37

TWO

Strategies to reduce educationalinequality: a general framework

Ides Nicaise (HIVA)

In this transnational study we will seek to order and analyse the relevantbut rather diffuse experiences of different countries as systematically aspossible. The first requirement is obviously a common frame of reference.In this chapter, a typology is proposed for education strategies,1 to serveas a framework for the analyses performed in subsequent chapters.

Various criteria can be used in formulating this typology: types ofstakeholder (policymakers, parents, teachers, schools, and so on), stagesin educational curriculum (pre-school, primary, and so on), nature ofthe strategies, policy level (national versus local), and so on. We decidedto adopt a double key for our reference framework, consisting of thetwo latter criteria. Each of them will be discussed in greater detailbelow.

First criterion: nature of the strategy (equalopportunity, equal treatment, equal outcomes)

The nature of the strategies discussed below corresponds to the differentnature of the various causes of educational exclusion. As we saw in theprevious chapter, the literature on educational inequality suggests a basicdistinction between obstacles on the demand side of education (whichcan be referred to as unequal opportunities depending on thesocioeconomic environment of the pupil) and on the supply side(unequal treatment or discrimination on the part of educationalinstitutions). The former group of factors are related to thesocioeconomic handicaps of pupils from poor families: material orcultural deprivation, poor health, unstable family relationships, lack ofsocial and cultural capital, and so on (that is, factors which are more orless exogenous to the education system). The latter group have to dowith the education system itself, or more precisely, the way in whicheducational institutions and their agents (teachers, counsellors, school

38

The right to learn

principals) contribute to prejudice against pupils from lower socialbackgrounds.

The distinction does not imply that education policy has no impactwhatsoever on the former group, the environmental circumstances.Rather, it helps in classifying strategies to promote educational equality.For example, financial incentives within education can help overcomethe (exogenous) material obstacles to a successful school career, eventhough the education system is not responsible for the latter. Thus, wewill consider two types of strategies: those aimed at ensuring moreequal opportunities (or more equal access), and those aimed atmore equal treatment within education itself.

Besides being demand-focused, equal opportunities strategies will,typically, also be multidimensional and multidisciplinary in nature. Giventhe multiple causes of unequal opportunities (financial, physical, cultural,social, emotional, and so on), only multifaceted responses will effectivelycombat this source of educational disadvantage.

Equal treatment strategies, on the other hand, focus on theelimination of discriminatory behaviour within the education processat school. They are thus typically supply-centred; that is, they concentrateon what happens within the school or classroom. A great emphasis willbe put on the role of communication, because the lack of communicationbetween the school and the home environment of pupils proves to be amajor source of prejudices and discrimination.

Over the years, the emphasis has shifted back and forth betweenboth types of strategies, often accompanied by ideological debates onthe causes (structural or otherwise) of educational inequality (Silverand Silver, 1991; Connell, 1994). In our view, controversies of this typeare of little use, since both types of cause have structural roots: outsidethe education system in one case, and within it in the other. Moreover,both types of mechanism interact with each other. In the light of this,it would be naive to tackle the problems using one-sided strategies.

A third, somewhat hybrid approach can be added to the list: strategiesfor more equal outcomes. These are based on the conviction thatequal treatment in itself will not be sufficient to restore the balance infavour of young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds; ratherthan non-discrimination, they imply positive discrimination. Part ofthe purpose of education is, after all, to help reduce social inequalities,not to reproduce them as neutrally as possible. In this way, equal outcomesstrategies are much more proactive ways of combating exclusion thanthe other approaches. Educational priority policies (consisting mainly

39

of extra funding for schools with a concentration of disadvantagedstudents) are a standard example of this approach.

The term equal outcomes sometimes meets with resistance fromcritics who fear that it could lead to a levelling down, or at least aredistribution of the resources and opportunities away from the moreable students towards the weaker pupils. Similarly, positive discriminationis rejected by some out of fear of other forms of arbitrariness or evendiscrimination against highly achieving pupils. The first answer to theseobjections should be that positive discrimination must indeed not bearbitrary, but must in fact serve to remove the obstacles threatening theeducational development of certain target groups. Moreover, it must beremembered that education policy is not a zero sum game: givingmore to one group does not necessarily mean taking something awayfrom another. Positive actions in favour of socially disadvantaged groupscan, in fact, lead to reductions in repeated years, special education, andso on, leading to a substantial reduction in the net added costs of theseactions or, in the best case, eliminating them altogether and turningthem into a gain (Levin, 1989; Nicaise, 1999). We can therefore expectthat equal treatment strategies are more likely to lead to levelling upthan levelling down. The term levelling can in fact (unfortunately)not be interpreted in absolute terms, since education is unable to rectifythe enormous burden of social inequality on its own.

Equal outcomes strategies in fact combine elements of both previoustypes of strategy. However, unlike equal opportunity strategies, they arefocused on outcomes rather than access. In this sense, they can also becharacterised as ex post facto, remedying strategies. For example,targeted pre-school programmes and second-chance schools are twotypes of compensatory programme. However, pre-school programmescan be regarded as a typical equal opportunity approach because theycontribute to a more equal start in primary school; whereas second-chance provision aims at equalising outcomes.

Contrary to the equal treatment approach, equal outcomes strategiesdiscriminate positively in favour of disadvantaged groups. Hence, theyare also more targeted on the specific needs of minorities than equaltreatment strategies.

When reviewing examples from the six countries represented in ourresearch network, we end up with the following checklist of strategies(for a more detailed overview, see Tables 2.1 to 2.3).

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

40

The right to learn

Equal opportunity strategies

(Extension of ) Compulsory education: as the spontaneous demandfor further education has declined, public authorities have tried toimpose a minimum participation on every individual. The minimumschool leaving age has been raised in nearly all EU countries overthe last 15 years. In some countries, on the other hand, the lawguarantees each young person a set of (extra) educational services asa counterpart of these minimum requirements (as we shall see, forexample, with the Scottish Education Act and the Spanish SocialGuarantee Programme).

The enforcement of compulsory education is not without difficulties:premature dropout and truancy have become serious problems.Hence, several governments have launched special measures to registerand monitor school attendance, to encourage pupils and parents tocomply with the measures, and to prevent dropout. Examples arethe Well-prepared Start programme in the Netherlands and theEducation for All programme in Portugal. Of course, dropoutprevention is a more or less explicit objective of many other types ofintervention, such as alternative curricula or integrated services topupils and families, which will be dealt with in other sections.

National governments have introduced a wide range of financialassistance measures for low-income families: grants, loans, means-tested educational provision (tuition fees, transportation, meals,clothing, book grants, and so on), special measures relating to familyallowances, and tax credits (as far as they are related to education andto disadvantaged groups).

Equal opportunities are also promoted through the provision of awide range of integrated services (psychological, social, cultural,medical, material, and so on) for disadvantaged pupils, often organisedand delivered at the local level. These services aim at improving thegeneral conditions for effective participation in education, mostly inclose collaboration with parents and other actors in theneighbourhood. Some attractive examples are found in the Flemishprimary schools that were sponsored for some time by the KingBaudouin Foundation and the Dutch Extended School Dayexperiment.

One of the most effective strategies in promoting equal opportunitieshas been the development of pre-school stimulation programmesfor disadvantaged groups.2 The Irish Early Start, and its precedinglocal experiments, the Rutland Street and Kilkenny projects, are

41

undoubtedly the most outstanding examples of this kind in Europe.However, other interesting lessons can be drawn from the travellingpre-schools in isolated rural areas of Spain and from various localprojects with babies and toddlers in other countries.

Equal treatment strategies

In order to combat selectivity, socially biased failure, streaming, andcreaming mechanisms, there is a great need for curricular reforms inthe sense of comprehensivisation, more relevant learning contentsfor everyday life, and less discriminating certification strategies. Therecent major reforms in Portugal (1989) and Spain (1990) went along way in this direction.

Note the distinction between reforms of the general curriculum(covering all students and thus improving equality) on the one hand,and the development of flexible, alternative curricula for pupils withspecial needs on the other. At this point we will deal only with theformer type of curricular reforms, as the latter actually implies adifferent treatment of disadvantaged groups with a view to equaliseeducational outcomes. Flexible, alternative curricula will thereforebe discussed in the context of equal outcomes strategies.

Besides curricular reforms, it is worth studying the (potential) impactof some alternative pedagogical approaches (active and constructivistschools, accelerated schools, communities of learning, and so on) onthe educational success of disadvantaged children. Experiments inBelgium and Spain suggest that such approaches may be of particularinterest for these children; paradoxically, however, their access tosuch schools is often problematic because of institutional and financialbarriers.

Discriminatory behaviour is often due to social prejudices resultingfrom the ignorance of teachers (and indeed, of the entire schoolstaff) with regard to social exclusion. Teacher training can play animportant role in helping teachers to recognise and understand theprocesses and victims of social exclusion, and to respond appropriatelyand effectively.

Combating discrimination calls for more intensive communicationbetween schools/teachers on the one hand, and parents/localcommunities on the other. Some interesting experiments have beencarried out recently, ranging from home-school-community liaisonin Ireland and a school-environment link project in Portugal, toparents groups and sensitisation campaigns among pupils in Belgium.

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

42

The right to learn

The last type of equal treatment strategy consists somewhatparadoxically of categorical measures; that is, specific services beingoffered to groups with special needs, with a view to their integrationinto mainstream education intercultural education, special servicesto traveller children (well developed in Portugal, Ireland and Scotland),and inclusive education for children with special educational needs.

Equal outcomes strategies

As disadvantaged groups need greater investments to attain a givenoutcome, most member states in the EU have now adopted onekind or another of educational priority policies; that is, extra fundsfor schools faced with a concentration of children at risk. Educationalpriority funding has territorial and categorical variants; in somecountries, both variants coexist (the Netherlands, for example).

Positive discrimination in favour of marginalised groups can takethe form of differentiation; that is, extra learning support withinschools or classes (remedial teaching, differentiation within theclassroom, direct learning support to pupils, teacher counsellors, andso on).

Finally, a range of alternative curricula, transition systems and second-chance schools have been developed in order to ensure maximumaccess to recognised (if possible, standard) qualifications for sociallydisadvantaged students, mostly at upper secondary level: alternatingforms of vocational education combined with work experience,apprenticeship systems, modular programmes, and remedialprogrammes or lower level certificates for students who fail inmainstream programmes.

The demarcation line between flexible curricula (aiming at equaloutcomes) and streaming (a form of social discrimination) issometimes a very thin one. Flexible curricula should ideally leadto standard (mainstream) certificates. The integration of specificsidetrack certificates into the national qualification structure is arather second-best solution, which cannot really be regarded as anequal outcomes strategy. Empirical evaluations are needed in thiscontext, more than anywhere else.

43

Second criterion: educational policy levels (macro,meso, micro)

In addition to the main criterion relating to the nature of the strategies,we also wish to take explicit account of the policy level at which ameasure or project is developed. We are well aware that a great manyvaluable initiatives are being taken on the field which have not yet beenincorporated into general education policy. Thus, the distinction betweenthe different levels is, in the first place, a means of ensuring that grassrootsinitiatives are not forgotten, although we do not by any means claim todepict a representative sample of the latter.

It is of course quite possible that certain strategies can best beimplemented at the micro level (for example, integrated service delivery),while others are more suited to the macro level (for example, statutoryeducation).

The term macro level is defined here as the highest education policylevel. This may be the national level (as in Portugal, the Netherlandsand Ireland), or the level of an autonomous community or region (as inScotland, Flanders and Catalonia). The meso level refers to lower levelauthorities, such as municipal authorities or regional centres, networksor partnerships (often also involving a variety of stakeholders), or LocalEducation Authorities in Scotland. Sometimes we are dealing with acollection of local projects under the auspices of the national government;the distinction from the macro level in this case lies mainly in the factthat the national regime is not generally binding (as in the case ofexperiments in a number of schools). Finally, the micro level refers toisolated initiatives in individual schools or classes. Even where these aresubsidised by a national or lower public authority, these initiatives aretypically bottom-up.

Synoptic tables

Tables 2.1 to 2.3 classify a number of examples of measures, programmesand projects in the six EU member states included in the study, usingthe double classification system outlined above.

It has to be admitted that some programmes are hard to classifyunambiguously. Whereas a strategy is an abstract set of well-defined,logically integrated targets and methods, a real-life programme or projectcan have more than one rationality. It can combine elements fromdifferent strategies. When classifying national programmes by strategy,we can either isolate pure elements from programmes that belong to a

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

44

The right to learn

single strategy, or refer to the programme within the different strategiesto which it belongs. The in-depth analysis of each programme will beclassified under the strategy where it fits best.

The same comment applies for the distinction between policy levels.Sometimes a policy framework is created at macro level, which isimplemented locally in many different ways. Depending on the context,we shall therefore discuss some initiatives at different levels.

Notes

1 Some more holistic strategies encompassing educational measures are alsostudied.

2 General pre-school provision (such as daycare centres, nurseries or infantschools) will not be analysed in our study, unless they include special servicesfor socially excluded children.

45

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

Tabl

e 2.

1: S

yno

psis

of

rele

vant

mea

sure

s, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd p

roje

cts

aim

ed a

t m

ore

equ

al o

ppo

rtun

itie

s

Typ

e o

f str

ateg

yM

acro

-lev

elM

eso

-lev

elE

xam

ple

s at

mic

ro-l

evel

Com

puls

ory

B:19

83: s

choo

l lea

ving

age

rai

sed

to 1

8ed

ucat

ion

IRL:

Scho

ol le

avin

g ag

e ra

ised

to

15 in

197

2, t

o 16

in 1

997;

Sch

ool a

tten

danc

e of

ficer

sN

L:C

ompu

lsor

y Ed

ucat

ion

Act

(19

69, a

men

ded

1994

)N

L:A

wel

l pre

pare

d st

art

(EG

VS)

P:19

86: s

choo

l lea

ving

age

rai

sed

to 1

5(if

bas

ic s

choo

l fin

ishe

d)P:

Educ

atio

n fo

r All

Prog

ram

me

ES:

1990

: sch

ool l

eavi

ng a

ge r

aise

d to

16

(LO

GSE

)Sc

:19

80: E

duca

tion

(Sco

tland

) Act

as

amen

ded

1981

: Spe

cial

Edu

catio

nal N

eeds

Sc:

Excl

usio

n an

d no

n-at

tend

ance

S

cott

ish

initi

ativ

e on

att

enda

nce

and

abse

nce

Sc:

Earl

y ye

ars

prov

isio

n

B:D

ropo

ut p

reve

ntio

n pr

ojec

tsat

reg

iona

l lev

elN

L:R

egio

nal r

epor

ting

and

co-o

rdin

atio

n fu

nctio

n (R

MC

)Sc

:Yo

uth

Stra

tegi

es L

othi

anR

egio

n/Ed

inbu

rgh

City

Cou

ncil

Fina

ncia

l and

B:Fr

ee e

duca

tion

at p

rim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y le

vels

mat

eria

l ass

ista

nce

IRL:

Free

edu

catio

n at

all

leve

lsB:

Stud

y gr

ants

at

seco

ndar

y an

d te

rtia

ry le

vel

IRL:

Book

Gra

nt a

nd R

enta

l Sch

eme,

Bac

k to

Sch

ool

Clo

thin

g A

llow

ance

, Loc

al A

utho

rity

Hig

her

Educ

atio

n G

rant

s,ES

F Tr

aini

ng G

rant

sN

L:St

udy

gran

ts a

nd lo

ans

at t

ertia

ry le

vel

P:Fi

nanc

ial a

id v

ia S

choo

l Soc

ial A

ssis

tanc

eP:

Free

milk

, sub

sidi

sed

scho

ol c

ante

ens,

acco

mm

odat

ion

for

stud

ents

Sc:

Free

sch

ool m

eals

/clo

thin

g al

low

ance

s

IRL:

Free

sch

ool m

eals

IRL:

Loca

l ini

tiativ

es in

clud

ing

finan

cial

aid

(BI

TE,

LC

BEI, T

AP)

ES:

Gra

nts

for

lunc

hes

and

book

s(C

ompe

nsat

ory

prog

ram

mes

)

46

The right to learn

Tabl

e 2.

1: S

yno

psis

of

rele

vant

mea

sure

s, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd p

roje

cts

aim

ed a

t m

ore

equ

al o

ppo

rtun

itie

s (c

ont

inue

d)

Typ

e o

f str

ateg

yM

acro

-lev

elM

eso

-lev

elE

xam

ple

s at

mic

ro-l

evel

B:S

choo

l gui

danc

e ce

ntre

s fo

r ps

ycho

logi

cal,

med

ical

and

soci

al a

ssis

tanc

e

NL:

Scho

ols

advi

sory

ser

vice

NL:

Gui

danc

e bu

reau

s

NL:

Supp

ort

stru

ctur

e

P:Sc

hool

soc

ial a

ssis

tanc

e

P:Pe

dago

gica

l sup

port

ES:

Mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y Se

rvic

e Te

ams

Sc:

1995

Chi

ldre

n (S

cotla

nd) A

ct

Sc:

Exte

nded

sup

port

with

in F

urth

er E

duca

tion

B:K

ing

Baud

ouin

Fou

ndat

ion

sne

twor

k of

pro

ject

s in

pri

mar

yed

ucat

ion

B:M

agne

t sc

hool

s (A

ntw

erp)

IRL:

Loca

lly in

tegr

ated

pro

ject

s(G

alw

ay, L

imer

ick)

IRL:

Cul

tura

l and

fina

ncia

lin

terv

entio

n pr

ojec

ts(B

ITE,

LC

BEI, T

AP,

Pete

r Pa

n)

NL:

Hom

ewor

k pr

ojec

ts

NL:

Exte

nded

Sch

oold

ay

P:Ed

ucat

iona

l ani

mat

ors

Sc:

Loca

l aut

hori

ty c

hild

ren

sse

rvic

e pl

ans

Sc:

Hom

e-Sc

hool

-Em

ploy

men

tPa

rtne

rshi

p (P

aisl

ey)

Inte

grat

ed s

ervi

ces

for

disa

dvan

tage

dpu

pils

in m

ain-

stre

am e

duca

tion

Earl

y in

terv

entio

nB:

Exte

nded

car

e (s

ee e

qual

out

com

es s

trat

egie

s)

IRL:

Earl

y St

art

Prog

ram

me

Sc:

Earl

y In

terv

entio

n Pr

ogra

mm

es (

see

equa

lou

tcom

es s

trat

egie

s)

ES:

Mat

erni

ty C

entr

es

ES:

Casa

s de

los

nio

s

ES:

Trav

ellin

g pr

e-sc

hool

IRL:

Jobs

tow

n Ed

ucat

ion

and

Trai

ning

Str

ateg

y (J

ETS)

P:Lo

cal s

choo

l tra

nspo

rtin

itiat

ives

Sc:

Pilto

n Ea

rly

Inte

rven

tion

Prog

ram

me

B:Po

vert

y pr

ojec

ts fo

r to

ddle

rs(K

ind

& G

ezin

)

IRL:

Rut

land

Str

eet P

roje

ct,

Kilk

enny

Pro

ject

NL:

De

Koffi

epot

Sc:

Pilto

n Ea

rly

Inte

rven

tion

Prog

ram

me

47

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

Tabl

e 2.

2: S

yno

psis

of

rele

vant

mea

sure

s, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd p

roje

cts

aim

ed a

t m

ore

equ

al t

reat

men

t

Typ

e o

f str

ateg

yM

acro

-lev

elM

eso

-lev

elE

xam

ple

s at

mic

ro-l

evel

B:R

enew

ed P

rim

ary

Educ

atio

n (1

980s

)

B:R

enew

ed S

econ

dary

Edu

catio

n (1

970s

)/U

nifie

d st

ruct

ure

(199

0s)

B:R

enew

ed V

ocat

iona

l Edu

catio

n

IRL:

Juni

or C

ertif

icat

e

IRL:

Foun

datio

n Le

vels

IRL:

Leav

ing

Cer

tific

ate

Voca

tiona

l Pro

gram

me

NL:

Basi

c Ed

ucat

ion

NL:

Pro

gram

mes

in

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

NL:

Nat

iona

l Qua

lific

atio

n St

ruct

ure

P:Fr

amew

ork

law

on

educ

atio

nal s

yste

m

ES:

Com

preh

ensi

ve s

tage

in s

econ

dary

edu

catio

n(E

duca

tiona

l Ref

orm

Act

L

OG

SE)

Sc:

Stan

dard

Gra

de

Sc:

5-14

cur

ricu

lum

Sc:

Hig

her

Still

B:M

iddl

e sc

hool

sC

urri

cula

r re

form

and

cert

ifica

tion

stra

tegi

es

Peda

gogi

cal

inno

vatio

nsB:

Expe

rien

ce-b

ased

Nur

sery

Educ

atio

n

Teac

her

trai

ning

IRL:

Jobs

tow

n Ed

ucat

ion

and

Trai

ning

Str

ateg

y (J

ETS)

B:D

e Bu

urt

(Gen

t)

ES:

Com

mun

ities

of l

earn

ing

48

The right to learn

Pare

nt-s

choo

l-co

mm

unit

yre

latio

nshi

ps

Tabl

e 2.

2: S

yno

psis

of

rele

vant

mea

sure

s, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd p

roje

cts

aim

ed a

t m

ore

equ

al t

reat

men

t (c

ont

inue

d)

Typ

e o

f str

ateg

yM

acro

-lev

elM

eso

-lev

elE

xam

ple

s at

mic

ro-l

evel

IRL:

Hom

e-Sc

hool

-Com

mun

ity L

iais

on S

chem

e

IRL:

Vis

iting

Tea

cher

Ser

vice

for T

rave

ller

child

ren

See

inte

grat

ed s

ervi

ces

(of

ten

with

act

ive

part

icip

atio

n of

par

ents

)

B:Ta

pori

cam

paig

n Li

mbu

rg

B:Sc

hool

Com

mun

ity A

ctio

n

P:Sc

hool

-Env

iron

men

t Li

nk P

roje

ct

Sc:

Part

ners

hip

in E

duca

tion

Proj

ect

(Str

athc

lyde

)

Sc:

Hom

e-Sc

hool

-Em

ploy

men

tPa

rtne

rshi

p (P

aisl

ey)

Cat

egor

ical

mea

sure

sB:

Inte

grat

ed e

duca

tion

for

disa

bled

pup

ils

B:In

terc

ultu

ral e

duca

tion

IRL:

Vis

iting

tea

cher

ser

vice

for

trav

elle

r ch

ildre

n;pr

e-sc

hool

s fo

r tr

avel

ler

child

ren;

spe

cial

scho

ols/

clas

ses

and

Juni

or T

rain

ing

Cen

tres

for

trav

elle

r ch

ildre

n

NL:

Goi

ng t

o Sc

hool

Tog

ethe

r Aga

in (

WSN

S) fo

rdi

sabl

ed p

upils

NL:

NT

2 (D

utch

as

2nd

lang

uage

) fo

r im

mig

rant

s

P:En

trec

ultu

ras

P:Tr

avel

ling

nurs

ery

scho

ol

ES:

Supp

ort

teac

hers

/ t

hera

peut

ic p

edag

ogy

teac

hers

Sc:

Ensu

ring

edu

catio

n fo

r Tra

velle

rs c

hild

ren

inSc

otla

nd

B:N

on-d

iscr

imin

atio

n ch

arte

rs

P:G

ipsy

med

iato

rs(G

o to

Sch

ool P

roje

ct);

Nm

ada

Proj

ect

P:Is

olat

ed S

choo

ls P

roje

ct

Sc:

Scot

tish

Trav

elle

rs E

duca

tion

Proj

ect

B:R

enov

atio

n Pr

ojec

t K

ortr

ijk

IRL:

Clo

ndal

kin

Are

a Pa

rent

s in

Educ

atio

n (C

APE

)

Sc:

Hom

eSc

hool

Par

ent

Proj

ect

(Nor

th A

yrsh

ire

PPA

)

B:Pi

lot

proj

ect

for

gyps

y ch

ildre

n(s

pons

ored

by

Kin

g Ba

udou

in F

ound

atio

n)

Sc:

Posi

tive

Act

ion

Proj

ect

for

Trav

elle

r C

hild

ren

(Arm

adal

eA

cade

my)

49

Strategies to reduce educational inequality

Tabl

e 2.

3: S

yno

psis

of

rele

vant

mea

sure

s, p

rogr

amm

es a

nd p

roje

cts

aim

ed a

t m

ore

equ

al o

utco

mes

Typ

e o

f str

ateg

yM

acro

-lev

elM

eso

-lev

el

Exa

mp

les

at m

icro

-lev

el

Educ

atio

nal

prio

rity

insc

hool

fun

ding

B:Ed

ucat

iona

l Pri

ority

Pol

icy

(EPP

)B:

Exte

nded

Car

e (E

C)

IRL:

Ass

ista

nce

to D

isad

vant

aged

Sch

ools

IRL:

Brea

king

the

cyc

leN

L:Ed

ucat

iona

l Pri

ority

Pol

icy

(wei

ghtin

g ru

le)

Sc:

Earl

y In

terv

entio

n Pr

ogra

mm

e

B:Ed

ucat

iona

l Pri

ority

Are

as (

EPA

) Li

mbu

rgIR

L:D

emon

stra

tion

Prog

ram

me

onEd

ucat

iona

l Dis

adva

ntag

eN

L:Ed

ucat

iona

l Pri

ority

Pol

icy

(reg

ions

)P:

Educ

atio

nal P

rior

ity A

reas

(T

EIP)

Sc:

Educ

atio

nal c

ompo

nent

s of

Pri

ority

Par

tner

ship

Prog

ram

mes

/Reg

ener

atio

n Pr

ogra

mm

es

Diff

eren

tiatio

nw

ithin

sch

ools

/cl

asse

s

NL:

Pupi

l cou

nsel

ling

IRL:

Rem

edia

l tea

cher

sES

:C

urri

culu

m D

iver

sific

atio

n Pr

ogra

mm

eIR

L:Te

ache

r co

unse

llors

Sc:

Exte

nded

sup

port

in F

urth

er E

duca

tion

(cf i

nteg

rate

d se

rvic

es)

Sc:

Lear

ning

Sup

port

/edu

catio

nal p

sych

olog

ist

supp

ort

B:Le

arni

ng S

uppo

rt P

roje

ctSc

:Su

cces

sMak

er P

roje

ct (

Nor

thA

yrsh

ire

PPA

)Sc

:Ea

st D

unba

rton

shir

e C

ounc

ilN

etw

ork

Supp

ort

Alte

rnat

ive

curr

icul

a an

dse

cond

cha

nce

prov

isio

n fo

rat

-ris

k gr

oups

B:Pa

rt-t

ime

voca

tiona

l edu

catio

n (P

TV

E)IR

L:Ju

nior

Cer

tific

ate

Scho

ols

Prog

ram

me

IRL:

Leav

ing

Cer

tific

ate

App

lied

Prog

ram

me

IRL:

Yout

h R

each

NL:

KM

BO (

shor

t se

cond

ary

voca

tiona

l edu

catio

n)P:

Alte

rnat

ive

Cur

ricu

laP:

App

rent

ices

hip

ES:

Soci

al G

uara

ntee

Pro

gram

me

ES:

App

rent

ices

hip

(abo

lishe

d);

Wor

ksho

p Sc

hool

s

IRL:

Yout

h En

coun

ter

Proj

ects

NL:

Free

Por

t R

otte

rdam

NL:

Prac

tical

sch

ools

NL:

Rem

edia

l pro

ject

sN

L:Ed

ucat

iona

l-wor

k pr

ojec

ts

NL:

Educ

atio

nal P

rior

ityPo

licy

(pro

ject

s)

B:D

iffer

entia

tion

proj

ects

with

in t

he c

lass

room

IRL:

Basi

n St

reet

Pro

ject