concerns the influence the family context on dropout behavior, for different reasons : • various family difficulties (financial, relational , emotional, professional) (B). • cultural and educational capital of the family (status, level of education) (I) (E). • overall family dynamics, particularly regarding the issues of limits, lifestyle, values and attitudes (E): representation of school and instruction (e.g. Rom families (E)), importance of new technologies (B);time spent by parents to monitor school career (I) (B).

    14. 1.2. Social factors for young people at school (2) The second factor focuses on the behavior of young people. Here are pointed : • The difficulty in enduring the stresses of group life and rules in society (B). • The lack of sense given by the young people about education. They focus more on other priorities ( games) (B). • The orientation choices that are not always right (B). • The " street culture " that exists in some areas, where young people spend most of their time on the street (E).

    15. 1.2. Social factors for young people at school (3) The third factor focuses on the impact of socio-historical context on the dropout, with several key factors : • The representations conveyed by the media, focusing on success, money, hedonism, the importance of the new technologies (I) • The crisis of the traditional family, which generates a multiple and complex of family configurations (I) • The high rate of unemployment for young people, which reduces the value of education, but also personal and family investment (I) • The organization of working time and school time that do not facilitate a dialogue between school and the family (I)

    16. 1.2. Social factors for young people at school (4) • The increase of people at school during the year, particularly due to the arrival of children from immigrant families (I) • The education system that does not offer training programs that correspond to the expectations and needs of young people (B) A first observation of social factors shows that the results of the different partners differ. The majority of factors identified by the Spanish partner is related to the influence of the family background. Belgian partners focus more on young people's behavior, while the Italian partners rather centered on the socio-historical factors.

    17. 2. Economic factors • The elements included in this category relate to • The local economy, particularly in terms of employment and the main local economic sectors, • The financial situation of the actors involved in the issue of drop-out (families, institutions, schools).

    18. 2.1. Economic factors for people being trained (F) The French partner focuses on one main factor : • The type of job (or internship) related to training can be a factor that influences the drop-out behaviors. Etcharry provides training in the area of Personal Services. This sector mostly offers part-time jobs and work on weekends or shift schedule. Students may therefore be in trouble, especially financially, when they have to meet the requirements of the job (e.g. when they have to travel, to take care of their children).

    19. 2.2. Economic factors for young people at school • The local economic context plays a role (E) ( I) (unemployment, sectors growing) . Spanish partners evoke the context Baró de Viver, characterized by a precarious economic situation. • The financial situation of families has an influence both on the school career, choice of schools and school results (I) (E). • The perception of education as a tool providing the ability to get a job is crucial. (B) (I) . • The financial situation of the school determines the magnitude of the support to young people in trouble(I).

    20. 3.1. Political factors for people being trained (F) • The political choices complicate the support to young people. • On the one hand there is less financial support for drop-out situations and reintegration through a training course. • On the other hand the priorities of the accompaniment change. Supporting young people in their personal project on a global level (social, psychological, vocational and health ... ) is gradually abandoned. The focus is more and more on the only professional dimension. • In addition, the lack of funding for the fight against drop-out implies less cooperation between services. Different social workers may then be in touch with the same young people without real collaborative work, or information transmission between them.

    21. 3.2. Political factors for young people at school (1) Several specificities of national and local policies are highlighted : • In Italy, the financial resources for fight against early school leaving are insufficient. Indeed, budget constraints lead to divestment policies in the fields of education and culture. Funding devoted to the fight against school drop-out become annual , temporary, or related to EU funding, which leads to fragmentation of interventions, a lack of continuity in projects and a difficulty in anticipating new ones.

    22. 3.2. Political factors for young people at school (2) Several specificities of national and local policies are highlighted : • In Belgium, the lack of appreciation of certain education sectors, including “education in alternation”, is considered as a factor favoring the drop-out. In addition, the lack of sanctions (financial or others) in case of drop-out is an aggravating factor. • In Spain, a 1990 law changed the limit age of compulsory school from 14 to 16 years, which had some consequences on the issue of drop-out.

    23. 4.1. Geographic factors for people being trained (F) The French partner describes several factors in the local context (Basque Country) : • The internal Basque country is marked by a strong culture (including a specific language ), which can be an obstacle to the individual psychological and geographical mobility. • The geographical context, with rural valleys and mountains, leads to difficulties in terms of mobilityfor people being trained (logistical and financial difficulties)

    24. 4.2. Geographic factors for young people at school Geographic factors are different : - Some areas have few schools, which would be a factor favoring drop-out (I). - The isolation of some areas (from the city) is also a crucial factor, because the marginalization of the population may influence the behaviors of young people. For example, the area of Baró de Viver in Spain, separated from Barcelona by Besos river, makes it an isolated place, which is experienced as such by the inhabitants (E).

    25. 5. Institutional factors, related to the education system Two elements that affect young people at school are mentioned by the Italian partner: • The insufficient training of teachers in some fields that are not part of their basic competences. That causes problems to face complex situations experienced by some young people. • The prevalence of summative and not formative evaluation in the educational system prevents a personalized monitoring/support for young people.

    26. 6. Health factors • The partners identify identical elements, even if they occur in different contexts (training or compulsory education). Risk behaviors (addictions and others) and psychological/mental problems are here mentioned as causes of school drop-out.

    27. Who are they?

    28. 1. Who are the young people at risk of drop-out? • What is their social, cultural, family and economic context ?

    29. 2. Which organizations are working with the target groups? • Specificities of the organizations : • The number of employees of the organization : from 6 to 9000 • The number of employees engaged in the fight against school drop-out (and training Etcharry) : from 0 to 35 • The (public / private) sector type : 2 private, 7 public, 2 both. • The funding of the organization : mainly regional funding • The type of support (voluntary or compulsory) : mainly voluntary

    30. 3. Who are the professionals working with the target groups? 3 types of profiles emerge from the analysis of the questionnaires: • Professionals in the field of psychosocial support : social workers, educators, counselors in social and family economics, psychologists (Belgium, France and Italy). • Specialists in the field of education in general: teachers, masters in education sciences (Belgium and Spain). • Specialists in specific disciplines : university graduates in biology, chemistry, language for example(Spain).

    31. Individual or collective ? Punctual or continuous?

    32. 1. Differentiating practices and tools • Weconsider as practices the actions/methodologiesthat are directlyimplemented for the target groups. Wetherefore chose practices thatwerecentered on the direct intervention withtheseyoung people, and not withotherstakeholders (e.g. not the training for professionals, or network initiatives outside the support of young people). • The tools are focused on the understanding and the methodological support related to the issue of school drop-out. They are resources for the support for young people, but are not directlyinvolved in it. Examplesincludetoolssuch as databases, web sites, documentation on the issue of drop-out.

    33. 2. Classifying practices : individual vs collective; punctual vs continuous • A quick interpretation of the table hereafter highlights that a majority of practices have an individual rather than a collective character, and that they are also mostly continuous ones.

    34. Specific needs for each context…

    35. The questions asked to the partners • In the questionnaire sent to all partners, they were asked to identify three priority themes (cf. the 6 themes related to the practices of SAS services) related to their needsin terms of practices/tools offered by SAS. In addition to these three themes, the expected learning effects related to these practices were also asked. • 6 questionnaires were collected: France (Etcharry), Italy (Bologna), 2 for Belgium (Cefa Mons & Cefa Saint-Luc) and 2 for Spain (Trinijove and Esperança). Since the 2 Spanish questionnaires join on all points, we consider them as a single response.

    36. Table of the chosen themes


    38. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium Theme 1 = Collective of youth Theme 2 = Individualproject Theme 3 = Young’network Theme 4 = Specificproblems Theme 5 = Philosophywich crosses all the SAS in relation to the young = social and educationalapproach. Theme 6 = Others SC-Barcelona March 2014

    39. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium Needs and priorities of the partner countries : SC-Barcelona March 2014

    40. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium Training module thatcanbeoffered by the SAS to the partners : 5 days module : SC-Barcelona March 2014

    41. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium SC-Barcelona March 2014

    42. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium Whichpartner for whichtheme ? SC-Barcelona March 2014

    43. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium How much trainers by country ? The number of participating trainers is defined below for the good walk of the training. The SAS don’t have the capacity to accommodate, in addition to the young people, a too great number of people. • Spain: max 6 • France: max 4 • Belgium: max 2 • Italy: max 4 SC-Barcelona March 2014

    44. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium  Decision about the number of trainers by partner : • Trinijove = 2 • Esperança = 2 • Etcharry= 2 • Cefa= 2 • AECA = 10 SC-Barcelona March 2014

    45. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium  Distribution of European trainers within the SAS : proposition 1 : SC-Barcelona March 2014

    46. Training Module – May 2014 - Belgium  Distribution of European trainers within the SAS : proposition 2 : SC-Barcelona March 2014