Combating drop-out and early school leaving (ESL) in Serbia – DETAILED DESCRIPTION

  1. What is the intensity of the intervention?

Finalised first phase, ongoing second phase

Drop-out prevention and intervention model at the school level was designed and piloted with the long-term goal, if approved to be effective, to be scaled upto all schools in Serbia.

The interventions were continuously applied for two school years in ten pilot schoolswhich are placedin the poorest municipalities; in schools with a large number of students at high risk of drop-out; in inadequately equipped schools with poor infrastructure; and in schools predominantly attended by poor students, students who travel, refugee students and other students from vulnerable groups. At the school level, drop-out prevention team was established (it consists of school staff) in charge of implementation of the model in the school.

  1. What were the conditions and different steps necessary for the implementation of the measure?

Implementation of the model required the following steps which wereimplemented cyclically:

  1. Establishment of the drop-out prevention team under school principals’ supervision - The school establishes a team in charge of planning and coordinating activities aimed at drop-out prevention. Members of the drop-out prevention team are appointed by the school principal. The team comprises of core members (e.g. teachers, psychologists/pedagogues, at least one representative of the of the school inclusion team[1],Roma pedagogical assistant, etc. depending on school resources, needs, and size) and extended team members if needed (e.g. centre for social work representatives, Municipality representative and NGO/Civil Society Organisations involved in youth and community services, parents, students’ parliament representatives, police representative, etc. where relevant).
  1. Identification of students at risk of dropping out- necessary information for the identification of students are available from institution’s information management system, students’ personal files and information provided by class masters. Based on available information from different sources (school evidence, interview with parents, interview of students, observation of students...), the class master assesses with thesupport of the drop-out prevention team, students against risk factors which are presented to all the schools by the project team. Based on the assessment, class masters identify students at risk of dropping-outand communicate the list of students to the drop-out prevention team.This approach very successfully identifies students with the highest risk of drop-out, with all risk factors triggered.
  1. Identification of the needs of individual students – The drop-out prevention team assesses the needs of students athighrisk of dropping outin order to decide adequate interventions. The needs assessment focuses on the risk causes rather than the risk symptoms. The needs assessment is conducted by the drop-out prevention team in cooperation with the class master, through discussions with the student and student’s classmates where appropriate, the family, the school’s pedagogical and psychological teams and other external stakeholders as necessary such as the centre for social work or youth services providers.
  1. Development of the individual support plan for drop-out prevention for each identified individual student – for each identified student, individual support plan is developed and implementation of interventions is monitored by the drop-out prevention team. In other words, interventions are tailored to the students’ needs. The drop-out prevention team is involved in the development of the institution attendance policy and asubsequent mechanism to tackle absenteeism and truancy.
  1. Implementation and monitoring of the implementation of interventions and their adjustments (if needed) – every individualised support plan is managed by one school teacher from or outside the drop-out prevention team. During the implementation of planned interventions for each student (individualisedsupport plan), monitoring activities took place. The drop-out prevention team together with theschool principal and school professional associates oversawmonitoring of intervention implementation. The monitoring was based on the following:
  • Baseline data as attendance rate, academic achievement etc. (to be compared with data after intervention)
  • The achievement of the set goals for the student (agreed by student and drop-out team/teacher)
  • Strategies to achieve the goal for each relevant criterion
  • Activities to be undertaken for each relevant criterion
  • The person responsible for monitoring each student’s case (case manager)
  • The timeline for the implementation of activities for each relevant attribute
  • The progress and results achieved for activities conducted for each attribute.
  • Implementation of developedIndividual drop-out prevention planwill be monitored using already prepared protocol and reporting forms, assessing also functionality and efficiency of established school procedures.
  1. Evaluation of the effects of interventions -drop-out prevention team is together with the school principal and school professional associates also, in charge for evaluation of interventions’ effects.They undertake evaluation by using created forms/questionnaires, amix of quantitative (developed indicators for evaluation of the model implementation) and qualitative data.
  2. EWIS supplementary activities on theschool level. Apart from theestablishment of the Early Warning and Intervention System (EWIS) and its implementation, a numerous activitiesbeing implemented at the whole institution level and involvescapacity building of teachers, strengthening of involvement of parents, peers (fellow students) and development of a new concept of remedial teaching. Parental engagement consists of a) parents’empowerment b) involvement of the parents and c) parents networking (e.g. involving parents of children at risk of dropping out in Parent Council and functioning of the School Board).Peer support includes the following: peers’ capacity building for prevention of dropping out; andempowerment of the students to be “mentors”to students at risk of dropping out in processes of socialisation and learning.
  3. Capacity building and activities targeted at changing school culture. This Component aimed to have an impact on the whole school practices since it is focused on strengthening the school competence and in that way contributes to the change of overall organizational culture, especially to reaching ahigher sensitivity of school employees for early identification, adequate response and support to pupils at risk of drop out and ESL.
  1. Who is involved in decisions about identifying the appropriate type of support, the level and intensity of support?Who is involved in decisions about adapting the type of support and its level and intensity to suit the needs of the learner?

As described in chapter 6. Different actors are involved in making decisions on the appropriate type of support, the level and intensity of support and adapting the type of support including acontribution from external stakeholders and various professionals. Throughout the project implementation, school mentors provide intensive support during this process, as they are primarily chosen for their expertise in inclusive education principles, policies and practices, work with students from vulnerable groups and extensive experience in education in general. Also, systematic support at school level was provided through the improvement of general education quality,strengthening theinvolvementof parents, peer support, and development of a new concept of remedial teaching. Part of the teacher training seminars are provided to all school teachers while part of the training was dedicated to the teachers involved in the model implementation.

  1. Who delivers the measure? Which stakeholders/professionals are involved from within and or outside the school (e.g. teachers, social workers, psychologists, therapists, etc.)? How is cooperation between the stakeholders ensured? How are stakeholder supported in their role – e.g. do they receive specific training?

Measures stated in the individual support plan were delivered firstly on the school level, by teachers and relevant school staff (psychologist, pedagogue etc.). If necessary (according to needs of students at risk) other professionals, such as health workers, social workers, pedagogical assistants, therapists etc. were involved, upon request. Participation of other studentswas, also, envisaged.

  1. Who has overall responsibility for implementation of the measure?

The drop-out prevention team was in charge for implementation of the measuresat theschool level.

  1. Were there any obstacles in introducing the measure and which ones? How were these obstacles overcome? If not, why not?

There were no obstacles, but it should be noted that this approach in its piloting phase involved schools which expressed interest to participate in the project which minimisedpossibility for obstacles to be experienced.

  1. How is the measure monitored/assessed? By whom?

The school monitored the early warning system cycle and specific drop-outpreventions and responses. In doing so, the schools were obliged to apply annual evaluation of both aspects.Thedrop-out prevention team evaluated the effects of Individual Support Plans by using created forms/questionnaires, a mixture of quantitative (developed indicators for evaluation of the model implementation) and qualitative data.

The entire project was supported and monitored by the overarching project team (composed by UNICEF and Centre for Education Policy representatives) and the project steering committee which involves different relevant stakeholders (ministries in charge of education, social welfare, health, youth etc.).

A monitoring and evaluation system was established aimed at measuring the model effectiveness. Progress is captured through quantitative and qualitative researchat three following stages: pre-test, interimtest, and post-test. The quantitative research was monitoring the following impact level indicators: drop-out rate, absenteeism, student achievements and grade repetition rate.

The qualitative research focused on process indicators of change in school practice, such as student sense of belonging to the peer group, quality of teaching, assessment and additional support, remedial teaching, newly established drop-out prevention school practice, parent and student participation and cooperation with thelocal community.

Baseline data was collected at the initial stage in the schools and are included in the baseline study. Following the completion of the baseline study, schools received feedback, additional trainingseminars and mentoring support in line with their needs. A final study on the effects of the drop-out prevention and intervention measures at the school level was conducted in 2016, whose key findings are presented below.

  1. What are the results?

The school-based drop-out prevention model has been piloted in ten schools (four primary and six secondary schools) in 7 towns and municipalities in Serbia. The total student population in these schools is more than 7,000 students and more than 700 teachers.

Drop-out rate

Data from the three years preceding the project shows that an average of 221 students dropped out whereas only 75 students dropped out during the reporting period. Such results attest to the significant results achieved in schools that participated in the pilot, where the drop-out rate has been reduced by 66.1%. The model has proved the most effective in transition grades where the drop-out rates are the highest, namely: thetransition from class-teaching to subject-teaching in primary schools (grades 4th to 5th), and transition from primary to secondary school. In total, 450 individual prevention plans were developed in all piloting schools during two school years. The results show that only 25 students dropped out during that period, which is 5.5% compared to 78% of students without individualised support. These results indicate that schools can positively impact external factors, such as extreme poverty, severe family problems, and severe behavioural problems and that individualised support to students at risk of drop-out proved to be one of the most efficient measures in supporting students and preventing students’ drop-out.

Student achievements

Although the project interventions were not directly targeting students’ achievements, they covered individualised and differentiated instructions and a new concept of remedial teaching. Positive changes are more visible in primary schools than in secondary schools, particularly in thetransition from class-teaching to subject-teaching.

Absenteeism

Data shows that absenteeism reduced significantly in secondary schools by 30%. This can be attributed to different components of the drop-out prevention model, such as peer support, support to students, cooperation with parents, and informing parents about the absenteeism. Before the project started, absenteeism was 117 classes per student a year which reduced to 83 classes a year following the implementation of the project. This decrease, including absenteeism as such, was lower in primary schools. The rate decreased by 11.6% or from 77 classes per student a year to 68 classes.

Grade repetition

Grade repetition negatively affects student achievements, self-confidence, and self-efficacy (Hattie, 2009). As a result of project interventions, the grade repetition has been reduced by 23%. In average, before the project started, 162 students repeated the grade whereas 125 students repeated the grade at the end of the project in all ten piloting schools.

Improved school ethos and climate

Involving all actors of the school community (students, teachers, parents and external stakeholders, such as NGOs, local community services, and local authorities), helped drop-out becoming visible and achieved a shared understanding and importance of the issue. This multi-stakeholder involvement commanded the school dynamics. The project also positively changed teachers’ perceptions of students, and vice-versa, resulting in a positive impact on theatmosphere in schools. Similarly, theinvolvement of students in peer support activities contributed to improving the school climate. Schools identified respectful and empathic relationships between teachers and students as a significant project outcome.

Improved relationship and cooperation with parents

Schools reported less conflictual and more constructive relationships with parents of at-risk students. Schools have used a range of approaches to communicate and engage with parents and have achieved results by being persistent and by changing the way they were usually communicating with parents. However, parental engagement remains an area where schools feel they need additional support.

Increased understanding of the importance of data and records, and evidence-based planning

Schools have been surprised about how much they did not know about their students. They also understood that to identify relevant support measures for students at risk of drop-out, needs assessment had to be appropriate and records had to be kept. School Drop-out Prevention Teams valued having a plan of activities for each child because it provided them with a framework for both implementation and monitoring. All teams insisted on the fact that planning and plans structured their approach, helped them collaborate with other teachers and partners effectively and that written records enabled them to monitor children effectively.

Increased understanding of the need to individualise wrap-around measures for each child and family

Following student needs assessment, schools developed individual drop-out prevention measures for each child. In focus groups, schools explained how they have realised the importance of tailoring measures to individual needs. They also explained how the project has made them understand the importance of assessing not only the needs but also the strengths, talent, and interest of children. Many activities in the IPPO aimed at providing students with opportunities to explore further their areas of interest or their strengths. This has been a successful strategy for school and a real shift in school practice.

Improved communication and staff collaboration within schools

Not only has communication and collaboration improved over time with the engagement of School Drop-out Prevention Teams, but those teams and school principals reported overall improvements in staff collaboration, due to the involvement of both all head teachers in theidentification of students at risk and many subjects teachers in learning support activities. Teachers had to collaborate on IPPO measures. There were also reports of teaching staff spending much more time discussing student cases during breaks.

Improvement in individualised learning and provision of remedial teaching

Teachers reported that, following the training they received, they had started individualising instruction more. Remedial teaching was also strengthened and became more flexible and relevant for students. Some schools have taken steps to change the perception of remedial teaching, including by making it compulsory for children and treating absences as truancy.

Systematisation of partnership with external stakeholders

Schools have different history and practice of collaboration with NGOs, community services, and local authorities. Some schools explained that having more information about children through the EWIS process puts them in a position where they can better advocate for children with the Centre for Social Work, the local self-government, children services, NGOs and the private sector. In addition, some schools reported some degree of improved positive conduct with external stakeholders, particularly officials and services, whereby each side has learned to understand the role and responsibilities of the other and to, at least, exchange information on a timelier basis, if not jointly planning interventions.