‘Policies and practices for more equality and inclusion in and through education: Evidence and policy guidance from European research projects funded under FP6 and FP7

Abstract

Education policy needs to cater for diversity and enable all citizens to succeed in education and to develop their full potential according to their specific needs and irrespective of their backgrounds. However, in reality, educational inequalities are a key challenge to education systems across the EU, often linked to socioeconomic disadvantage, low participation rates in early childhood education, low parental educational level and family support, ethnic or migrant background amongst others.
This report highlights concrete policies and practices that work to disrupt or prevent educational disadvantage. The Key Findings are based on a review of 20 research projects funded under the Sixth and Seventh EU Framework Programmes for Research and Development (FP6 and FP7).
The review was commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and carried out by the Network of Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training (NESET II).

Full text

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND
INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
Evidence and policy guidance from European research projects funded
under FP6 and FP7

This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may
charge you).
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
ISBN 978-92-79-49058-3
doi: 10.2766/300891
© European Union, 2016
Cover image: © depositphotos.com
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
3
AUTHORS:
Irma Budginaitė, PPMI
Hanna Siarova, PPMI
Dalibor Sternadel, PPMI
Greta Mackonytė, PPMI
Simonas Algirdas Spurga, PPMI
CONTRIBUTORS:
Suzanne Gatt, University of Malta
Laura Masiulienė, PPMI
PEER REVIEWERS:
Dragana Abramov, Population and Social Policy Consultants
Georgios K. Zarifis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
LANGUAGE EDITORS:
Jonathan Boyd, Freelance Copy-Editor / Proof-reader
Patricia Davies, Freelance Copy-Editor / Proof-reader
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors are grateful to Georges Van Landeghem, Greta
Fedaravičiūtė, Elma Caicedo, Rūta Mašidlauskaitė, Viktorija
Rusinaitė and Gabrielius Sužiedėlis for their additional support
during the report preparation.
CONTRACTOR:
Public Policy and Management Institute
Gedimino ave. 50, LT - 01110 Vilnius, Lithuania
Phone: +370 5 2620338 Fax: +370 5 2625410
www.ppmi.lt
Director Haroldas Brožaitis
Please cite this publication as:
Budginaitė, I., Siarova, H., Sternadel, D., Mackonytė, G., Spurga, S., ‘Policies and practices for more equality and inclusion in and
through education: Evidence and policy guidance from European research projects funded under FP6 and FP7’, NESET II report,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. doi: 10.2766/300891.
NESET II is an advisory network of experts working on the social dimension of education and training. The
European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture initiated the establishment of the
network as the successor to NESSE (2007-2010) and NESET (2011-2014). The Public Policy and Management
Institute (PPMI) is responsible for the administration of the NESET II network.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
4
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................................................. 12
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ......................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 26
1.1. Relevance of this review for policy makers ............................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 2. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATION ........................................ 27
2.1. The problem ............................................................................................................................. 27
2.2. Some critical factors - evidence from the 20 research projects .............................................. 28
2.3. The cycle of disadvantage ........................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS PROMOTING INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH
EDUCATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 34
3.1. The importance of access policies in education ...................................................................... 34
3.2. Transitions ................................................................................................................................ 38
3.3. Education governance ............................................................................................................. 42
3.4. Flexibility of curricula and teacher preparedness .................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4. MEASURES AND PRACTICES PROMOTING INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION AND
TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 50
4.1. Inclusive school practices ......................................................................................................... 50
4.2. Vocational, adult education and training, informal and non-formal learning ......................... 57
CHAPTER 5. CROSS-SECTORAL SYNERGIES ........................................................................................... 61
5.1. Links between education and training and the labour market ............................................... 61
5.2. Links between education and training and the labour market ............................................... 61
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS: WHAT CAN COUNTRIES DO TO TACKLE EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE AND
SOCIAL EXCLUSION? GAPS AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................... 63
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 70
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................... 80

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Education policy needs to cater for diversity and enable all citizens to succeed in education and to
develop their full potential according to their specific needs and irrespective of their backgrounds.
However, in reality, educational inequalities are a key challenge to education systems across the
EU, often linked to socioeconomic disadvantage, low participation rates in early childhood
education, low parental educational level and family support, ethnic or migrant background
amongst others.
This report highlights concrete policies and practices that work to disrupt or prevent educational
disadvantage
1
. The Key Findings are based on a review of 20 research projects funded under the
Sixth and Seventh EU Framework Programmes for Research and Development (FP6 and FP7)
2
. The
review was commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and
carried out by the Network of Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training (NESET II).
The Key Findings and Lessons for Policy and Practice described below will help to support
Member States in their efforts to deliver on the objectives set out in the Paris Declaration
‘Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination
through education’ as well as the 2015 Joint Report on the implementation of the Education and
Training 2020 Strategic Framework.
This summary presents Key Messages stemming from the review of 20 research projects, followed
by an overview of more specific Challenges and Lessons for Policy and Practice according to the
following four themes:
1. Lifelong learning, skills and employability;
2. Inclusive education for disadvantaged children;
3. Equity and efficiency of education and training systems;
4. Empowering educators and the teaching staff.
Key Messages
Educational disadvantage is both a cause and a consequence of poverty and social exclusion;
A learner's socioeconomic background remains the strongest determinant of educational
success in all Member States and all levels of education;
Equity in education is compatible with strong learning outcomes and high performance;
Investing in the quality of early childhood education and care is crucial, as it establishes the
foundation for further learning and helps break the cycle of disadvantage;
Education and training systems that uphold high standards of quality for all, foster personalised,
inclusive approaches, support early intervention, and target disadvantaged learners, can be
powerful drivers of social inclusion;
Education and training systems which allocate pupils to different types of education/institution
at an early age exacerbate the effect that socioeconomic background may have on educational
attainment and do not raise efficiency in the long run;
1
This review does not cover higher education level taking into account the scope of 20 projects reviewed.
2
CARE, CITiSPYCE, COPE, EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS, GINI, GOETE, IMPROVE, INCLUD-ED, INEQ, KATARSIS,
LLIGHTinEurope, LLL2010, NEUJOBS, PROFIT, RESL.eu, SI-DRIVE, WORKABLE, YIPPEE (see Annexes 1, 3-5).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
6
Efficiency and equity can be increased by improving recruitment procedures and quality of
teacher force in disadvantaged areas, and by designing autonomy and accountability systems
which avoid inequity;
Schools alone cannot disrupt intergenerational cycles of deprivation. Cross-policy synergies are
needed for more effective intervention against educational disadvantage;
Monitoring frameworks, complemented by specific targets for under-represented groups, are
essential for improving equity. Yet, few Member States have systems that collect data on all
phases of education and training that can track progress over time in terms of participation and
attainment of disadvantaged groups;
Rigorous evaluation of the impact of reforms and interventions aiming to improve equity in
education and training is critical, yet is not widespread in EU Member States.
I. Lifelong learning, skills and employability
Key Findings
Lifelong learning does not sufficiently attract or reach out to adults with lower skills or
coming from disadvantaged backgrounds;
Income can be a significant barrier to participating in vocational and tertiary education,
especially for lower-paid people;
Vocational qualifications and prior learning are often unrecognised by employers and
educational institutions;
Employers invest too little in lower skills training and when they do provide it, tend to rely
heavily on government assistance;
Language learning courses often fail to meet the needs of adult migrants.
Lessons for Policy and Practice
Promoting and supporting lifelong learning
 Continuing to encourage higher levels of educational attainment among those who are
disadvantaged, including through subsidising learning for adults with low incomes;
 Providing incentives to employed adults to take up training which will lead to higher skill levels;
 Offering meaningful and attractive second chance learning opportunities to improve
employment outlooks for those who left education and training prematurely;
 Using community-based lifelong learning initiatives in local and decentralised centres to reach
disadvantaged and marginalised learners, especially amongst the low skilled, migrants and
women;
 Delivering learning at flexible times, providing preparation for admission and offering modular
courses;
 Funding and incentivising SMEs to provide and support training;
 Providing organisational support and assistance including financial incentives to train lower
skilled workers and to improve their skills and attitudes towards learning;
 Customising learning to correspond to the needs of the employer as well as the employee;
 Providing flexible work-based training to reduce any disruption to work time and work needs;
 Eliminating ‘dead-ends’ in upper-secondary level and providing more flexible, permeable and
diversified learning pathways and access routes into post-compulsory and further learning.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
7
Supporting access to lifelong learning to adult migrants
 Supporting introductory programmes, including language courses, cultural skills and assistance
in entering the labour market;
 Providing language learning courses that are designed for adults in terms of content, are
offered at a time that is compatible with work and family commitments, and are offered at
easily accessible locations;
 Prioritising the delivery of language courses to those who are least fluent in the host country’s
language, which will expedite their ability to communicate with schools, health services, and
employers;
 Promoting the participation of the whole family in the learning process;
 Working in partnership with community groups to design and develop services so that they
reflect the real needs of communities.
II. Inclusive education for disadvantaged children
Key Findings
While the socioeconomic situation of ethnic minorities and migrants has a considerable effect
on their children’s educational attainment, it is clear that:
 The children of recent migrants and migrants from outside Europe have lower attainment
levels than children in the same socioeconomic groups in some Member States at all
stages of education; some of this can be attributed to transitory work and unsettled
education;
 Some ethnic minority groups’ children have persistently lower educational attainment at
all stages of education;
 Parents from disadvantaged background are less able to support their children in school;
 Most often, teaching and learning does not challenge negative perceptions of migrants,
minorities nor are teachers prepared to challenge parents about the support they give to
their children’s education;
 Migrant and refugee children are disproportionately in lower attainment streams and
lower educational/institutional routes because of admissions policies; compounding the
problem, their parents are not able to challenge the system and express their preferred
choices;
 A curriculum that is too rigid, centralised, and fails to reflect the diversity of the implicated
learners, can have a negative impact on the learning process, particularly for socially
disadvantaged children.
Lessons for Policy and Practice
Ensuring inclusive education and providing support for migrant and ethnic minority
children
 Quickly integrating new migrant children into mainstream classes that reflect their cognitive
skills/age, by means of bilingual classes, multi-cultural curricula, and by training and employing
teachers from the same backgrounds;
 Providing to migrant and refugee children who lack language skills the necessary resources to
hasten their proficiency and to integrate them into an appropriate stage of schooling quicker;
 Ensuring migrant, refugee and Roma children are not excluded from mainstream education;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
8
 Giving migrants the same choices for their children’s education as any other parents have, and
ensuring that children have access to and take up additional support before and after school;
 Eliminating both ‘allocation to different types of educational institution’ and ‘streaming’,
particularly before the age of 13;
 Implementing diversity-conscious policies with culturally sensitive curricula to help enhance
equal opportunities for all students, foster good relationships, and boost positive self-image
of children from disadvantaged social backgrounds;
 Promoting a holistic approach to learner development that encompasses personal, social,
cultural and academic aspects, accompanied by targeted support;
 Implementing effective innovative pedagogies and practices such as web-based, cooperative
or learner-centred approaches, which help unite learners and facilitate cooperation;
 Providing effective targeted support to students, including all-day and open schools, linguistic
support, individualised support, tutoring programmes, socioemotional and behavioural
support.
Promoting and supporting the involvement of families and local communities
 Reaching out to migrant parents to ensure they take up child care, play and learning
opportunities for their children;
 Explaining to migrant parents what support they may need to give to their children’s learning
and how they can be involved in schooling;
 Involving mentors and mediators from the local community in the school workforce to inform
and engage migrant parents and to supplement the school’s careers advice and guidance;
 Improving parents’ literacy and numeracy so they may better assist their children in primary
schooling, by involving them in school learning, and by providing them with opportunities to
teach their children (for instance, through games and learning activities);
 Encouraging parents’ aspirations for their children, and improving parents’ knowledge and
understanding of tertiary education.
III. Equity and efficiency of education and training system
Key Findings
Governance
 Fragmentation of education systems has led to unclear divisions of responsibilities and
ineffective implementation of national strategies. This is especially true in areas that are
cross-sectoral, such as the education of children in care, formal and non-formal adult
education, and VET;
 Ineffective governance can create additional barriers for stakeholders at various levels,
such as coordination problems, under-recognition of qualifications, unclear division of
responsibilities and ineffective public-funding strategies;
 At present, very few EU Member States have mature monitoring systems that collect
data on disadvantaged groups’ educational participation and attainment at all phases of
education and training, and that can link the data in order to track progress over time.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
9
Funding
 The amount of resources devoted to schooling is not a primary factor in determining
student performance and the quality of educational provision;
 The way funding is allocated can either enable or hinder equality and inclusion;
 Most of the funding in education and training goes towards financing teachers’ salaries,
and there are very few resources allocated for substantive improvements of the learning
environment and for developing more successful pedagogical strategies;
 Financial barriers often cause a bottleneck to accessing non-compulsory education,
whether it is early childhood education and care, or higher and adult education. This is
especially true for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Admission and transitions
 School segregation leads more ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged children to be
distributed in poorer quality and lower performing schools, which can further exaggerate
social exclusion and inequality;
 Admission policies based on free school choice or catchment area requirement, if
uncontrolled, can increase school segregation and inequality;
 Streaming is often used alongside a performance-driven, competitive approach to
teaching and learning, which is particularly detrimental for disadvantaged learners;
 Differentiation of post-secondary education generally increases access to education via
a range of pathways and courses, however, it also tends to increase inequality in access
to higher quality or higher status academic pathways;
 Fewer flexible and good quality lifelong learning opportunities leads to lower
participation in formal and non-formal adult education.
Lessons for Policy and Practice
Promoting good governance and monitoring
 Ensuring adequate levels of school autonomy to enable municipalities and schools to be
innovative and flexible in addressing the specific needs of learners;
 Linking the introduction of greater autonomy to comprehensive systems of accountability and
quality assurance;
 Promoting participatory governance by enabling multi-stakeholder collaboration between key
educational stakeholders;
 Putting in place monitoring systems that can track disadvantages and inform effective
responses;
 Introducing early warning systems of children’s problems or potential drop-outs, alongside
comprehensive monitoring.
Ensuring sustainable investment and funding
 Ensuring that a relatively high proportion of GDP is allocated to education and training, with
teacher salaries roughly equivalent to the average of other graduate occupations;
 Providing targeted financing to disadvantaged schools and individuals to increase participation
in higher or further education;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
10
 Providing additional funding for schools to enable them to respond to needs of learners from
disadvantaged background, including language learning and guidance, additional activities and
targeted support to learners;
Ensuring equitable access to and continuity of education and training
 Extending compulsory education and ensuring that educational experiences are uninterrupted
and of good quality;
 Practicing sensitive admission policies to reduce school segregation, which take into account
the ethnic and social composition of school districts, via the system of ‘controlled choice’ or
varying catchment area requirements;
 Promoting ethnically, socially or mixed-ability schools and classes to promote interaction and
acceptance of difference;
 Postponing the age of allocation to particular educational routes, increasing opportunities to
change tracks and providing high curricular standards for students in all schools;
 Engaging relevant stakeholders - parents, the community, civil society, public and private sector
organisations – in the learning process to improve pupils’ learning experience and overall well-
being.
IV. Empowering the educators and the teaching staff
Key Findings
 Teachers and school principals are often not equipped to work with growing diversity in
the classroom;
 Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting is one of the priority areas where
teachers report the highest need for professional development in many European
countries;
 Although most initial teacher education programmes include some form of diversity
training, it is often in the form of a single module or elective, which is unlikely to have a
major lasting impact throughout a teacher’s career;
 Even though most competence frameworks for teachers include awareness of diversity
issues, the concepts are seldom operationalised and implementation guidelines are rarely
provided.
Lessons for Policy and Practice
Improving the competences of the teaching workforce
 Explicitly defining compulsory teacher competences in teaching disadvantaged groups;
 Reinforcing the sociological, socio-psychological and socio-educational units of teacher
training programmes to raise teacher awareness of the specific difficulties facing
disadvantaged learners and their needs;
 Identifying the teaching methods that most effectively increase the motivation and improve
educational attainment of disadvantaged learners;
 Ensuring that initial teacher education and continuous professional development include the
subjects of diversity, intercultural education, multilingual teaching and innovative pedagogies.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
11
Ensuring diversity in the teaching workforce
 Educating and employing cultural mediators, such as teaching assistants or family liaison
officers with migrant or ethnic minority background, to help build links between parents and
schools and engage parents in their children’s learning;
 Ensuring that schools’ workforce, including teachers and teaching assistants, is representative
of the diversity of schools’ communities, recruitment to initial teacher education should be
appropriately targeted, and the qualifications of immigrant teachers should be recognized.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
12
RÉSUMÉ
La politique éducative doit tenir compte de la diversité et permettre à tous les citoyens de réussir
dans l’éducation et développer leur plein potentiel en fonction de leurs besoins spécifiques et
indépendamment de leur origine. Toutefois, en réalité, les inégalités en matière d’éducation
constituent un défi majeur pour les systèmes éducatifs dans toute l’UE, souvent liées à un
handicap socio-économique, à de faibles taux de participation à l’éducation de la petite enfance,
au faible niveau de scolarité et de soutien familial des parents, à leur origine ethnique ou
migratoire, entre autres.
Ce rapport met en lumière des politiques et des pratiques concrètes qui visent à interrompre ou
prévenir les handicaps éducatifs
3
. Ses résultats clés sont basés sur l’examen de 20 projets de
recherche financés dans le cadre des sixième et septième programmes-cadres européens de
recherche et de développement (FP6 et FP7)
4
. Le rapport a été commandé par la Direction générale
de l'éducation et de la culture (DG EAC) et réalisé par le Réseau d’experts sur les aspects sociaux de
l’éducation et de la formation (NESET II).
Les résultats clés et leçons pour des politiques et des pratiques décrites ci-dessous permettront
d’aider les États membres dans leurs efforts pour atteindre les objectifs énoncés dans la
Déclaration de Paris intitulée « Promouvoir la citoyenneté et les valeurs communes de liberté, de
tolérance et de non-discrimination par l’éducation », ainsi que dans le Rapport conjoint 2015 sur
la mise en œuvre du cadre stratégique « Éducation et formation 2020 ».
Ce résumé présente les messages clés résultant de l’examen des 20 projets de recherche, suivis
d’un aperçu des défis et leçons pour les politiques et les pratiques les plus spécifiques selon les
quatre thèmes suivants :
1. Apprentissage, compétences et employabilité tout au long de la vie ;
2. Éducation inclusive pour les enfants défavorisés ;
3. Équité et efficacité des systèmes d’éducation et de formation ;
4. Responsabilisation des éducateurs et du personnel enseignant.
Messages clés
Le handicap éducatif est à la fois une cause et une conséquence de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion
sociale ;
L’origine socio-économique des apprenants demeure le facteur déterminant le plus important
de la réussite scolaire dans tous les États membres et à tous les niveaux de l’éducation ;
L’équité dans l’éducation est compatible avec des résultats d’apprentissage solides et une
performance élevée ;
Investir dans la qualité de l’éducation et l’accueil de la petite enfance est essentiel car cela
établit les bases pour un futur apprentissage et permet d’interrompre le cycle du handicap
social ;
Les systèmes d’éducation et de formation qui respectent des normes élevées en matière de
qualité pour tous favorisent des approches personnalisées et inclusives, soutiennent une
3
Cet examen n’inclut pas l’enseignement supérieur compte tenu du champ des 20 projets examinés.
4
CARE, CITiSPYCE, COPE, EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS, GINI, GOETE, IMPROVE, INCLUD-ED, INEQ, KATARSIS,
LLIGHTinEurope, LLL2010, NEUJOBS, PROFIT, RESL.eu, SI-DRIVE, WORKABLE, YIPPEE (voir Annexes 1, 3-5).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
13
intervention précoce et ciblent les apprenants défavorisés, peuvent constituer de puissants
moteurs de l’inclusion sociale ;
Les systèmes d’éducation et de formation qui répartissent les élèves dans les différentes filières
d’enseignement ou d’institutions à un âge précoce accentuent l’effet que le milieu socio-
économique peut avoir sur le niveau de scolarité, et n’améliorent pas l’efficacité à long terme ;
L’efficacité et l’équité peuvent être accrues en améliorant les procédures de recrutement et la
qualité du corps enseignant dans les zones défavorisées, en élaborant des systèmes
d’autonomie et de responsabilité qui évitent l’iniquité ;
Les écoles seules ne peuvent pas interrompre les cycles intergénérationnels de précarité. Les
synergies entre les politiques sont nécessaires pour une intervention plus efficace contre le
handicap éducatif ;
Des cadres de suivi, complétés par des objectifs spécifiques pour les groupes sous-représentés,
sont essentiels pour améliorer l’équité. Pourtant, peu d’États membres disposent de systèmes
permettant de recueillir des données sur toutes les phases de l’éducation et de la formation,
capables de suivre les progrès dans le temps en termes de participation et de résultats des
groupes défavorisés ;
Une évaluation rigoureuse de l’impact des réformes et des interventions visant à améliorer
l’équité dans l’éducation et la formation est essentielle, mais elle n’est pas répandue dans les
États membres de l’UE.
I. Apprentissage, compétences et employabilité tout au long de la vie
Résultats clés
L’apprentissage tout au long de la vie n’attire pas ou ne touche pas suffisamment les
adultes peu qualifiés ou issus de milieux défavorisés ;
Le revenu peut être un obstacle important à la participation à l’enseignement
professionnel et supérieur, en particulier pour les personnes à faible salaire ;
Les qualifications professionnelles et l’apprentissage antérieur sont souvent peu reconnus
par les employeurs et les institutions éducatives ;
Les employeurs investissent trop peu dans les formations des travailleurs peu qualifiés et,
lorsqu’ils le font, ils ont tendance à avoir fortement recours à l’aide de l’État ;
Les cours d’apprentissage des langues ne répondent souvent pas aux besoins des migrants
adultes.
Leçons pour les politiques et les pratiques
Promouvoir et soutenir l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie
 Continuer à encourager un niveau scolaire plus élevé chez les personnes défavorisées,
notamment en subventionnant l’apprentissage des adultes à faible revenu ;
 Inciter les adultes salariés à suivre une formation qui conduira à des niveaux de qualification
plus élevés ;
 Offrir des opportunités d’enseignement de la « deuxième chance » pertinentes et attrayantes
pour améliorer les perspectives d’emploi de ceux qui ont quitté prématurément l’éducation et
la formation ;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
14
 Utiliser des initiatives locales d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie dans des centres locaux et
décentralisés pour toucher les apprenants défavorisés et marginalisés, notamment parmi les
travailleurs peu qualifiés, les migrants et les femmes ;
 Dispenser l’apprentissage à des horaires flexibles, proposer une préparation à l’admission et
des cours modulaires ;
 Financer et encourager les PME à fournir et soutenir la formation ;
 Proposer un soutien organisationnel et une assistance, y compris des incitations financières
pour former les travailleurs moins qualifiés et améliorer leurs compétences et leurs attitudes
vis-à-vis de l’apprentissage ;
 Personnaliser l’apprentissage pour répondre aux besoins tant des employeurs que des
employés ;
 Proposer une formation souple en milieu professionnel pour réduire toute perturbation des
heures de travail et des besoins du travail ;
 Éliminer les « voies sans issue » au niveau secondaire supérieur et proposer des parcours
d’apprentissage plus souples, perméables et diversifiés ainsi que des voies d’accès à un
apprentissage post-obligatoire et ultérieur.
Soutenir l’accès à l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie pour les migrants adultes
 Soutenir les programmes d’initiation, y compris les cours de langue, les compétences
culturelles et l’assistance à l’entrée sur le marché du travail ;
 Proposer des cours d’apprentissage des langues qui sont conçus pour des adultes en termes
de contenu, proposés à un horaire compatible avec le travail et les obligations familiales, et
qui sont proposés dans des endroits facilement accessibles ;
 Prioriser l’offre de cours de langue à ceux qui connaissent le moins bien la langue du pays
d’accueil, ce qui accélérera leur capacité à communiquer avec les écoles, les services de santé
et les employeurs ;
 Promouvoir la participation de toute la famille au processus d’apprentissage ;
 Travailler en partenariat avec les associations et communautés locales pour élaborer et
développer des services qui reflètent les besoins réels des communautés.
II. Éducation inclusive pour les enfants défavorisés
Résultats clés
Alors que la situation socio-économique des minorités ethniques et des migrants a un impact
considérable sur le niveau de scolarité de leurs enfants, il est clair que :
 Les enfants de migrants récents et de migrants non-européens ont des niveaux
d’éducation plus faibles que les enfants des mêmes groupes socio-économiques dans
certains États membres à toutes les étapes de l’éducation. Cela peut être en partie
attribué à un travail précaire et une éducation perturbée ;
 Les enfants de certains groupes ethniques minoritaires ont un niveau d’éducation plus
faible à toutes les étapes de l’éducation ;
 Les parents de milieux défavorisés sont moins capables de soutenir leurs enfants à
l’école ;
 Le plus souvent, l’enseignement et l’apprentissage ne remettent pas en question les
perceptions négatives des migrants et des minorités, et les enseignants ne sont pas

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
15
formés à remettre en question le soutien qu’apportent les parents à l’éducation de leurs
enfants ;
 Les enfants migrants et réfugiés se retrouvent de manière disproportionnée dans les
catégories de niveau scolaire plus faible et les parcours éducatifs/institutionnels plus
faibles à cause des politiques d’admission ; aggravant le problème, leurs parents ne sont
souvent pas capables de contester le système ni d’exprimer leurs choix préférés ;
 Un programme trop rigide, centralisé et ne reflétant pas la diversité des apprenants
impliqués peut avoir un impact négatif sur le processus d’apprentissage, en particulier sur
les enfants socialement défavorisés.
Leçons pour les politiques et les pratiques
Assurer une éducation inclusive et fournir un soutien aux enfants migrants et issus de
minorités ethniques
 Intégrer rapidement les nouveaux enfants migrants dans les classes générales qui
correspondent à leurs aptitudes cognitives et à leur âge, au moyen de classes bilingues et de
programmes multiculturels, en formant et en employant des enseignants issus des mêmes
milieux ;
 Fournir aux enfants migrants et réfugiés dotés de compétences linguistiques insuffisantes les
ressources nécessaires pour développer leurs compétences et les intégrer plus rapidement
dans un niveau d’enseignement approprié ;
 Garantir que les enfants migrants, réfugiés et roms ne soient pas exclus de l’enseignement
général ;
 Donner aux migrants les mêmes choix pour l’éducation de leurs enfants que les autres parents
ont, et garantir que les enfants aient accès et recours à un soutien supplémentaire avant et
après l’école ;
 Éliminer à la fois la « répartition entre différents types d’établissement scolaire » et la
« catégorisation », notamment avant l’âge de 13 ans ;
 Mettre en œuvre des politiques prenant en compte la diversité avec un programme
culturellement sensible afin de favoriser l’égalité des chances pour tous les élèves, encourager
de bonnes relations et stimuler une image de soi positive des enfants issus de milieux sociaux
défavorisés ;
 Promouvoir une approche holistique du développement de l’apprenant qui englobe les
aspects personnels, sociaux, culturels et scolaires, accompagnée par d’un soutien ciblé ;
 Mettre en œuvre des pédagogies et pratiques efficaces et innovantes telles que les approches
basées sur le web, coopératives ou centrées sur l’apprenant, qui permettent d’unir les
apprenants et faciliter la coopération ;
 Fournir un soutien ciblé et efficace aux élèves, y compris à travers des écoles ouvertes et
fonctionnant toute la journée, un soutien linguistique, un soutien personnalisé, des
programmes de tutorat, un soutien socio-émotionnel et comportemental.
Promouvoir et soutenir l’implication des familles et des communautés locales
 S’adresser aux parents migrants pour s’assurer qu’ils profitent des opportunités d’accueil, de
jeu et d’apprentissage pour leurs enfants ;
 Expliquer aux parents migrants le soutien qu’ils peuvent avoir besoin d’apporter à
l’apprentissage de leurs enfants et la façon dont ils peuvent être impliqués dans la scolarité ;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
16
 Impliquer des mentors et médiateurs de la communauté locale parmi le personnel scolaire
pour informer et impliquer les parents migrants et pour compléter les conseils de carrière et
l’orientation de l’école ;
 Améliorer l’alphabétisation et les compétences en calcul des parents afin qu’ils puissent mieux
aider leurs enfants dans l’enseignement primaire, en les impliquant dans l’apprentissage
scolaire et en leur offrant des opportunités d’enseigner à leurs enfants (par exemple, à travers
des jeux et des activités d’apprentissage) ;
 Encourager les aspirations des parents pour leurs enfants, et améliorer la connaissance et la
compréhension des parents de l’enseignement supérieur.
III. Équité et efficacité des systèmes d’éducation et de formation
Résultats clés
Gouvernance
 La fragmentation des systèmes éducatifs a conduit à des divisions de responsabilités
imprécises et à une mise en œuvre inefficace des stratégies nationales. Cela est
particulièrement vrai dans les domaines intersectoriels tels que l’éducation des enfants
placés en institutions, l’éducation formelle et non formelle des adultes, et
l’enseignement et la formation professionnelle (EFP) ;
 Une gouvernance inefficace peut créer des obstacles supplémentaires pour les parties
prenantes à divers niveaux, tels que des problèmes de coordination, une reconnaissance
insuffisante des qualifications, un partage imprécis des responsabilités et des stratégies
de financement public inefficaces ;
 Actuellement, très peu d’États membres de l’UE disposent de systèmes de suivi matures
qui recueillent des données sur la participation à l’éducation des groupes défavorisés et
sur leur niveau scolaire à toutes les étapes de l’éducation et de la formation, et qui
peuvent relier les données pour suivre le progrès dans le temps.
Financement
 Le montant des ressources consacrées à la scolarité n’est pas un facteur primordial pour
déterminer la performance des élèves et la qualité de l’offre éducative ;
 La façon dont le financement est alloué peut favoriser ou freiner l’égalité et l’inclusion ;
 La majeure partie du financement de l’éducation et de la formation sert à financer les
salaires des enseignants, et il y a très peu de ressources affectées à des améliorations
substantielles de l’environnement d’apprentissage et au développement de stratégies
pédagogiques plus efficaces ;
 Les obstacles financiers limitent souvent l’accès à l’éducation non obligatoire, qu’il s’agisse
de l’éducation et l’accueil de la petite enfance, de l’éducation supérieure ou de l’éducation
des adultes. Cela est particulièrement vrai pour les apprenants issus de milieux défavorisés.
Admission et transitions
 La ségrégation scolaire aboutit à la répartition de davantage d’enfants issus des
minorités ethniques ou de milieux socialement défavorisés dans des écoles de qualité
plus faible et moins performantes, ce qui peut encore exacerber l’exclusion sociale et les
inégalités ;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
17
 Les politiques d’admission, basées sur un libre choix de l’école ou sur l’obligation d’une
carte scolaire, si elles ne sont pas contrôlées, peuvent augmenter la ségrégation scolaire
et l’inégalité ;
 La catégorisation est souvent utilisée conjointement avec une approche compétitive
axée sur la performance de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage, ce qui est
particulièrement préjudiciable aux apprenants défavorisés ;
 La différenciation de l’éducation post-secondaire augmente généralement l’accès à
l’éducation via un certain nombre de parcours et de formations, toutefois, elle tend aussi
à accroître les inégalités dans l’accès à des parcours universitaires de meilleure qualité
ou de statut supérieur ;
 Moins d’opportunités d’un apprentissage souple et de bonne qualité tout au long de la
vie entraîne une plus faible participation à l’éducation formelle et non formelle des
adultes.
Leçons pour les politiques et les pratiques
Promouvoir la bonne gouvernance et le suivi
 Assurer des niveaux adéquats d’autonomie des écoles pour permettre aux municipalités et aux
écoles d’être innovantes et souples pour répondre aux besoins spécifiques des apprenants ;
 Lier l’introduction d’une plus grande autonomie à des systèmes globaux de responsabilité et
d’assurance de la qualité ;
 Promouvoir la gouvernance participative en permettant une collaboration multipartite entre
les principales parties prenantes de l’éducation ;
 Mettre en place des systèmes de suivi qui permettent de suivre les handicaps et d’informer
des réponses efficaces ;
 Introduire des systèmes d’alerte précoce des problèmes des enfants ou des décrochages
scolaires potentiels, conjointement à un suivi complet.
Assurer un investissement et un financement durables
 S’assurer qu’une part relativement élevée du PIB soit affectée à l’éducation et la formation, et
que les salaires des enseignants soient à peu près équivalents à la moyenne des autres
professions requérant un diplôme ;
 Fournir un financement ciblé aux écoles et individus défavorisés pour accroître la participation
dans l’éducation supérieure ou complémentaire ;
 Fournir un financement supplémentaire aux écoles pour leur permettre de répondre aux
besoins des apprenants issus de milieux défavorisés, y compris l’apprentissage de la langue,
l’orientation, les activités supplémentaires et un soutien ciblé aux apprenants ;
Assurer un accès équitable et une continuité de l’éducation et de la formation
 Étendre l’éducation obligatoire et s’assurer que les expériences éducatives soient
ininterrompues et de bonne qualité ;
 Pratiquer des politiques d’admission sensibles pour réduire la ségrégation scolaire, qui
tiennent compte de la composition ethnique et sociale des districts scolaires, via un système
de « choix contrôlé », ou des obligations variables d’une carte scolaire ;
 Promouvoir des écoles et des classes mixtes d’un point vue ethnique, social ou des capacités
pour promouvoir l’interaction et l’acceptation de la différence ;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
18
 Reporter l’âge de l’orientation vers des parcours éducatifs particuliers, augmenter les
possibilités de changer de parcours et proposer des normes scolaires élevées aux élèves dans
toutes les écoles ;
 Engager les parties prenantes concernées (parents, communauté, société civile, organisations du
secteur public et privé) dans le processus d’apprentissage pour améliorer l’expérience
d’apprentissage des élèves et leur bien-être général.
IV. Responsabilisation des éducateurs et du personnel enseignant
Résultats clés
 Les enseignants et les directeurs d’école ne sont souvent pas équipés pour travailler avec
une diversité croissante en classe ;
 L’enseignement dans un cadre multiculturel ou multilingue est l’un des domaines
prioritaires où les enseignants signalent le besoin le plus élevé en matière de
développement professionnel dans de nombreux pays européens ;
 Bien que la plupart des programmes de formation initiale des enseignants incluent un
type de formation à la diversité, ils se présentent souvent sous la forme d’un simple
module ou d’une option, ce qui est peu susceptible d’avoir un impact durable majeur au
cours de la carrière d’un enseignant ;
 Même si la plupart des cadres de compétence des enseignants incluent la question de la
sensibilisation aux questions de diversité, ces concepts sont rarement définis de manière
opérationnelle et sont rarement accompagnés d’instructions spécifiques de mise en
œuvre.
Leçons pour les politiques et les pratiques
Améliorer les compétences du corps enseignant
 Définir explicitement les compétences obligatoires des enseignants pour l’enseignement
auprès de groupes défavorisés ;
 Renforcer les unités sociologiques, socio-psychologiques et socio-éducatives des programmes
de formation des enseignants afin de sensibiliser les enseignants aux difficultés spécifiques
auxquelles sont confrontés les apprenants défavorisés, et à leurs besoins ;
 Identifier les méthodes d’enseignement qui renforcent le plus efficacement la motivation et
améliorent le niveau de scolarité des apprenants défavorisés ;
 S’assurer que la formation initiale des enseignants et leur formation continue incluent les
sujets de la diversité, l’éducation interculturelle, l’enseignement multilingue et les pédagogies
innovantes.
Assurer la diversité du corps enseignant
 Former et employer des médiateurs culturels, tels que des assistants pédagogiques ou des
agents de liaison auprès des familles issus de l’immigration ou d’une minorité ethnique, pour
aider à construire des liens entre les parents et l’école, et impliquer les parents dans
l’apprentissage de leurs enfants ;
 Afin de s’assurer que le personnel des écoles, y compris les enseignants et les assistants
pédagogiques, soient représentatifs de la diversité des communautés de l’école, le recrutement
à la formation initiale des enseignants devrait être ciblé de manière appropriée, et les
qualifications des enseignants immigrants devraient être reconnues.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
19
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Bildungspolitik muss auf Diversität zugeschnitten sein und allen Bürgern die Chance bieten, einen
Bildungsabschluss zu erlangen und ihr Potenzial gemäß ihren jeweiligen Voraussetzungen und
ungeachtet ihres Hintergrunds voll auszuschöpfen. In der Realität ist Chancenungleichheit jedoch
ein großes Problem in allen europäischen Bildungssystemen, wobei sozio-ökonomische
Benachteiligung, geringe Inanspruchnahme von frühkindlicher Bildung, geringe Bildung der und
Unterstützung durch die Eltern, Zugehörigkeit zu einer ethnischen Minderheit oder
Immigrationshintergrund zu den wichtigen Risikofaktoren zählen.
Der Schwerpunkt dieses Berichts liegt daher auf politischen Ansätzen und Verfahren, die
nachweislich geeignet sind, Benachteiligung in der Bildung zu durchbrechen bzw. zu verhindern
5
.
Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse wurden durch eine Metaanalyse von 20 Forschungsprojekten
ermittelt, die im Rahmen des 6. und 7. Forschungsrahmenprogramms (FRP6 und FRP7) gefördert
wurden
6
. Die Analyse wurde von der Generaldirektion Bildung und Kultur (GD EAC) in Auftrag
gegeben und im Netzwerk von Expertinnen und Experten, die sich mit den sozialen Aspekten
allgemeiner und beruflicher Bildung beschäftigen (NESET II), durchgeführt.
Die nachfolgend dargestellten wichtigsten Ergebnisse und Lehren für Politik und Praxis können
die Mitgliedstaaten dabei unterstützen, die Ziele zu erreichen, die in der Pariser Erklärung zur
Förderung von Politischer Bildung und der gemeinsamen Werte von Freiheit, Toleranz und
Nichtdiskriminierung und dem gemeinsamen Bericht 2015 über die Umsetzung des strategischen
Rahmens für die europäische Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der allgemeinen und beruflichen
Bildung festgelegt wurden.
Diese Zusammenfassung präsentiert die Kernbotschaften, die sich aus der Analyse von 20
Forschungsprojekten ergeben und gibt dann einen Überblick über konkrete Herausforderungen
und Lehren für Politik und Praxis, die nach den folgenden vier Themen gegliedert sind:
1. Lebenslanges Lernen, Fähigkeiten und Beschäftigungsfähigkeit;
2. Inklusive Bildung für benachteiligte Kinder;
3. Chancengleichheit und Effizienz von Systemen der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung;
4. Stärkere Mitsprache von Pädagogen und Lehrkräften.
Kernbotschaften
Bildungsbenachteiligung ist sowohl Ursache als auch Folge von Armut und sozialer
Ausgrenzung.
Der sozio-ökonomische Hintergrund des Lernenden ist in allen Mitgliedstaaten und auf allen
Bildungsebenen nach wie vor der stärkste Bestimmungsfaktor für den Bildungserfolg;
Chancengleichheit in der Bildung schließt gute Lernerfolge und optimale Leistung nicht aus;
Investitionen in die Qualität der frühkindlichen Bildung und Betreuung sind entscheidend, weil
diese die Grundlagen für weitere Lernerfolge legt und dazu beiträgt, den Kreislauf der
Benachteiligung zu durchbrechen;
5
Für diesen Bericht wurden 20 Projekte untersucht, wobei die Hochschulbildung nicht berücksichtigt wurde.
6
CARE, CITiSPYCE, COPE, EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS, GINI, GOETE, IMPROVE, INCLUD-ED, INEQ, KATARSIS,
LLIGHTinEurope, LLL2010, NEUJOBS, PROFIT, RESL.eu, SI-DRIVE, WORKABLE, YIPPEE (siehe Anhänge 1, 3-5).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
20
Systeme der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung, die für alle Schüler hohe Qualitätsstandards
gewährleisten, personalisierte und inklusive pädagogische Ansätze fördern, frühzeitig auf
Probleme reagieren und benachteiligte Schüler unterstützen, sind starke Motoren der sozialen
Eingliederung;
Systeme der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung, die Schüler schon jung auf unterschiedliche
Bildungsarten bzw. -einrichtungen aufteilen, verstärken den Effekt des sozio-ökonomischen
Hintergrunds auf die Bildungskarriere und sind langfristig nicht effizienter als andere Systeme;
Durch bessere Rekrutierungs- und Qualifizierungssysteme für Lehrkräfte in benachteiligten
Gebieten, stärkere Autonomie und Rechenschaftssysteme, die Chancenungleichheit
vermeiden, lassen sich Effizienz und Chancengleichheit verbessern;
Die Schulen allein können generationsübergreifende Kreisläufe des Mangels nicht
durchbrechen. Um Bildungsbenachteiligung wirksam zu bekämpfen, braucht es Synergien
zwischen verschiedenen Politikbereichen.
Kontrollsysteme in Kombination mit konkreten Zielvorgaben für unterrepräsentierte Gruppen
sind unentbehrlich, um die Chancengleichheit zu erhöhen. Dennoch verfügen nur wenige
Mitgliedstaaten über Systeme, die Daten über alle Stufen der allgemeinen und beruflichen
Bildung und langfristige Trends zu Integration und Bildungserfolgen benachteiligter Gruppen
erfassen;
Obwohl es wichtig ist, die Auswirkungen von Reformen und Initiativen, mit denen die
Gleichstellung in der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung verbessert werden kann, konsequent
zu überprüfen, ist dies in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten nicht allgemein üblich.
I. Lebenslanges Lernen, Fähigkeiten und Beschäftigungsfähigkeit
Wichtige Ergebnisse
Lebenslanges Lernen ist für gering qualifizierte Erwachsene oder für Menschen aus
benachteiligten Gruppen nicht ausreichend attraktiv bzw. verfügbar;
Geld ist ein wesentliches Hindernis beim Zugang zu beruflicher und tertiärer Bildung,
insbesondere bei Menschen mit niedrigem Einkommen;
Arbeitgeber und Bildungseinrichtungen erkennen berufliche Qualifikationen und frühere
Lernerfolge häufig nicht an;
Arbeitgeber investieren generell zu wenig in die berufliche Bildung von gering
Qualifizierten und wenn sie es doch tun, verlassen sie sich zu sehr auf staatliche Beihilfen;
Sprachkurse entsprechen häufig nicht den Bedürfnissen von erwachsenen Einwanderern.
Lehren für Politik und Praxis
Förderung und Unterstützung von lebenslangem Lernen
 Den Zugang von benachteiligten Gruppen zur höheren Bildung dauerhaft fördern, unter
anderem durch finanzielle Bildungsbeihilfen für Erwachsene mit geringem Einkommen;
 Erwachsenen Beschäftigten Anreize dazu bieten, sich beruflich weiterzubilden und eine
höhere Berufsqualifikation zu erreichen;
 Sinnvolle und attraktive zweite Bildungswege anbieten, die die beruflichen Chancen von
Menschen verbessern, die die allgemeine und berufliche Bildung ohne Abschluss abgebrochen
haben;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
21
 Bürgernahe Initiativen für lebenslanges Lernen an lokalen und dezentralen Standorten nutzen,
mit denen benachteiligte und marginalisierte Lernende erreicht werden können, insbesondere
gering Qualifizierte, Migranten und Frauen;
 Lernangebote zeitlich flexibel gestalten und Vorbereitungskurse und modulare Kurse anbieten;
 KMU mit finanziellen und sonstigen Anreizen dazu bringen, berufliche Bildung anzubieten und
zu unterstützen;
 Strukturelle Hilfen einschließlich finanzieller Anreize bereitstellen, um gering qualifizierte
Arbeitnehmer beruflich weiterzubilden sowie ihre Fähigkeiten und ihre Einstellung zum Lernen
zu verbessern;
 Lernangebote so individualisieren, dass sie den Bedürfnissen von Arbeitnehmern und
Arbeitgebern gleichermaßen entsprechen;
 Flexible und beschäftigungsfreundliche berufliche Bildungsangebote entwickeln, die an
Arbeitszeiten und Bedürfnisse von Arbeitnehmern angepasst sind;
 „Sackgassen“ am Ende der Sekundarstufe vermeiden und flexible, durchlässige und vielfältige
Bildungspfade und Übergänge zur höheren Bildung und Weiterbildung anbieten.
Leichterer Zugang von erwachsenen Migranten zu lebenslangem Lernen
 Einführungsprogramme anbieten, einschließlich Sprachkurse und Vermittlung kultureller
Fähigkeiten sowie Hilfen beim Eintritt in den Arbeitsmarkt;
 Sprachlernkurse anbieten, die inhaltlich an Erwachsene angepasst sind, zu Zeiten die mit
beruflichen und familiären Verpflichtungen vereinbar sind, und an leicht zugänglichen Orten
stattfinden;
 Plätze in Sprachkursen vorrangig an Personen vergeben, die die Sprache des Gastlandes am
wenigsten beherrschen, damit sie möglichst schnell in die Lage versetzt werden, in der Schule,
im Gesundheitswesen und mit Arbeitgebern zu kommunizieren;
 Die Teilnahme der gesamten Familie am Lernprozess fördern;
 Bei der Gestaltung und Entwicklung von Dienstleistungen mit den betroffenen
Gemeinschaften zusammenarbeiten, damit die Angebote den realen Bedürfnissen
entsprechen.
II. Inklusive Bildung für benachteiligte Kinder
Wichtige Ergebnisse
Obwohl die sozio-ökonomische Situation von ethnischen Minderheiten und Einwanderern auch
den Bildungserfolg derer Kinder stark beeinflusst, darf man folgendes nicht übersehen:
 In einigen Mitgliedstaaten haben Kinder von vor kurzem zugewanderten Migranten und
von Migranten aus nicht-europäischen Ländern auf allen Bildungsebenen weniger Erfolg
als Kinder aus derselben sozio-ökonomischen Gruppe; dies lässt sich zum Teil durch
befristete Arbeitsplätze und häufigen Schulwechsel erklären;
 Kinder aus bestimmten ethnischen Minderheiten schneiden durchgängig auf allen
Bildungsstufen schlechter ab;
 Eltern aus benachteiligten Gruppen können ihre Kinder in der Schule weniger
unterstützen;
 In den meisten Fällen, werden negative Vorurteile über Migranten oder Minderheiten im
Unterricht nicht korrigiert und Lehrer sind selten bereit, von Eltern mehr Unterstützung
bei der Bildung ihrer Kinder einzufordern;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
22
 Die gängigen Zulassungsverfahren führen dazu, dass junge Migranten und Flüchtlinge
überproportional häufig in Bildungswege und Bildungseinrichtungen verwiesen werden,
die zu niedrigeren Abschlüssen führen; ein Problem, das noch dadurch verschärft wird,
dass die Eltern wenig Möglichkeiten haben, sich gegen das System zu wehren und ihre
bevorzugten Optionen durchzusetzen;
 Zu unflexible, zentralisierte Lehrpläne, die der Diversität der Lernenden nicht gerecht
werden, können den Lernprozess erschweren, insbesondere bei sozial benachteiligten
Kindern.
Lehren für Politik und Praxis
Inklusive Bildung sicherstellen und Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund und Kinder aus
ethnischen Minderheiten fördern
 Vor kurzem zugewanderte Kinder schnell in Regelklassen integrieren, die ihren kognitiven
Fähigkeiten und ihrem Alter entsprechen; geeignete Mittel sind mehrsprachige Klassen,
multikulturelle Lehrpläne und die Ausbildung und Beschäftigung von Lehrern mit
Migrationshintergrund;
 Jungen Migranten und Flüchtlingen ohne Sprachkenntnisse die notwendigen Ressourcen
bereitstellen, mit denen sie die Sprache rascher erwerben und schneller in den angemessenen
Regelunterricht integriert werden können;
 Sicherstellen, dass junge Migranten, Flüchtlinge und Roma nicht aus dem regulären
Bildungssystem ausgeschlossen werden;
 Migranten die gleichen Mitbestimmungsrechte bei der Bildung ihrer Kinder geben wie anderen
Eltern und sicherstellen, dass Kinder vor und nach der Schule zusätzliche Unterstützung
erhalten und in Anspruch nehmen;
 Kinder nicht oder frühestens ab 13 Jahren auf unterschiedliche Schulformen und Bildungswege
aufteilen;
 Mit Hilfe von Lehrplänen, die auf kulturelle Unterschiede eingehen, Diversität im
Bildungswesen berücksichtigen; dies verbessert die Chancengleichheit, fördert gute
Beziehungen zwischen verschiedenen Gruppen und verbessert das Selbstbild von Kindern aus
benachteiligten sozialen Gruppen;
 Die Entwicklung der Lernenden aus einer ganzheitlichen Perspektive betrachten, die
persönliche, soziale, kulturelle und akademische Aspekte berücksichtigt und zielgerichtet
fördert;
 Wirksame innovative pädagogische Ansätze und Praktiken umsetzen, zum Beispiel internet-
gestützten, kooperativen und lernenzentrierten Unterricht, der die Zusammenarbeit der
Schüler fördert und erleichtert;
 Schülern wirksame und zielgerichtete Unterstützung anbieten, zum Beispiel offene Schulen
und Ganztagsschulen, zusätzliche Sprachkurse, individuelle Unterstützung,
Tutorenprogramme und sozio-emotionale und Verhaltenstherapie.
Die Partizipation von Familien und lokalen Gemeinschaften fördern und unterstützen
 Migranten aktiv ansprechen, damit sie Betreuungs-, Spiel- und Lernangebote für ihre Kinder
wahrnehmen;
 Migranten darüber aufklären, wie sie ihr Kind beim Lernen unterstützen und aktiv am
Schulalltag teilnehmen können;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
23
 Mentoren und Mediatoren aus lokalen Gemeinschaften an der Schule beschäftigen, die Eltern
mit Migrationshintergrund informieren und ansprechen und als zusätzliche schulische
Berufsberatung fungieren können;
 Lese- und Rechenfähigkeit der Eltern stärken, damit sie ihre Kinder in der Primarstufe besser
unterstützen können, dazu können die Eltern am Schulunterricht beteiligt und in die Lage
versetzt werden, ihre Kinder zu unterrichten (zum Beispiel durch Spiele und Lernaktivitäten);
 Eltern dazu ermutigen, ehrgeizige Ziele für ihre Kinder zu setzen und sie über Möglichkeiten
der tertiären Bildung informieren.
III. Chancengleichheit und Effizienz von Systemen der allgemeinen und
beruflichen Bildung
Wichtige Ergebnisse
Politische Steuerung
 Durch die Fragmentierung von Bildungssystemen sind Zuständigkeiten nicht klar verteilt,
und nationale Strategien können nicht wirksam umgesetzt werden. Dies gilt
insbesondere für bereichsübergreifende Probleme, wie die Bildung von Heimkindern,
die formelle und informelle Erwachsenenbildung und die berufliche Bildung;
 Eine unzureichende politische Steuerung kann zusätzliche Hindernisse aufbauen, zum
Beispiel durch mangelnde Abstimmung, Nichtanerkennung von Qualifikationen, unklare
Kompetenzverteilung und ineffiziente Systeme der öffentlichen Finanzierung;
 Aktuell verfügen nur sehr wenige EU-Mitgliedstaaten über ausgereifte Kontrollsysteme,
die Daten über die Bildungsbeteiligung und den Bildungserfolg benachteiligter Gruppen
auf allen Bildungsebenen erfassen und diese Daten langfristig zu Trends verbinden
können.
Finanzierung
 Die Höhe der Ressourcen, die in Bildung investiert werden, ist kein entscheidender
Faktor für die Leistung der Schüler und die Qualität des Unterrichts;
 Die Art, in der Mittel verteilt werden, kann Chancengleichheit und Inklusion entweder
behindern oder fördern;
 Der Großteil der Mittel für allgemeine und berufliche Bildung fließt in die Bezahlung der
Lehrkräfte; nur ein sehr geringer Anteil wird in wesentliche Verbesserungen der
Lernumgebung und zur Entwicklung wirksamer pädagogischer Strategien investiert;
 Finanzielle Hindernisse schränken häufig den Zugang zu Bildungsangeboten vor und nach
dem schulpflichtigen Alter ein, das heißt: zur frühkindlichen Bildung und Betreuung und
zur höheren und Erwachsenenbildung. Dies gilt besonders für Lernende aus
benachteiligten Gruppen.
Zulassung und Übergang
 Schulsegregation führt dazu, dass Kinder aus ethnischen Minderheiten und sozial
benachteiligten Familien in Schulen von geringer Qualität und mit schlechteren
Angeboten kommen, was soziale Ausgrenzung und Chancenungleichheit noch verstärkt;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
24
 Zulassungsverfahren, die ausschließlich auf freier Schulwahl bzw. Einzugsgebieten
basieren, können Schulsegregation und Ungleichheit verstärken, wenn sie nicht durch
andere Regelungen ergänzt werden;
 Die Aufteilung in verschiedene Schulformen geht oft mit einer leistungs- und
wettbewerbsorientierten Auffassung von Lehre und Lernen einher und schadet
insbesondere benachteiligten Lernenden;
 Eine Differenzierung von Bildung nach der Sekundarstufe verbessert einerseits den
Zugang zu Bildung, weil er unterschiedlichste Wege und Kurse bietet; andererseits
verstärkt sie tendenziell die Ungleichheit beim Zugang zu akademischen Bildungswegen
von hoher Qualität und mit hohem Status;
 Ein Mangel an flexiblen und hochwertigen Möglichkeiten zu lebenslangem Lernen führt
dazu, dass weniger Menschen formelle oder informelle Angebote der
Erwachsenenbildung wahrnehmen.
Lehren für Politik und Praxis
Politische Steuerung und Kontrollsysteme verbessern
 Schulen genügend Autonomie einräumen, so dass Schulträger und Schulen auf innovative und
flexible Weise auf die speziellen Bedürfnisse der Lernenden eingehen können;
 Die größere Autonomie durch ein umfassendes System der Rechenschaftspflicht und
Qualitätssicherung ausgleichen;
 Eine partizipatorische Politikgestaltung fördern, bei der wichtige Interessengruppen des
Bildungssektors zusammenarbeiten;
 Einrichtung von Kontrollsystemen, die Benachteiligungen erfassen und als Datengrundlage für
wirksame Gegenmaßnahmen dienen;
 Einführung von Frühwarnsystemen für Kinder mit Problemen oder potenzielle Schulabbrecher
in Verbindung mit einer umfassenden Kontrolle.
Nachhaltige Investitionen und Finanzierung sicherstellen
 Sicherstellen, dass ein relativ hoher Anteil des BIP in die allgemeine und berufliche Bildung
fließt und die Gehälter von Lehrern ungefähr dem mittleren Einkommen von Akademikern
entsprechen;
 Gezielt Mittel für benachteiligte Schulen und Schüler bereitstellen, um deren Teilnahme an der
höheren Bildung und Weiterbildung zu verbessern;
 Schulen mit vielen Lernenden aus benachteiligten Gruppen zusätzliche Mittel bereitstellen, mit
denen sie Sprachunterricht und Beratung, zusätzliche Aktivitäten und spezielle
Förderprogramme finanzieren können;
Chancengleichheit beim Zugang zur allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung sicherstellen
 Bildungspflicht ausdehnen und sicherstellen, dass alle Schüler eine ununterbrochene und
hochwertige Bildungserfahrung machen;
 Angepasste Zulassungsrichtlinien einführen, die die ethnische und soziale Zusammensetzung
des Schuldistrikts berücksichtigen und die Schulsegregation durch ein System der „gesteuerten
Wahlfreiheit“ oder die flexible Auslegung von Einzugsgebieten mindern.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
25
 Förderung von ethnisch und sozial gemischten oder integrativen Schulen und Klassen, die
Interaktion und die Toleranz von anderen anregen;
 Schüler erst spät auf unterschiedliche Schultypen aufteilen; dies erleichtert den Wechsel auf
andere Schulformen und stellt sicher, dass alle Schulen ihren Schülern einen hochwertigen
Lehrplan anbieten;
 Relevante Akteure - Eltern, Gemeinde, Zivilgesellschaft, staatliche und nichtstaatliche
Organisationen - am Lernprozess beteiligen; dies verbessert die Lernerfahrung und das Wohl
der Schüler.
IV. Stärkere Mitsprache von Pädagogen und Lehrkräften
Wichtige Ergebnisse
 Lehrer und Schulleitung sind für die zunehmende Diversität der Schülerschaft häufig nur
unzureichend ausgebildet;
 Das Unterrichten von multikulturellen oder mehrsprachigen Klassen ist in vielen
europäischen Ländern einer der Bereiche, in denen sich Lehrer eine Weiterbildung
wünschen;
 Obwohl das Thema Diversität im Lehramtsstudium in der Regel vorkommt, wird dies
meist im Rahmen eines Moduls oder als Wahlseminar angeboten, das den beruflichen
Werdegang der künftigen Lehrer kaum wesentlich beeinflusst;
 Der Umgang mit Diversität wird zwar in den meisten Kompetenzrahmen für Lehrer
berücksichtigt, allerdings wird das Konzept nur selten operationalisiert und es fehlen
Richtlinien zur Umsetzung.
Lehren für Politik und Praxis
Kompetenz der Lehrkräfte verbessern
 Das Unterrichten benachteiligter Gruppen bei der Lehrerausbildung ausdrücklich als
Pflichtqualifikation berücksichtigen;
 Soziologische, soziopsychologische und soziopädagogische Elemente der Lehrerausbildung
verstärken, damit künftige Lehrer die speziellen Probleme und Bedürfnisse benachteiligter
Lernender besser verstehen;
 Unterrichtsmethoden entwickeln, die Motivation und Bildungserfolg benachteiligter
Lernender besonders wirksam steigern können;
 Sicherstellen, dass bei der Ausbildung und laufenden beruflichen Weiterbildung von Lehrern
die Themen Diversität, interkulturelle Bildung, mehrsprachiger Unterricht und innovative
Pädagogik stärker berücksichtigt werden.
Diversität im Lehrkörper fördern
 Kulturelle Mediatoren ausbilden und einstellen, zum Beispiel pädagogische Assistenten oder
Berater mit Migrationshintergrund oder aus einer ethnischen Minderheit, die die
Zusammenarbeit von Eltern und Schule verbessern und Eltern am Lernprozess ihrer Kinder
beteiligen;
 Gewährleisten, dass der Lehrkörper an Schulen, einschließlich der Lehrer und Assistenten, die
Diversität des schulischen Umfelds widerspiegelt. Dazu sollten gezielt Personen aus diesen
Gruppen bei der Lehrerausbildung gefördert und die Qualifikationen von zugewanderten
Lehrern anerkannt werden.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
26
Chapter 1. Introduction
This study reviews the findings of 20 research projects funded under the Sixth and Seventh EU
Framework Programmes for Research and Development (FP6 and FP7)
7
. The review was
commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and carried out by
the Network of Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training (NESET II). It is written
primarily for policy and decision makers in the field of education and training. It is guided by three
main questions:
What are the effects of educational inequality on the economic and social outcomes of
individuals, social groups and regions, and on social mobility, economic growth and social
cohesion in the EU?
What are the effects of poverty, inequality and wider socioeconomic disadvantage on the
educational opportunities, learning experiences and educational outcomes at each stage of an
individual’s life course and at different types and levels of education and training?
Which specific policies and practices are shown to promote equity, inclusion and better
outcomes in educational and social equality, inclusion, social mobility and social cohesion
through education? What are the key success factors for transferability and sustainability?
This report highlights concrete policies and practices that work to disrupt or prevent educational
disadvantage and sets out the supporting evidence
8
. For more information on the methodology
of this review, see Annex 4.
1.1. Relevance of this review for policy makers
Promoting equality, tolerance, respect for diversity and inclusion in and through education is
currently an important EU policy objective. Member States are working to deliver on the
objectives they set in the Paris Declaration ‘Promoting citizenship and the common values of
freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education’ signed by EU Education Ministers
and the EU Commissioner for Education, Training, Youth and Sport in March 2015. The objectives
of the Paris Declaration inform the 2015 Joint Report on the implementation of the Education and
Training 2020 Strategic Framework – which guides the European Commission's policy cooperation
with the Member States to 2020.
This report provides guidance that can support Member States in their efforts to deliver on the
objectives of the Paris Declaration and the 2015 Joint Report. It will also be of interest to important
EU-level policy-steering activities and formal commitments that EU Member States have recently
subscribed to, including:
The May 2010 Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training
9
;
The Council conclusions on early childhood education and care (2011a);
The Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving (2011b);
The Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in Member States
(2013b);
7
CARE, CITiSPYCE, COPE, EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS, GINI, GOETE, IMPROVE, INCLUD-ED, INEQ, KATARSIS,
LLIGHTinEurope, LLL2010, NEUJOBS, PROFIT, RESL.eu, SI-DRIVE, WORKABLE, YIPPEE (see Annexes 1, 3-5).
8
This review does not cover higher education level taking into account the scope of 20 projects reviewed.
9
Council of the European Union, 2010a.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
27
The Council Recommendation Investing in Children – Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage
(2013);
The Council Conclusions on the social dimension of higher education (2013a).
Chapter 2. Causes and consequences of inequalities
in education
2.1. The problem
Education policy needs to cater for diversity and enable all citizens to succeed in education and to
develop their full potential, according to their specific learning needs and irrespective of their
background.
However, the reality is different. The evidence reviewed here suggests that access to learning
opportunities, success at school and chances of higher education and further learning all remain
socially and spatially differentiated across the EU. All European education systems are, to a greater
or lesser extent, marked by inequalities
10
which reflect inequalities in the wider society. Whole
social groups or sub-sets of the population persistently achieve less in education – often despite
the presence of policy initiatives that are designed to redress these inequities. The findings of the
20 projects reviewed here are consistent with wider international research confirming that
currently:
A learner's socioeconomic background remains the strongest determinant of educational
success or failure in all Member States and at all levels of education.
A large number of children from high-need families do not participate in early childhood
education and care (ECEC).
In all Member States, migrant learners (especially those from poor families) achieve
significantly below the level of native-born learners and are at a higher risk of leaving school
early.
There are still more than five million early school leavers across the EU. Early school leaving
(ESL) for young people from a migrant background is double that of non-migrant families,
exceeding 40 % in some Member States.
Initial vocational education and training (VET) has much higher dropout rates than academic
routes.
Roma children are a lot less likely to benefit from ECEC, attend school, obtain necessary level
of qualification, or continue to post-compulsory education.
Boys (especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds) drop out of school more often than
girls, perform significantly worse in reading, and outnumber girls in VET. Women are more likely
to have a tertiary education degree but are still under-represented in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Maths (STEM) studies, in careers in research and in senior posts at all levels of
education.
Disadvantaged social groups continue to be seriously under-represented in higher education
(especially in the more prestigious institutions and study fields) and many more students from
10
This review is limited by the extent of the discussion on educational inequalities, which varied significantly among the
research projects. It should not be considered comprehensive in tackling all existent aspects of inequalities.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
28
these groups drop-out from university. There are marked disparities in higher education within
as well as between Member States.
In several Member States, learners with special educational needs are still often placed in
segregated institutions or in mainstream settings with inadequate support. They have high
rates of early school leaving and frequently leave school with few or no skills. They participate
a lot less in tertiary education, are more likely to be unemployed, and are at greater risk of
social exclusion.
Roma and migrant-background students are over-represented in segregated and special needs
settings. In certain countries more than 40 % of Roma pupils attend segregated classes.
The children of newly-arriving migrants, those from lower socioeconomic groups, some ethnic
minorities, refugee and Roma children and children in public care tend to be disproportionately
placed in educational routes or institutions that lead to lower level or lower status qualifications
(lower tracks) and poorer performing schools with lower expectations of what they will achieve.
Streaming (the allocation of children to different classes according to their ability) is often used with
a performance-driven, competitive approach to teaching and learning which does not improve the
attainment of disadvantaged children.
Teaching does not necessarily target or respond to the need for additional support of children who
have language difficulties or have had a disrupted education.
These inequalities in education and the inequality of human capital and skills they imply have
severe consequences for individuals, for the economy and for social cohesion. They affect all
aspects of people's lives, not only their opportunities to earn. They often lead individuals to
precarious life trajectories or disengagement not only from education and work but from broader
civil society. Millions of citizens are left behind. Policies to remedy these disparities are needed.
2.2. Some critical factors - evidence from the 20 research projects
Socioeconomic family background can strongly affect an individual’s educational outcomes and
future life chances. This has been confirmed in earlier academic literature, which shows in general
that pupils with a low socioeconomic background tend to be slower in developing academic and
linguistic skills. They display learning-related behaviour problems more often, show lower
motivation towards learning, leave education and training earlier, and leave with lower
qualifications and insufficient competencies for full participation in society (Aikens and Barbarin,
2008; Ballas et al., 2012; Blanden et al., 2005; Kaylor and Flores, 2008; Morgan et al., 2009).
EQUALSOC showed that this effect of general socioeconomic characteristics on children’s
cognitive skills, language skills and overall learning capacity can be detected as early as preschool
age (EQUALSOC Network, 2011)
11
.
Parental education has consistently proved to be one of the most important components
influencing educational outcomes. EDUMIGROM confirmed the findings of PISA surveys
conducted over the past decade: within the project sample, students from highly educated
families had close to a five times greater chance of attaining ‘excellent’ grades than fellow
students from a poorly educated parental background (Szalai, 2011b). Similarly, students coming
from a poorly educated parental home were three to four times more likely to repeat periods of
study (sometimes known as grade repetition or grade retention) to achieve the required grades
11
EQUALSOC showed how children (aged 3-4 years) from higher-SES families score better on standardised
developmental tests than children from lower-SES backgrounds (see, for instance, results for children in Germany in
Becker, 2010).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
29
than their peers from highly educated families (Szalai, 2011a). For its part, GINI revealed that a
family background in which at least one parent holds a university degree is associated with almost
three additional years of schooling for the next generation, while IMPROVE found the proportion
of young people with low-educated parents to be significantly higher among early school leavers
than among stayers (Braga et al., 2011; Tumino, 2013). Similar trends continue down the line
towards adult education: LLL2010 revealed that most adult learners in low-level courses have low-
educated parents, while most adult learners with highly-skilled parents are enrolled in tertiary
level courses (Boeren et al., 2011).
Some of the projects indicated that the educational disadvantages experienced by ethnic or migrant
children can be best explained by parental socioeconomic status (SES). For example, EQUALSOC
revealed that when the effect of socioeconomic status is removed, second-generation immigrant
children from European countries often academically outperform the majority group, while
achievement gaps are substantially reduced for second-generation children of non-European
backgrounds (EQUALSOC Network, 2011). This finding confirms similar conclusions stemming from
PISA 2012, especially regarding the performance of migrant children in mathematics (European
Commission, 2013b, p. 12).
Research suggested that, even where relatively favourable socioeconomic conditions are present,
an ethnic minority or immigrant background can independently imply educational vulnerability
(EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS). This conclusion is in line with a growing body of research
specifying that first and second generation immigrant students tend to be more affected by low
socioeconomic status than children with a non-immigrant background (OECD and European
Commission, 2015). For example, EDUMIGROM indicated that ‘ethnicity is a strong factor that is
played out in its own right in (…) informing how performance is assessed’: students from better
educated families were three to eight times more likely to be ‘marginally performing’ than their
majority peers if they came from ethnic backgrounds (Szalai, 2011a). Notably, being from an
immigrant background does not have the same effect in the case of predominantly ‘white
immigrant’ minorities: according to the EDUMIGROM survey, 17 % of students from such
backgrounds in the project sample ended up among the best performing groups (Szalai, 2011a).
Ethnic background was also found to affect pupils’ relations with their peers in schools. EUMARGINS
concluded that ethnic minorities, migrants and their descendants experience various forms of social
exclusion in the form of bullying, teasing or more generally a feeling of being marked as different by
other pupils. Overall, such students often tend to be placed in segregated educational settings,
which results in their enclosure and isolation (see Section 3.1 for more); moreover, migrant children
and ethnic minorities are more likely to enrol in poorer quality or lower performing schools (Fangen,
2011; Kallas et al., 2011). They are also more likely to be on a vocational route or other route that
does not provide direct access to university education (European Commission, 2015a; NESSE,
2010b).
The language factor can partly explain the educational disadvantage of learners with migrant or
ethnic minority background relative to majority students with the same socioeconomic background.
Research projects such as EDUMIGROM, EQUALSOC, EUMARGINS, GOETE and INCLUDE-ED
discussed how difficulties in education attainment and performance can be affected by poor
language skills. Native language speakers surveyed by EDUMIGROM, for example, were nearly twice
as likely to receive ‘excellent’ results as students with a different mother tongue (Szalai, 2011a). Such
educational inequalities are relevant across all levels of education: interviews and observations in
pre-primary centres by INCLUDE-ED indicated that a lack of language skills leads to children being
unprepared to cope with the academic challenges of pre-primary education (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2008b). At the same time, not knowing the language of the majority population can

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
30
constitute a major barrier in terms of access to higher education (Estonia, Norway and Sweden were
referred to by EUMARGINS; see Kallas et al., 2011).
Family support can be a significant protective factor against disengagement (Savage et al., 2005).
Within the survey sample of RESL.eu, study participants living with both biological parents
appeared to be less associated with low levels of engagement at school, while perceived support
from parents was shown to correlate with overall school engagement scores (Kaye et al., 2015).
Along these lines, high levels of participation by family members in learning activities were shown
by INCLUDE-ED to lead to higher school attendance, higher academic achievements and greater
value given to school by children (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a;). Overall, the family serves as
an important source of information, emotional support, and financial and social resources.
In terms of individual characteristics, gender is also a significant factor when considering the
performance attained in education. Although there are notable exceptions (such as the overall
performance in mathematics, science and technology studies), previous research has indicated
that female learners tend to outperform male learners, especially in terms of reading literacy
(Archer et al., 2007; NESSE, 2010a). As revealed by PISA 2012 and highlighted by the Education
and Training Monitor 2015, the number of 15 year-old boys in the EU who show
underachievement in reading, mathematics and science is 61 % higher than that of girls (OECD,
2013b; European Commission, 2015a). Interestingly, though, results from the Survey of Adult Skills
(PIAAC) for 16-24 year-olds in reading performance show that the gender gap in literacy becomes
narrower or completely diminishes later in life (OECD, 2013a, p. 109).
Data from EDUMIGROM revealed that ‘girls adjust better to the official requirements of schooling
than boys do’. Within the project sample, girls had an 8 % higher chance of receiving an ‘excellent’
grading than boys, and also enjoyed a 6 % advantage in average scores over boys (Szalai, 2011a).
In turn, performance affects educational attainment: in some countries within the sample of
RESL.eu, boys were much less likely to achieve an upper secondary qualification than their female
peers (Kaye et al., 2014). RESL.eu also concluded that young women were more likely to express
aspirations towards higher levels of education than their male classmates (Kaye et al., 2015).
Evidently, aspirations later become a reality, as these gender gaps persist into further levels of
education. Notably, if only female education is considered, both Europe 2020 headline targets
have been reached (early school leaving rate below 10 % and tertiary education attainment rate
above 40 %). Women in the EU have an average 8.7 % higher tertiary education attainment rate
than men (European Commission, 2015a; Eurostat, 2014).
Nevertheless, female learners also experience educational inequalities. GINI revealed that being
a female corresponds in general to an average disadvantage of one third of a year of schooling
(Braga et al., 2011). LLLIGHTinEUROPE indicated that males on average perform better than
females in the Complex Problem Solving (CPS) assessment (even when adjusting for differences in
education and employment) and this was shown to contribute to the later earnings gap between
males and females (Ederer et al., 2015). Moreover, educational inequalities experienced by people
with family/care responsibilities can also be related to disadvantages experienced by women
(Boeren et al., 2011; Hefler et al., 2010; Saar and Roosalu, 2011; Szalai, 2011b). LLL2010 concluded
that the presence of a small child in the family reduced the probability of an individual’s
participation in formal adult learning activities by half, with the effect being twice as important
for a mother than for a father (Hefler et al., 2010).
Inequalities based on various individual characteristics and/or socioeconomic background can be
translated into educational inequalities through the reinforcement of social divisions within the
educational institutions (Ballas et al., 2012; see Chapter 4). In turn, initial educational attainment

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
31
and achievements can have a significant effect on later educational outcomes. For example, a
large body of literature, including various longitudinal studies, has revealed that participation in
high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), particularly for children over the age of
three, leads to better cognitive and non-cognitive developmental outcomes, better readiness for
school and greater educational success (Chetty, 2010; Burchinal and Cryer, 2003; Duncan, 2013).
In the case of young people in secondary schools, the research projects emphasised how earlier
educational attainment and prior academic performance influence early school leaving and overall
attitudes towards achieving secondary education. The EDUMIGROM survey results for young
people between 14 and 17 years old showed that the proportion of those imagining themselves
graduating from a secondary school steeply declines in line with numeric grades (Szalai, 2011b).
Similarly, academically successful young people from public-care backgrounds in YIPPEE were
found to be more motivated to progress to upper secondary level and complete their educational
courses (Jackson and Cameron, 2011). Consequently, in EDUMIGROM, the actual proportion of
potential dropouts increased from 5 % among the ‘excellent’ students to 33 % among those
belonging to the ‘marginally performing’ group (Szalai, 2011a). Similarly, RESL.eu showed that
students had a higher chance of dropping out of their course if they had negative attitudes to
homework and especially to their teachers (Kaye et al., 2014).
Early educational attainment is also important with regard to adult education and lifelong learning
since it effectively shapes adult attitudes towards further study. LLLIGHTinEUROPE, for example,
concluded that perseverance and openness to learn new things among adults increase
significantly with their level of education (Ederer et al., 2015). Similarly, LLL2010 found that adult
learners enrolled at the lowest course levels show scepticism towards adult education; and the
project suggested that such adults had usually dropped out of the educational system at an earlier
stage and therefore developed negative attitudes towards learning early on (Boeren et al., 2011,
p. 101). By the same token, EQUALSOC and LLL2010 found that adult learners with low levels of
skills or lower educational attainment give more extrinsic (instrumental, economic pressure-
related) reasons for continuing their studies or training compared to better educated adults who
were more likely to give intrinsic reasons (EQUALSOC Network, 2011; Boeren et al., 2011)
12
. In
addition, data suggested that the actual chance for participation in formal adult education
increases significantly with higher levels attained in prior education, as revealed by LLL2010 and
the overall body of research (Hefler et al., 2010; NESSE, 2010b; Boeren et al., 2012). Similarly,
LLLIGHTinEUROPE found that individuals with higher secondary general education are more likely
to take career-related training and receive more hours of it than those with vocational education
(Woessmann et al., 2012).
Overall, a plethora of individual and family-level circumstances can influence educational
inequalities. However, the effects of these characteristics are often closely inter-related with the
way the education system accommodates ethnicity, gender, family background and
socioeconomic status. System-level and institutional barriers experienced by vulnerable groups,
positive system characteristics as well as specific measures helping to develop an inclusive
educational environment for disadvantaged individuals are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4
respectively.
12
Notably, intrinsic motivation (associated with social capital and personal development) is seen as preferable because
it results in high-quality learning, while extrinsic motivation (relating to instrumental goals, economic pressure,
prospects of higher earnings, or risk of unemployment) can result in surface learning, or fear of failure (Boeren et al.,
2011, p. 14).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
32
2.3. The cycle of disadvantage
The factors discussed above generate educational inequalities. Subsequently, these inequalities
lead to other types of disadvantages for vulnerable groups, mostly associated with social standing
and later positions in the labour market. Following this argument, a lack of educational attainment
can be understood as both a consequence and a cause of (household) poverty and social exclusion:
education converts initial individual or socioeconomic disadvantage into academic
underachievement, which then becomes the basis for subsequent labour market failure (NESSE,
2010a). Thus children who live in low-income households and whose parents are unemployed, at
risk of in-work-poverty, or have low qualifications, are much more likely to become the next
generation of parents with low socioeconomic standing (Frazer and Marlier, 2007; Eurydice, 2009,
NESSE, 2010a). In fact, evidence suggests that intergenerational upward mobility has been slowing
down worldwide (European Commission, 2015a).
As shown by PROFIT, RESL.eu, LLLIGHTinEUROPE, GINI, INCLUDE-ED and EQUALSOC, lower levels
of education result in greater unemployment, limited opportunities for the self-development of
workers, and high job insecurity (Kutsar et al., 2006; Araújo et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2014;
Wiederhold, 2015; Salverda et al., 2014; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009a; EQUALSOC Network,
2011). This is in line with overall research findings produced in recent years (Giannetti et al., 2009;
Salverda et al., 2014; Wiederhold, 2015). For example, as explained in IMPROVE, early school
leavers tend to face higher rates of both youth and adult unemployment than stayers experience
(Tumino, 2013). These conclusions confirm the general trend found in the literature, namely that
early school leavers are more likely to be unemployed or employed in blue-collar or part-time jobs
(which provide less employment security) than those who complete their education (NESSE,
2010a; European Commission, 2013c; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014;
European Commission, 2015a).
According to LLIGHTinEUROPE, individuals who obtained general secondary education degree
have a higher probability of employment as they become older, relative to individuals with
vocational education (Woessmann et al., 2012). In addition, employability – an individual’s ability
to find, keep or change a job position at will, was also found to be positively affected by higher
educational level in EUMARGINS (Studená et al., 2015; Fangen, 2011). Data analysis in EQUALSOC
also indicated that education is an important determinant of occupational attainment, especially
in relation to the influence of education on finding a first job. Less educated individuals were
shown to experience slower career progression, and their disadvantages tend to increase during
their life course (Barone and Schizzerotto, 2011).
Educational inequalities and subsequent disadvantages related to employment outcomes may in
turn affect individual income levels, as well as the risk of facing poverty. People with low
educational attainment have a four times greater risk of falling into the poverty trap than people
with high educational attainment (Council of the European Union, 2010b). GINI data showed a
significant and positive relationship between education and income inequality
13
(Salverda et al.,
2014). In general, higher cognitive skills were systematically related to higher wages in the 23
countries studied by LLLIGHTinEUROPE (Wiederhold and Woessmann, 2015).
13
On the macro-level, reduction of one point in the Gini index of education is associated with a reduction of 0.5 to 0.6
points in the Gini index of income. On the micro-level, the research project revealed that personal income is positively
associated with the number of years of schooling (Salverda et al., 2014).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
33
In spite of these findings, raising educational attainment and competence levels does not
necessarily ensure less deprivation and more social equality (Council of the European Union,
2010a). First, the effect of education on attainment in the labour market may only moderately
mediate the overall influence of social origins and socioeconomic family background. IMPROVE
concluded that non-EU migrants with a higher education degree experience relatively low returns
on education. For migrant men in particular, a higher education degree does not result in greater
probability of employment compared to someone with only a secondary education degree (Corluy
and Verbist, 2014). Similarly, EDUMIGROM survey data showed that, compared to students from
the upper ranks of society, well-performing students from poorer social backgrounds are much
more likely to opt for vocational education and early employment, which leads to poorer
prospects in the labour market over their life course (Szalai, 2011a).
Moreover, the recent financial downturn has further blurred the direct link between educational
attainment and employment opportunities, as the increase in youth unemployment has also
affected qualified young people (OECD, 2010b). With the expansion of tertiary education, a high
proportion of graduates in Europe have also been ending up in atypical, precarious forms of
employment (Knijn, 2012; Banerji et al., 2015). Accordingly, concerns about not getting a job despite
working hard at school were a common theme for many students interviewed by GOETE (Parreira
do Amaral et al., 2013). The crisis has also increased the proportion of those not in employment,
education, or training (NEETs) and aged 15 to 24 in the EU-28 from 10.9 % in 2008 to 12.5 % in 2014,
which signals a build-up of those facing multiple disadvantages in the labour market (Eurostat,
2015b).
Individual-level inequalities caused by a lack of educational attainment also have societal
implications. As indicated by IMPROVE and LLLIGHTinEUROPE, higher educational levels are
associated with better employment levels, including migrant employment (Corluy and Verbist, 2014;
Wiederhold, 2015). Empirical evidence has suggested that an increase in educational achievement
by 50 PISA points translates into a one-percentage point higher rate of economic growth (EENEE,
2014). Previous research also showed that the number of years in schooling, provided that education
is of good quality, are of extreme importance for differences in regional development (Gennaioli et
al., 2013). A growing body of literature has emphasised that education is also a pathway to social
equality, active citizenship and personal fulfilment: in fact, an inclusive approach towards education
may help vulnerable individuals to achieve economic independence and social mobility in adulthood,
thus serving the needs of the labour market and the wider societal need for social inclusion
(Camilleri-Cassar, 2014; NESSE, 2010b).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Educational disadvantage is both a consequence and a cause of poverty and social
exclusion;
 A learner’s socioeconomic background remains the strongest determinant of educational
success at all levels of education. It has a significant effect on educational outcomes
including the development of academic and linguistic skills, early school leaving, and
learning motivation;
 Educational outcomes shape an individual's occupational attainment and socioeconomic
standing, and thus educational inequalities can impose disadvantage upon subsequent
generations;
 In general, ethnic minorities and those of immigrant background are more vulnerable to
unfavourable educational outcomes, so much so that even among children from well-

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
34
educated families, minority students are more likely to perform less well than their
majority peers;
 Educational inequalities experienced by minorities can be partly attributed to a lack of
proficiency in the language of their host-country;
 Female learners tend to outperform male learners at all levels of education. However,
they are less likely to participate in adult education due to family responsibilities, and are
under-represented in STEM subjects;
 Early educational attainment and academic achievement influence early school leaving,
attitudes towards achieving secondary education, and participation in formal adult
education;
 Educational inequalities have significant social implications: low educational attainment
can result in greater levels of unemployment, income inequality, low economic growth
and disengagement of vulnerable groups.
Chapter 3. System and institutional factors promoting
inclusion in and through education and training
Many of the FP6 and FP7 research projects reviewed in this report analysed how the
characteristics of different education systems and institutional factors contribute to reducing,
maintaining, or deepening inequalities in learning outcomes, not only during compulsory
schooling but also in access to further education and training, the labour market and different
domains of social and cultural participation. The main findings are presented below.
3.1. The importance of access policies in education
3.1.1. Admission policies and institutional segregation
EDUMIGROM and IMPROVE found that the admission process in compulsory education can
increase educational segregation among children from different socioeconomic and ethnic groups
by channelling children with certain characteristics to schools with poorer records in educational
attainment (Szalai, 2011a; Dronkers and Korthals, 2015). Although a child’s geographically
peripheral location, especially when combined with a lack of social connectivity or the ethnic
composition of particular neighbourhoods, can reduce access to quality education and specific
support (Güntner et al., 2014; Hussain and Higson, 2014), residential conditions only partially
explain school segregation. Full parental choice resulting in the so-called ‘white flight’, local
educational policies aimed at raising efficiency through inter- and intra-school streaming into
differentiated ability groups and allocating children to different kinds of educational routes or
institutions, and attempts by ethnic minority parents to protect their children from discrimination
through separation, all intensify the process and generate greater inequities across education
systems (OECD, 2012; Szalai, 2011b; Ryan et al., 2014). In addition, refugees, irregular immigrants
or newly arrived migrant children may be deprived of full participation in compulsory education
through a failure to meet eligibility requirements based on the residency rules or through
unfamiliarity with local admission policies. Immigrant parents often lack the ‘inside’ knowledge
necessary to navigate through the education system for their children’s benefit due to language
barriers, resource constraints, lower levels of education and lack of knowledge of the host
country’s school system (Nusche, 2008; Szalai, 2011a; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2010).
EDUMIGROM indicated that in choice-oriented systems, the most desirable schools compete for
the brightest students and as good results further increase their prestige this deprives lower

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
35
achieving pupils of access to these schools. As a result, ethnic minority and socially disadvantaged
children are likely to be over-represented in poorer quality or lower performing schools. In these
schools, students are not only segregated but also stigmatised, and with a restricted curriculum
and lower expectations, their educational careers essentially come to a dead end as they graduate
with practically no chance of gaining a qualification that would be valued by the labour market
(Szalai, 2011a).
In addition, EDUMIGROM found that the school setting and the socio-ethnic composition of a
particular class have a major influence on young people at school in their future aspirations, peer
group relations and student-teacher relations. Institutional segregation and the division of
students into parallel classes according to ethnic background creates an unfavourable
environment for interethnic contacts and their understanding of diversity which in turn in the
longer run, becomes an additional barrier for the development of more inclusive societies (Szalai,
2011a).
3.1.2. Limited lifelong learning opportunities
As indicated by YIPPEE, educational performance, expected job security, the duration of studies,
preferences for study content and monetary costs contribute considerably to the creation of
socially selective choice patterns in post-secondary careers (Jackson and Cameron, 2011). In this
context, the so-called semi-tertiary institutions
14
become particularly attractive educational
alternatives for working class young people. While this appears to reduce inequities in access to
post-compulsory education in the broad sense, students that opt to continue their education in
these institutions could be diverted from engaging in higher education which tends to lead to
greater social and labour market equality’ (EQUALSOC Network, 2011). According to the
EQUALSOC project findings, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are still markedly
under-represented in the most prestigious higher education institutions. The project findings also
underlined persistent socially selective tendencies among higher educational institutions (Jacob
and Reimer, 2015).
There is a general shortage of quality public facilities for young people, particularly so for those
living in deprived or rural areas, where families have fewer opportunities to access good quality
education, as demonstrated by CITiSPYCE
15
and PROFIT (Güntner et al., 2014; Hussain and Higson,
2014; Warzywoda-Kruszyńska et al., 2006). According to LLL2010, the probability that an individual
will participate in formal adult learning increases in relation to the degree of urbanisation of a
given residence. Moreover, lack of access to adequate information, advice and guidance about
educational opportunities is also a barrier to participation in both formal and informal learning
16
(Hefler et al., 2010).
In addition to variation in the availability of programmes for all in different geographic areas, and
differentiated access to quality education pathways as discussed above, financial issues are often
reported as a bottleneck in accessing education at different levels. For example, families face
financial barriers when accessing early childhood education, especially early care services for
children under the age of three, for which demand exceeds public supply in most EU countries. As
14
E.g., universities of cooperative education that combine firm-based training with tertiary education (Schindler &
Reimer, 2010).
15
CITiSPYCE also underlined that barriers do not always relate just to physical location, they can be constructed via
‘symbolic’ distances (Güntner et al., 2014).
16
Definitions of non-formal and informal learning are available here: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-
projects/projects/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning/european-inventory/european-inventory-glossary.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
36
indicated by CARE, full-time and year-round services may be inaccessible for disadvantaged
children due to additional costs (Magnuson and Shager, 2010, in Akgündüz et al., 2015). The same
holds true for post-compulsory education, as in many countries post-secondary and tertiary
education require at least a partial financial contribution from the families themselves. This results
in an increase in working students and therefore possibly also a decrease in hours spent studying
(Hall, 2010)
17
. Financial problems do not solely result from educational fees; adult learners at any
educational level may also be struggling to support themselves and/or their families, as
demonstrated by LLL2010 (Boeren et al., 2011). EUMARGINS highlighted that for learners of low
socioeconomic status, it is even harder to access quality education in the context of the financial
crisis due to cuts in access to social benefits (Szalai, 2011b).
3.1.3. How can access policies facilitate inclusion and equality?
Improving access to early childhood education and care
It has been argued that increasing preschool enrolment has a positive influence on children’s
learning outcomes (Engle et al., 2007). Access to good quality early childhood education and care
(ECEC) is particularly important for children from a socially disadvantaged background as it facilitates
their entry into the formal education system. The CARE project indicated that for disadvantaged
children preschool participation is associated with strong benefits for later education, job and social
outcomes and moreover leads to improvements in social competence and a more rapid decline in
behaviour problems from the first year of preschool to primary education (Melhuish et al., 2015).
CARE referred to various policies that Member States apply to ensure universal access to quality
preschools. Universal legal entitlement to ECEC is a good example of equal opportunity strategies
because it guarantees a place for every child (Melhuish et al., 2015). Other good practices identified
include: governments encouraging providers to take up publicly subsidised preschool provision in
socially disadvantaged residential areas (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014);
making preschool compulsory (Akgündüz et al., 2015); and increasing subsidies in a private child-
care market leading to higher utilisation of formal care, for example in the Netherlands (Bettendorf
et al., 2015). Some countries have additional policies specifically for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds to increase their access to preschool provision. Means-tested Working Tax Credits for
low-income families as practised in the UK, the entitlement to enrol in day-care programmes for
children in families in need of support in Germany, and the introduction of priority rules for children
from socioeconomically disadvantaged families in Belgium, have all been effective in increasing
preschool participation (Akgündüz et al., 2015).
Expanding compulsory education
The GINI project confirmed that reforms aiming to expand access to pre-primary education are
associated with an increase in average educational attainment. The later children start compulsory
schooling, the lower their successive attainment, which suggests that lowering the starting age of
compulsory education is an effective tool for increasing educational attainment (Braga et al.,
2011).
At the same time, GINI and RESL.eu indicated that the extension of compulsory education to older
years is seen as one of the mechanisms to prevent early drop out (GINI, 2013; Ryan et al., 2014).
Participation in full-time education goes along with alternative options, such as work-based
17
Especially in Europe, NEUJOBS findings indicate that there was an increase in part-time over full-time students.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
37
learning (including apprenticeships) and part-time education for those employed, self-employed
or volunteering (Ryan et al., 2014).
The GINI project findings indicated that ‘expansion of access’ by extending the length of
compulsory education narrows the range of difference in years of schooling between different
groups in the population and increases intergenerational upward mobility in educational
attainment by partially compensating for disadvantages in the family (Salverda et al., 2014). By
retaining the least motivated students in schools, it also reduces the differences in competences
among the adult population. However, this is only true if overall educational provision is of good
quality and inclusive (Ryan et al., 2014). Researchers find that people who benefited from longer
compulsory schooling were more likely to be employed and receive higher wages (Machin et al.,
2008).
Promoting mixed schools and classrooms
As stated earlier in the report, the segregation of students with socially disadvantaged or
immigrant background is detrimental to their subsequent success in education and further
exacerbates inequalities in society. Inclusive education models where children from different
backgrounds and abilities learn side by side are more effective at increasing attainment levels
among disadvantaged children. Moreover, EDUMIGROM found that ethnically and socially mixed
school environments are not only beneficial for low social economic status groups and ethnic
minority children, but also significantly increase the acceptance of differences among other
students, which leads to greater tolerance and respect for diversity more generally in society
(Szalai, 2011b).
As shown above, free-choice systems contribute to institutional segregation to a greater extent;
however, school enrolment according to catchment areas may reinforce the separation of children
with diverse backgrounds if there is high residential segregation. EDUMIGROM suggested that
catchment areas can work well if school-district boundaries are defined taking socio-ethnic
composition and diversity into account (Szalai, 2011b). Other research has suggested that a policy
of ‘controlled choice’ proves to be an effective strategy in avoiding school segregation by
balancing parents’ wishes to choose a school for their children and the political goal of countering
segregation (Kahlenberg, 2011).
INCLUD-ED confirmed that the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream education
instead of segregating them into special schools also benefits both the children with disabilities
and their peers without disabilities (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007b). Disabled students develop
better social skills and relationships and are better prepared to be more independent in the future,
while other children learn to accept differences and become more tolerant and pro-social
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b). Starting from pre-primary education, including students with
disabilities in mainstream education and providing good quality tailored teaching when needed
(see Section 3.4) serve as a way to avoid inequalities later on, facilitate their integration into
society, and help them to live a normal life (Stauber and Parreira do Amaral, 2013).
Increasing availability and affordability of lifelong learning opportunities
PROFIT and LLL2010 pointed out that the availability and accessibility of relevant education
programmes, such as part-time and flexible (modular) study, help to increase participation in adult
education (Saar and Roosalu, 2011) particularly for adults with lower skills. The introduction of
specifically designed programmes can be an important tool for increasing the flexibility of access
to higher education. In order to increase learning flexibility for participants, adult education

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
38
institutions are gradually introducing modular systems and intense lessons over a shorter time
period (Boeren et al., 2011).
Lowering fees for formal adult education (relative to non-formal training activities and to average
wages) improves participation in formal adult education and, as underlined in LLL2010, also makes
formal adult education programmes more attractive to employer organisations (Hefler, 2010;
Boeren et al., 2011). As demonstrated by LLIGHTinEUROPE, public policy support for workers’
participation in lifelong learning in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Slovakia and Spain shows a diverse
array of government funding schemes and institutionalised mechanisms specifically aimed at
promoting training and skills development for employees in the private sector. In these countries
(except Slovakia) employees can benefit directly from state support via tax relief provisions that
incentivise individual education and investment in training. Collective agreements among
governments and social partners, and social partners themselves, play a critical role in Denmark,
Italy and Spain in facilitating employee access to free training opportunities independently of the
initiative and capacity of their employers to invest in lifelong learning (Ederer et al., 2015).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Increasing preschool enrolment has a positive influence on children’s learning outcomes:
increases are not only associated with strong benefits in later education, but also in
improved social competence, which is particularly advantageous for children with socially
disadvantaged backgrounds;
 Extending the length of compulsory education is associated with higher educational
attainment and employability, but only if educational transitions are smooth and
provision is of good quality;
 Ethnically, socially or ability mixed schools and classes have a positive influence on
interaction between the various groups and facilitate the acceptance of difference
resulting in greater tolerance and respect for diversity among the whole school
population;
 Sensitive admission policies, which take into account the ethnic and social composition of
school districts via the system of ‘controlled choice’ or catchment area requirements,
tend to reduce school segregation;
 Financial barriers often cause a bottleneck to accessing non-compulsory education,
whether it is early childhood education and care, or higher and adult education. This is
especially true for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds.
3.2. Transitions
Transitions in an educational context are viewed as a process rather than an event and are affected
by a number of conditions that influence their outcomes, mitigating or reproducing disadvantage
and inequality. The GOETE project produced an analysis of the different patterns of educational
transitions, which reveals that the relationship between education and the life course is informed by
interaction and negotiation, where educational trajectories appear to be significantly influenced by
the institutional structures of education systems such as early selection and allocation to different
educational routes, and by the availability of support at the institutional level (Parreira do Amaral et
al., 2013).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
39
3.2.1. What are the links between transition arrangements and inequalities and
social exclusion?
Early selection, streaming and ‘tracking’
Most of the FP6 and FP7 projects reviewed highlighted the fact that schools and training systems
have structural conditions in place that interrupt the transition process and often segregate the most
disadvantaged children, thus negatively affecting their educational attainment. This segregation
refers to the allocation of children into separate schools with different kinds of educational provision
through a process sometimes known as tracking (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009a), and the streaming
of children into different groupings within schools on the basis of their educational attainment and
cognitive abilities.
Findings from the EDUMIGROM and INCLUD-ED projects demonstrated that streaming reduces
pupils’ learning opportunities and achievement by diluting the positive peer effect that higher-ability
pupils have on their lower-ability classmates. Streaming blocks the development of positive
relationships across ethnic groups, and affects the opportunities to develop interethnic friendships.
Streaming also reduces the expectations of those in lower ability groups and tends to erode their
academic self-esteem and feelings of competence. In addition, it limits students’ level of satisfaction
with their stream placement and the opportunities for upward mobility between streams. Since
streaming also influences teachers’ expectations, their attitudes and behaviour towards particular
students can be affected, resulting in a focus on students’ deficits rather than abilities and increased
stigmatisation, to the detriment of their learning and achievement (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009a,
Szalai, 2011a).
Moreover, when streamed and non-streamed schools are compared, it can be seen that low
achievers in streamed schools are usually exposed to less and lower-quality content compared to
their low-achieving peers in mixed-ability classes. In addition, the level and pace of instruction in
heterogeneous middle school classes are similar to that provided in the top stream at streamed
schools. Therefore, the presence of low achievers in heterogeneous classes did not cause teachers
to slow down their curriculum, but rather appeared to allow low achievers to benefit from the same
richer and more fast-paced curriculum offered to the top stream (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007b).
Nevertheless, research evidence also suggested that simply mixing students with different levels of
ability does not guarantee optimal conditions for all students to be included in the teaching process.
Other system conditions have to be in place for mixed classes to be effective, including, but not only,
adequate financial support and teacher preparation to deal with diversity in mixed classes (INCLUD-
ED Consortium, 2008b).
As demonstrated by the EDUMIGROM and INCLUD-ED, the segregation of children in different
schools most often occurs as a consequence of admission policies at the secondary level, such as the
selection of students based on their academic achievement. The age at which children are allocated
to these different forms of education is a crucial characteristic of the school system, not only in terms
of opportunities for advancement, but also in terms of equity and performance. Existing evidence
suggests that if this ‘tracking’ is carried out at an early age it can be detrimental to children's further
development, especially in the case of children coming from a low socioeconomic background
(RESL.eu; INCLUD-ED; OECD, 2012; Ballarino et al., 2012). EQUALSOC findings demonstrated that
when initial ability is controlled for, children put into a route for lower achievers tend to have lower
attainment than children who continue to be educated in a more integrated system. The more and
the earlier pupils are divided into separate groups according to their academic performance, the
more the pupils’ socioeconomic background matters for their academic performance and future

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
40
advancement (OECD, 2012; EQUALSOC Network, 2011; Boeren et al., 2011). Systems that do this at
an early age also tend to show larger skill inequalities between students of different origins than
systems with comprehensive education arrangements (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009a), and are
strongly linked to the reproduction of educational inequalities (Clycq et al., 2013 in Ryan et al., 2014).
As indicated by EDUMIGROM, the negative impact of early allocation to different tracks is further
exacerbated by the rigidity of systems offering limited mobility between school types and tracks,
which leads to highly unequal chances for those placed in lower quality (often vocational) tracks
(Szalai, 2011a). In a strongly segregated and hierarchical system such as in Flanders and the
Netherlands, the vocational track in particular is often perceived as the ‘waste basket’, comprised of
pupils who are not capable of entering other tracks or not sufficiently motivated (Stevens and
Vermeersch, 2010 in Clycq et al., 2014). In addition, RESL.eu demonstrated that the processes of
differentiating the school system into various vocational pathways can explain school disaffection,
the increasing risk of early school leaving, low academic performance, social exclusion and
marginalisation (Araújo et al., 2013). GOETE project findings also confirmed that cross-national
differences in early school leaving or competence achievement are clearly correlated with structures
of differentiation, selectivity and permeability in national education systems (Parreira do Amaral et
al., 2011).
Repeating periods of study (grade repetition)
The idea behind making an underachieving child repeat a year is seen to have preventive and
corrective functions. In reality, however, the academic and social benefits of such ‘grade repetition’
or ‘grade retention’ are minimal and short-lived. Although some studies report that there may be
some gains for the affected students during the repeated year (see for example, Alein et al., 2009;
Krzypniak, 2011), this is partly because they repeat the same curriculum; and these gains tend to
fade away in later years.
Grade repetition has a clearly negative long-term social and academic impact; instead of having
positive effects regarding catching-up and self-assurance, grade repetition usually turns into a
powerful and lasting stigma, and increases the likelihood of achieving only a lower secondary
qualification or none at all (Jacob and Lefgren, 2009; Szalai, 2011a). Although 90 % of the students
who repeated a grade at some point in their educational career did so in the very early years, their
later grades still reflected the depreciating implications (Szalai, 2011a; INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2007a). As a consequence, school systems that use grade repetition are extensively associated with
poorer performance (OECD, 2013).
3.2.2. How can transition barriers be reduced?
Facilitating successful transitions requires due attention to students’ preparedness for the transition
and the support that they need before, during, and after the transition. Below we discuss to the ways
to ensure smooth transitions between pre-school and primary education, as well as between
primary and secondary school.
Support systems for transitions during early years
The transition from early childhood education and care (ECEC) to school is an important quality
aspect of both preschool services and primary education where different approaches and systems
intersect (Hayes, 2011). The wider research literature has shown that positive or negative
experiences during transition to school from ECEC both from an emotional and academic perspective
can be critical factors for a child’s future success and development (Moss, 2013). Positive transitions
can stimulate further development but negative experiences can cause lasting difficulties, leading to

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
41
problematic behaviour and possibly poorer performance (Woodhead and Moss, 2007). Therefore,
especially for children from a disadvantaged background, insufficient attention to transition
processes can reinforce barriers to successful integration into primary school (Bennett, 2012).
The CARE project findings highlighted various strategies Member States apply to facilitate transitions
between ECEC and primary school. Effective practices include: ensuring that written records of
children’s learning and development at the end of their pre-primary years are shared with the
primary school teachers (England, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Poland); collaboration with parents,
children’s visits to their primary school before starting, or collaboration between staff on both pre-
primary and primary school levels (England, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal); pre-primary and
primary education provided on the same premises (England). In addition, national guidelines for the
co-operation and coherence between kindergarten and school educators aimed towards children’s
development of understanding, competences, and skills help their transition and learning. Another
practice involves co-operation between ECEC staff and school teachers through local plans for
transition. These local plans are established on the basis of the ECEC curriculum and primary school
curriculum plans, and are intended to provide connections so that they support the continuity of
children’s learning processes (Sylva et al., 2015).
Support systems for transitions at later stages of education
As early student selection has been proved to have negative effects on educational attainment
and further success in life, it should be deferred until upper secondary education with
reinforcement of comprehensive schooling (OECD, 2012). GINI project findings demonstrated that
the negative effects of early allocation to different tracks, streaming and grouping by ability can
be reduced by limiting the duration of ability grouping, increasing the opportunities to change
streams or tracks, and by providing high curricular standards for students in different tracks. GINI
argues that a one-year postponement of the allocation into different tracks has a stronger effect
on reducing inequality than a one-year increase of compulsory schooling (Meschi and Scervini,
2012).
As demonstrated by INCLUD-ED and wider research literature, educational reforms delaying
allocation of student to different tracks until age 16 and unifying the curriculum in Sweden (1950s)
and Finland (1980s) resulted in improved educational achievement (Brunello and Checchi, 2007).
Different students’ abilities and needs are met by various modes of teaching, collaboration
between teachers, support from teaching assistants and small class sizes (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2007a).The governance of the transition phases appears to be moving towards a customised
system that supports individuals according to their personal needs or groups of people with a
specific need such as immigrants who encounter language difficulties, for example, in the VaSkooli
project in Finland (Dale et al., 2012).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Gradual, smooth transitions between education levels, particularly in the case of children
from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, have a positive effect on children’s learning
experiences and ensure continuity within education systems;
 Possible strategies to ensure smooth transitions between ECEC and primary schools
include: facilitating collaboration between ECEC educators and primary school teachers
through local transition plans; ensuring curricula continuity between ECEC and primary
school; and gradual transition aided by school visits for children still attending
kindergarten;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
42
 Repeating a year, i.e. grade retention, is detrimental to students’ long-term social and
academic development, but neither is it advisable to automatically promote pupils
without support;
 Postponing the age at which children are tracked into different forms of provision helps
ensuring continuity of the education process, which is crucial specifically for socially
disadvantaged students. Countries where tracking is carried out early may facilitate the
transition experience for children by increasing their opportunity to change tracks or
streams, and by providing students across all tracks with high curricular standards.
3.3. Education governance
Education governance is essential for providing quality education and tackling educational
inequalities. While at the system level education governance does not directly link to student
performance and attainment, it shapes the conditions that determine student learning
experiences and outcomes.
3.3.1. What are the links between ineffective governance and inequalities in
education?
GOETE findings revealed that in Europe there has been a widespread ‘fragmentation’ and ‘de-
synchronisation’ of policies, including the growing role of ‘non-educational’ public and third-sector
organisations, and increasing discontinuities between different levels of governance (Dale et al.,
2012). More specifically, the next section focuses on public funding strategies, the distribution of
powers and functions across different levels of education, as well as on challenges arising in
coordination and their influence on quality education provision.
Inadequate public spending schemes
Investing in education is an important element of governance. Education was among the first
policy areas that faced budget cuts in the wake of the financial crisis in Europe, particularly in
countries with large public deficits (Eurydice, 2013). In 2013, the EU spent on average 10.3 % of
its public expenditure on education, which is 3.2% lower than in 2010 (European Commission,
2015a).
The research findings have shown, however, that variations in the resources devoted to schooling
were not a primary factor in determining student performance and the quality of educational
provision. The availability of resources is important, but it does not automatically improve
educational attainment. It is not how much is spent, but how the funding is spent, that makes a
bigger difference. INCLUD-ED and PROFIT confirmed this by showing that countries with similar
levels of investment per student have different educational results. Overall, INCLUD-ED suggested
that resources (measured as investment in education) can explain only about 19 % of the variation
in student performance. Therefore, if there is no systematic relationship between the amount of
resources spent (for example class size or per-student spending) and the skills that students
acquire, schools are unlikely to improve their students’ performance significantly by simply
increasing their expenditure without at the same time changing how the expenditure is organised
and distributed (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009a). In some countries local authorities responsible
for school maintenance and the quality of education receive resources from the central budget,
based on the number of students in the municipality. PROFIT showed that such financing schemes
provide municipalities with the wrong incentive, namely to preserve or even increase the number

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
43
of students in their schools rather than to improve the learning environment in the schools and
invest in quality (Warzywoda-Kruszyńska et al., 2006).
Moreover, as indicated by CITISPYCE, funding based on headcounts may not always be sufficient
for improvement and providing additional support for disadvantaged children in schools with
small numbers of such children (Hussain and Higson, 2014). Schools having a relatively large
number of pupils with a migrant background receive much greater funding in total compared to
those with a small number of these pupils. This enables the former to apply a wider range of
support measures but leaves the options for the latter rather limited (Magi and Siarova, 2014).
In practice, the funding resources that are currently directed towards the education system are
used mainly for paying teacher salaries. In 2013, wages accounted for about 60 % of total public
expenditure on education in the EU. Intermediate consumption
18
was the second largest budget
item in most of the countries, and accounted for about 17 % of the total in the EU (European
Commission, 2015a). This means that there are very few resources left for actual improvement of
the learning environment and pedagogical strategies (PROFIT, 2007).
Decentralisation versus centralisation
While national governments continue to play a central role in education policies across Europe,
the distribution of responsibilities and of authority have been evolving towards more
decentralised systems in response to calls for greater efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and
transparency. This shift reflects the need to make education systems sufficiently flexible and
innovative to adapt to diversity and change and allow for the active participation of learners at all
levels of the education process.
Research has confirmed that the level of autonomy set at the national level impacts on the extent
to which schools can be innovative and efficient in addressing the specific needs of learners
(Looney, 2009). Highly centralised systems tend to be more rigid and inefficient in tackling
inequalities. All regional and local administrative bodies in such systems are supposed to be
organised and function in the same way, regardless of their size, socioeconomic context and local
labour-market situation. Such systems give local authorities peripheral roles, even if they try to
develop actions to overcome some of the system limitations (Dale et al., 2012).
However, the GINI project highlighted that, if greater autonomy does not go hand in hand with
proper accountability and a comprehensive system of monitoring for quality, simply increasing the
autonomy of educational institutions can also have negative effects on equality. More precisely,
it can foster differentiation among schools and universities, boost the attainment of better-
endowed students, and leave behind students from weaker backgrounds (Soto Calvo, 2015; GINI,
2013).
Unclear division of responsibilities
Deficiencies in school functioning, as indicated by PROFIT, can also be caused by lack of
coordination and synergy between different stakeholders when providing education for specific
groups (PROFIT, 2007).
For example, poor coordination and a fragmented response is reported to be one of the main
obstacles when it comes to the education of children in public care. Findings underline the
importance of both integrating care and education services and coordinating them in order to
18
Intermediate consumption includes the purchase of goods and services needed to provide education services, such
as electricity, stationary, paper, books, cleaning services, etc.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
44
provide continued support to young people in need. However, as indicated by the YIPPEE research
project, the education of children in care is often a shared responsibility of the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Welfare, possibly leading to inconsistent services provided to these
children due to dual accountability (Casas and Montserrat Boada, 2010).
In the case of lifelong learning, LLL2010 confirmed that the unclear division of responsibility
between different agencies and institutions, and the ensuing confusion in the formulation and
implementation of policy, is one of the main barriers faced by many countries in ensuring
consistent quality of education. In all countries, lifelong learning policy is a cross-sectoral issue
with links to education, the labour market and social policies. In some countries, the labour-
market element prevails, which has led to a number of initiatives focused on employability and
the development of human capital, rather than on broader personal development. Although
effective coordination does not necessarily imply a single body, the lack of such a body leads to
implementation challenges in many countries. Poor coordination can also be explained by the lack
of a lifelong learning vision, ineffective arrangements at the local level and a lack of effective
coordination structures in general (Holford et al., 2007).
Barriers to recognition of previous learning and qualifications
For those traditionally alienated from the formal school system, the more flexible non-formal
educational sector can serve as a key bridge towards social inclusion, as shown by the results of
LLL2010 (Saar and Roosalu, 2011). However, LLL2010 project findings demonstrated that the
arrangements for recognising non-formal and informal learning are weak in the majority of the
countries studied (Holford et al., 2007). While some countries have systems in place, the
assessment required by this process may discourage certain people from engaging with learning,
thus, potentially increasing social exclusion (LLL2010 Project Consortium, 2011).
The main obstacles to recognition of prior non-formal or informal learning include the lack of a
national legal framework and guidelines, the absence of quality monitoring of non-formal
educational sectors and poor regulation of competition between formal institutions and the non-
formal sector. At the meso-level, LLL2010 demonstrated that there is not enough communication
with students regarding opportunities for the recognition of prior learning, a lack of institutional
pathways and a high administrative burden involved (Saar and Roosalu, 2011).
LLL2010 underlined a relative ‘policy vacuum’ and a lack of national priorities as regards non-
formal education, which leads to the uneven development of this sector as well as to its potential
absorption by the formal education sector. The project’s conclusions called for increased focus on
the transition and connection between the non-formal and formal education sectors (Saar and
Roosalu, 2011). The recognition of learning and the development of a qualifications framework
have been seen as important ways to ensure equality in adult learning and in lifelong learning in
general (Holford et al., 2007).
In addition, the EUMARGINS, IMPROVE and KATARSIS projects emphasised that in some European
countries a lack of systematic recognition of previous educational attainment can be another
barrier to successful transitions to further education and/or the labour market, and this can
complicate the inclusion of immigrants into the host society.
New migrants often face difficulties upon arrival: they undergo occupational downgrading and
earn lower wages than natives with similar measured characteristics (Borjas 1990, 1994 in Kogan,
2015). One of the explanations for this is that the skills immigrants bring from abroad are not fully
transferable to the new setting, or are even lost, which is often the case with human capital, social
or cultural resources (Kogan et al., 2011 in Kogan, 2015). In addition, EUMARGINS found that the

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
45
prior education of adult immigrants may not be properly acknowledged in the host country (Kallas
et al., 2011), which limits immigrants’ opportunities to access the education level corresponding
to their age and skill levels (Tierolf and Nederland, 2007).
3.3.2. How can education governance foster equality and inclusion?
Education systems are undergoing transformation as many countries continue to carry out
education reforms. These reforms aim to alter educational governance structures, financial
schemes, and curricula with the ultimate aim of improving the learning outcomes of young people.
A number of solutions offered by the FP6 and FP7 projects reviewed are discussed below.
Promoting autonomy linked to accountability
As shown previously, the level of autonomy assigned to schools impacts on the extent to which
they can be innovative and flexible in addressing specific learner needs; moreover, decentralised
policies and municipal empowerment can foster new practices and their institutionalisation at
higher (transnational) levels (Moulaert et al., 2010). At the institutional level, the findings of the
survey conducted in the GOETE project pointed to the need to empower school principals relative
to political authorities by increasing their autonomy and resources, as they lacked the room to
manoeuvre and the decision-making power to address high expectations (Rinne et al., 2012).
Centralisation, in turn, tends to lead to the opposite outcomes: for example, the GINI project
found that increasing the degree of standardisation of curriculum was ineffective in reducing
educational inequality (GINI, 2013).
However, greater autonomy may not necessarily help combat educational inequalities as it may
foster differentiation among schools and universities, and can leave behind students from weaker
socioeconomic backgrounds (GINI, 2013). To work effectively, it should be linked to
comprehensive systems of accountability and quality assurance (Jensen and Iannone, 2015). A
clear systematic framework and mechanisms for monitoring the quality of education provision can
give a clear picture of the adjustments that need to be made due to the changing environment.
Data is usually collected through external and internal school evaluation (quality assurance)
complemented with that collected at the national level. Monitoring should function not only for
the purpose of system maintenance but also as a ‘watchful eye’ over pupils and teachers. External
and internal evaluation of schools and national sample testing of pupils are all good data sources
(Eurydice, 2009). GOETE further argued that shifting the locus of accountability for educational
governance from input to output (results driven) may appear to be a central tenet in making
education systems more accountable both to those who benefit from them as well as to those
who fund them (Rinne et al., 2012).
Providing sufficient funding
As discussed above, some projects emphasised that increasing funding does not by itself
necessarily improve educational attainment; however, public spending that is well targeted may
be beneficial in terms of improving educational systems. For example, in relation to the earliest
stages of formal learning, the CARE study showed how resources for research and development
work were increased in Norway to provide lecturers with a better knowledge of the ECEC field,
and to ensure research-based professional education
19
(Jensen and Iannone, 2015). Regarding
secondary education, RESL.eu project findings often indicated that the availability of sufficient and
stable government funding was particularly crucial, especially in the context of the continuing
19
Overall, allocation to ECEC research tripled in the country between 2006 and 2014.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
46
professionalisation of school staff and the employment of support staff to engage with students
at risk of early school leaving (Nouwen et al., 2015).
EDUMIGROM and INCLUD-ED also reported that greater funding for particular areas and for
educational institutions with more migrant children and children in care can help provide the
additional teaching resources required to support the extra educational needs of disadvantaged
young people. In this case, targeted funding instead of schemes based on head counts could be
more effective in equipping schools with necessary resources to provide the conditions for
inclusion (as in educational priority zones in France, which receive 10 % more funding to reduce
class sizes in disadvantaged schools) (Szalai, 2011a).
LLL2010 also showed that public programmes to support adult education financially may also
prove to be relevant in terms of achieving equality in educational opportunities, particularly for
those holding low formal qualifications (Saar and Roosalu, 2011). Examples that have also proved
effective include state support via tax relief schemes that incentivise individual education and
investment in training, the collaboration of governments and social partners in facilitating
employee access to training and lifelong learning, and specific regional programmes focused on
employment and industrial development (Ederer et al., 2015).
Overall, efforts to better coordinate policies, increase autonomy, funding and monitoring are all
relevant in terms of achieving an inclusive education environment in Europe. However, in relation
to governance, the review of the European research projects revealed that a knowledge base on
the exact measures proven to be effective is still relatively lacking.
Lessons for policy and practice
 An adequate level of autonomy, complimented by systems of accountability, quality
assurance and clear divisions of responsibilities, enables municipalities and schools to be
both innovative and flexible in addressing the specific needs of learners;
 Fragmentation of education systems has led to unclear divisions of responsibilities and
ineffective implementation of national strategies. This is especially true in areas that are
cross-sectoral, such as the education of children in care, formal and non-formal adult
education, and VET;
 Targeted financing to disadvantaged schools improves educational provision for
vulnerable groups;
 Non-formal and informal education still lack formal recognition and clear strategic
direction in many Member States.
3.4. Flexibility of curricula and teacher preparedness
Accommodation of the ever-increasing diversity of cultures and abilities in existing schools poses
a major challenge to teachers and curriculum. Several FP6 and FP7 projects (INCLUD-ED,
EDUMIGROM, GOETE and LLL2010 in particular) looked at how diversity is reflected in the teaching
content and teacher education across Europe and what impact it has on the promotion of equality
and social inclusion.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
47
3.4.1. What are the links between the quality of curricula and teacher preparedness
for inequalities and social exclusion?
Uneven quality of teaching content
PROFIT findings pointed to a growing criticism of formal education curricula in some European
education systems, identifying a lack of focus on social and decision-making skills and a lack of
relevance in the content of teaching. Also, curriculum delivery can become challenging if it is seen
as too rigid with insufficient teacher autonomy and the inflexibility of school curricula has
especially negative effects on those whose abilities are lower or higher than the average
(Warzywoda-Kruszyńska et al., 2006).
The EDUMIGROM study emphasised the importance of a curriculum reflecting the growing
diversity of school populations. However, migration is often presented as a problem rather than
as a potential resource in many education systems. Eurocentrism, blindness towards diversity or
the opposite, explicit separation of different cultures, are all identified as elements contributing
to the alienation of migrant children (Dale et al., 2012; Szalai, 2011a). Moreover, EUMARGINS
findings suggested that even though proficiency in the language of instruction is a major tool and
precondition for learning, many schools are not always guided by an explicit coherent language
policy that is informed by research and adapted to the different levels of the education system
(Paasche and Fangen, 2011).
In addition, RESL.eu and GOETE projects emphasised that the quality of content and teaching may
also vary across private and public schools. The dichotomy between state schools and private
schools - the latter largely attended by children from the upper middle class – is not reflected in
policy discourse, as private schools do not fall under the same regulatory demands as state schools
(Ryan et al., 2014). While GOETE findings illustrated that private provision of education (for
example, confessional schools in the Netherlands) may be beneficial in terms of alternative
curricula and pedagogical arrangements, it also emphasised that a high proportion of private
schools also contributes to unequal access to education (Parreira do Amaral et al., 2011). In
addition, NESSE (2011) highlighted that the private supplementary tutoring practiced throughout
the EU can have a negative influence on the quality of mainstream schooling by giving perverse
incentives to teachers to encourage more tutoring by not giving highest quality classes.
At the level of higher education, privatisation has also led to quality differences in education across
institutions and the devaluation of higher education as a whole. As indicated by PROFIT, there is
no longer a direct link between graduation from higher education and the opportunity to get a
better job and be upwardly mobile in social and economic terms, which can also be explained by
the labour market factors (PROFIT, 2007).
Another quality-related issue is faced by VET systems, which are not seen as attractive (see Section
4.2). As illustrated by PROFIT study findings, the perception of VET as lower in status and prestige
than general education is further exacerbated by the fact that in some countries vocational
education is not considered to be sufficiently practical and work-based (Warzywoda-Kruszyńska
et al., 2006); and some vocational training schools lack sufficient teaching staff (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2008b).
Lack of teacher preparedness
INCLUD-ED, EDUMIGROM and YIPPEE found that many teachers do not have the necessary skills
and knowledge to tackle educational inequalities through their pedagogical practices. For
instance, teachers can lack sensitivity when it comes to the insecurities and difficulties

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
48
experienced by pupils with different ethnic/migrant backgrounds. Observations showed that
teachers often attribute the causes of educational failure to external factors: students’
disadvantaged situation, a lack of motivation and belief in the importance of education on the part
of the family, and a lack of socialisation in the values important for the school (Szalai, 2011a;
INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b). Moreover, numerous interviews with teachers demonstrated
that many of them thought that ethnic separation was an unavoidable outcome and rarely
considered that school can be an active agent in the process of integration (Szalai, 2011b).
The literature on the inclusion of disabled students and young people from a public care
background (INCLUD-ED and YIPPEE projects in particular) identified the lack of adequate teacher
preparedness as one of the barriers to inclusion (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b; Jackson and
Cameron, 2011). Despite the fact that classrooms in many countries are heterogeneous in terms
of ability and special needs students are included in the classroom, teachers find it difficult to use
group work or collaborative methods to teach mixed classrooms and continue using traditional
lecture-style didactic methods.
Despite the evident need, teacher training and professional development in many European
countries do not include courses or modules to prepare teachers to understand and accommodate
diversity in the classroom. According to Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
conducted by OECD, teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting is one of the priority areas
where teachers in many European countries reported the greatest need for professional
development to tackle current deficits (OECD, 2014).
3.4.2. How can improving the quality of content and teacher preparedness facilitate
inclusion and equality?
Establishing an inclusive curriculum
As demonstrated earlier, a proportion of students in EU Member States are not being fully
engaged in education due to a culturally impervious, rigid and inflexible curriculum. The idea
behind an inclusive curriculum is that mainstream education should adapt to the various needs of
the learners and strive to implement the universal human right to education for all (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2007a).
INCLUD-ED outlined a number of strategies for developing curricula that include a multicultural
perspective reflecting the diversity of the student body. According to INCLUD-ED, incorporating
multiculturalism as a topic in the instruction of languages and social sciences can help students to
develop critical thinking and understand societal processes better. In some schools, separate
subjects on tolerance and multiculturalism prove to be effective in promoting understanding
between cultures. Even when distinct cultural perspectives are not directly addressed in the
curriculum provided by ministries or local governments, teachers themselves can acknowledge
the presence of different cultures in their classrooms. Moreover, the evidence showed that, when
multicultural topics are delivered by individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, students
experience a positive impact on their learning (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b). Introducing multi-
cultural curricula coupled with targeted support, such as the provision of bilingual classes, has
proved to be an effective integration strategy for newly arrived migrant children in Denmark and
Sweden, as demonstrated by EDUMIGROM (Szalai, 2011a).
According to the research evidence from the INCLUD-ED study, the most successful educational
actions for inclusion, overcoming early school leaving and the risk of exclusion, use the same
curricula standards and learning objectives for all learners. To support the pupils in need,
institutions employ specific strategies for extra support, which may involve additional human or

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
49
time resources, or special types of curricula planning. One such method is the development of an
inclusive individualised curriculum, which adapts teaching methods to each student’s learning
needs in order to maximise his/her learning potential. The Individualised Education Plan in Finland,
for example, also helps to monitor the progress of the students with special educational needs
(SEN) and provide extra support measures if and when they are needed (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2012a). Tailoring the curriculum can be a useful tool to facilitate access to mainstream education
for students with disabilities; however, the common framework should be maintained to the
extent possible. Flexible learning objectives and activities are potential strategies to improve the
curriculum and make it accessible to diverse students. ICT has facilitated learning for this group of
students, by improving their communication skills and overcoming some of the barriers they face
in education, work and other areas of social life (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b). Provision of
personal assistants to accompany teachers in the classroom is also among the strategies that
increase the accessibility of learning for SEN children.
Providing opportunities for teacher training for diversity
Educating teachers to overcome the challenges and capitalise on the opportunities afforded by
diversity is a complex and multifaceted endeavour. There is ample evidence that one-off courses
on a specific topic are not sufficient to bring about lasting behavioural change. Although most
initial teacher education programmes include some form of diversity training, it is often in the
form of a single module or elective course, which is unlikely to have a major lasting impact
throughout a teacher’s career.
To manage learner diversity, teachers should first of all have an understanding of the diverse
backgrounds of their students matched by the relevant skills to deal with these differences (Rinne
et al., 2012). This implies not only basic knowledge about different ethnic cultural backgrounds
developed during teacher education (Gay, 2010), but also the skills necessary to integrate pupils,
particularly in terms of developing academic language. The Finnish example overviewed by
INCLUD-ED suggested that initial and in-service teacher training based on relevant scientific
research, combining significant theory and practice is an effective measure to promote diversity
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a).
In order to support all learners, teachers should be competent in providing different types of
instruction, as well as using different pedagogical resources to ensure equal learning opportunities
for all pupils. To develop this competence, teachers should themselves have experience with
learning in various groups and heterogeneous classrooms, using different learning methods,
materials and approaches (Bishop, 2010). As illustrated by EUMARGINS, having a workforce that
represents the ethnic diversity of the local community helps to overcome language and cultural
barriers when communicating with parents and involving them in the school. EDUMIGROM also
confirmed that when teachers from ethnic minority backgrounds were part of the staff, they not
only helped to untangle interethnic tensions, but also provided valuable role models of success
for ethnic minority students. This is even more significant if ethnic minority teachers teach
subjects that do not relate to their ethnic background (Szalai, 2011b).
In policy agenda, most teacher competence frameworks (developed to a different extent across
European countries) include awareness of diversity issues as one of the competence areas that
future teachers have to acquire (Caena, 2014). In practice, however, teacher-training programmes
are largely failing to prepare teachers to implement intercultural education. Although some focus
on intercultural education is included in the teacher-training curriculum, it is usually given a low
priority and is often not mandatory.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
50
Professional development of teachers is also very important in the adult education sector. LLL2010
highlighted that the adult education sector needs well-trained professionals who can work in
secure and continuous employment contracts. On the one hand, they must be specialists in the
subjects they are teaching; on the other hand, they need to master teaching skills such as the use
of appropriate didactical methods and psychological insight. The pedagogical skills of teachers in
adult education thus play a major role in supporting learners and fostering their active
involvement in the learning process. LLL2010 highlighted the importance of examining the
competence profiles of teachers, planning professional development according to the teachers’
needs, and encouraging the exchange of experiences in teacher training for adult education
(Holford et al., 2007).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Flexible and culturally relevant curricula facilitate the inclusion of more children;
 Teacher education and continuing professional development do not currently provide
teachers with the skills and competences necessary to face the challenges of diversity,
nor do they provide intercultural education, multi-lingual teaching, etc.;
 Students respond well and perform better if their teachers reflect the diversity of the
school population and serve as their role models of success.
Chapter 4. Measures and practices promoting
inclusion in and through education and training
This chapter focuses on measures and practices promoting inclusion in and through education and
training. More specifically it discusses inclusive school practices, vocational, adult education and
training, informal and non-formal learning and cross-sectoral synergies.
4.1. Inclusive school practices
School practices are inclusive when they cover a broad range of schooling experiences and
succeed in helping children with diverse backgrounds and abilities to be happy and effective
learners. Inclusive school practices aim to create caring, disciplined and fair schools (Leicester,
2008).
In the projects analysed, measures for inclusive school practices looked mainly at: the impact of
school-level factors on the performance, educational and life trajectories of students from different
backgrounds; the accessibility of education and measures for addressing inequality and promoting
inclusion in schools; and ways in which schools and educational strategies provide young people
with capabilities to function as active citizens.
4.1.1. A holistic approach in school education
The holistic approach views schools as multidimensional and interactive systems that can learn,
change and grow and involves strong support to schools when tackling complex issues such as
growing diversity, inequalities and social exclusion (European Commission, 2015b). A holistic
approach is an overall school style aimed at every child’s comprehensive development,
encompassing academic, emotional and non-cognitive aspects (Leicester, 2008).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
51
Projects reviewed have demonstrated that schools which implement diversity-conscious policies
with multicultural curricula help to enhance equal opportunities, foster good student relations,
and promote positive self-identification for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
EDUMIGROM findings suggested that one of the key characteristics of such schools is that they
mix students in all activities, and have a strong focus on multiculturalism and diversity, which is
reflected in their curricula and employment practices. Minority ethnic students are more
successful in school when there is a coherent ethos and leadership and where school staff are
aware of the issues and employ flexible pedagogical methods suitable for addressing the needs of
diverse students (Szalai, 2011a).
Supplementary schools that provide ethnically oriented education help to keep students with a
minority background closer to their culture and language. RESL.eu shed light on additional part-
time education schemes established to meet the needs of ethnic minority children, their families
and broader communities (Wei, 2006). ‘Mother-tongue schools’ or ‘community language schools’
have been labelled ‘complementary schools’ as they complement mainstream education (Creese
et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2003). Activities usually take place outside regular school hours and
encompass classes on mother-tongue language, religion, culture, sports, music, theatre, and
sometimes maths. Supplementary schools are mostly created and organised by community
volunteers and are often located at community centres, youth clubs, religious institutions or
sometimes mainstream schools. Their voluntary origins mean that these schools are of a
grassroots nature and very often have rather limited funds available (Evans and Gillan-Thomas,
2015; Maylor et al., 2013). Research has suggested that the supplementary schools have a positive
effect on the development of pupils’ identity, on their well-being, self-worth, behaviour, learning
processes and attainment levels in mainstream education (Maylor et al., 2013).
A holistic approach is also beneficial to migrant students, providing them with easier integration
and improved learning outcomes, particularly interactive language learning and highlighting their
capabilities. According to INCLUD-ED, a ‘reading buddies’ programme has been especially
successful in Spain - it seeks to mix disadvantaged students (including those with a migrant
background or disabilities) with ‘regular’ students of different ages. The key goal of reading
buddies is to increase children’s vocabulary, develop their self-esteem and social skills as well as
to enhance their attachment to reading (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008a). Other innovative
methods directed at minority students such as culturally relevant pedagogy, anti-racist education,
supervised curricula, introduction of cooperative educational models and the examination of
teachers’ roles have also been successfully employed (Szalai, 2011a).
The integration of students with special needs into the classrooms is another key characteristic of
schools employing a holistic approach. RESL.eu showed that grouping students according to
abilities stigmatises students and is detrimental to their overall well-being and sense of belonging
in the school environment (Clycq et al., 2014). Children with special needs can be evenly placed
among heterogeneous classrooms in terms of ability, gender and ethnicity, and can therefore
benefit from mainstream education while receiving personalised assistance taking their needs into
account. Overall, heterogeneous student groupings improve the achievement level of the whole
group and create a more productive environment for teachers.
RESL.eu claims that a holistic multi-professional approach is crucial for tackling early school leaving
efficiently and that it is important to focus on the emotional detachment from school (Clycq et al.,
2014). The project suggested that limitations can be explained by meso- and macro-level factors,
both of which can stimulate and discourage students from taking an early school leaving decision,
rather than by individual-level factors. It also suggested that high-quality career guidance
complements the success of a given student’s educational and professional path. This support

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
52
should be individualised, directly relevant and applicable in a specific situation. Other measures
include inviting appropriate role models to speak to students, giving students more freedom,
creating a sense of ownership, and proposing relevant traineeships to get hands-on skills (Nouwen
et al., 2015).
4.1.2. Positive learning and teaching environments
A positive learning and teaching environment is important for ensuring student performance and
overall well-being. Research has shown that students have more motivation to perform well in a
stimulating and secure learning environment (Safe Schools Action Team, 2008) and cohesion and
openness to collaboration contributes to creating a positive learning atmosphere in a school
community including school staff, students and parents or guardians.
Wider literature shows that achieving a positive learning environment requires continuous
comprehensive effort combining prevention and intervention strategies at individual, classroom
and school levels (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). Teachers play a key role in creating a
positive classroom environment and applying a student-centred approach, including seeking to
understand their students’ experiences, treating them with respect and openness, building
genuine personal relationships with pupils, promoting self-confidence, giving them feedback, and
avoiding formal didactic teaching styles (Leicester, 2008).
EDUMIGROM illustrated that local school policies aimed at promoting the diversity of both the
student population and teaching staff lead to positive changes. Academic achievements of ethnic
minority students increase when there is dedicated local leadership at schools and in municipal
administrations (Szalai, 2011b). In addition, EDUMIGROM showed that ethnically mixed school
environments simplify the acceptance of differences in terms of social class or ethnic origin.
Students’ experiences at school are strongly influenced by the ethnic composition of the school
staff, particularly by the presence or absence of ethnic minority teachers. Such teachers can
constitute role models for students who may lack sufficient self-confidence to continue studies. In
addition, the presence of an ethnic minority teacher is linked to students being less hostile and
more tolerant towards children from other ethnic groups (Szalai, 2011a).
Fostering good relations between peers is a positive element of school environments as it
stimulates students’ knowledge and better understanding of race and ethnicity. Moreover,
relationships of trust between students and educators/carers are a key element for creating a
sense of belonging to a community and boosting motivation to continue education, as
demonstrated by YiPPEE (Jackson and Cameron, 2011). EUMARGINS showed that the integration
of students with a migrant background into the school environment is influenced by the national
education system’s specific approach to integration. In France, the overarching principle of
equality through assimilation is sometimes considered to be an obstacle to the expression and
promotion of students’ diverse ethnic and cultural identities. On the other hand, classroom
diversity has been purposefully addressed in countries with a long history of diversity and
multiculturalism, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway, all of which promote
integrationist or multiculturalist approaches. In countries with a relatively short history of
immigration such as Italy and Spain, or with major demographic challenges such as Estonia, the
growth of cultural diversity and its impact on education pose major challenges highlighting the
lack of policies aimed at dealing with issues related to ethnic diversity in schools (Sarin and Fangen,
2011; Fangen, 2011).
Teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and expectations towards their students play an important role in
how well students perform and in their attitudes towards school and social integration.
EDUMIGROM demonstrated that teachers who appreciated minority students and transformed

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
53
issues into pedagogical challenges had better results in integrating ethnic minority and socially
disadvantaged students into their classrooms (Szalai, 2011b). Research showed that successful
intercultural education is achieved by teachers who manage to teach in a different way using the
existing curricula (INCLUDE-ED Consortium, 2007c). EDUMIGROM suggested that a teacher’s
attitude, personality, creativity and preparedness were more important than knowledge of the
discipline of instruction for fostering dialogue with the students, encouraging student
involvement, and general performance at school (Szalai, 2011a). The learning environment is also
considered positive when it integrates students with disabilities and creates a welcoming
environment by organising various school events to celebrate children’s special abilities, for
example through sports or arts. The project also showed that when students are taught by
innovative teachers in a favourable school environment without social exclusion and other forms
of marginalisation, they develop self-reliance and self-esteem (Szalai, 2011b).
4.1.3. Innovative pedagogies
Teaching practices applied in the classroom are important for student holistic development,
building trust-based relationships between students and teachers and for stimulating student
interest in contributing to the learning process. Working with diverse classrooms requires applying
innovative teaching techniques for which teacher preparedness and attitudes are particularly
relevant. Research has suggested that teachers’ responses to diverse student populations are very
different depending on whether they use innovative creative pedagogies or are informed by
traditional teaching methods based on the teacher’s authority. Teachers who introduce new
approaches can therefore become ‘genuine laboratories of pedagogical innovation’
(EDUMIGROM; see Szalai, 2011a).
Dialogic learning is an example of innovative pedagogy organised through interactive groups that
promote cooperation between students and teachers and sometimes involve other adults
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007b). Interactive group classrooms are quite small, with a mix of
students with different capabilities supervised by an adult: a classroom teacher with assistance
from community volunteers, family members, former students, interns. This example shows how
the same human resources can be reorganised and used more effectively for social inclusion in
the classroom. Dialogic learning promotes learning-related interactions, brings new experiences
and exposures and helps to overcome the negative effects of streaming and educational failure
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007b).
Stable peer networks stimulate a pupil’s resilience, sense of belonging and academic self-concept.
When peers cooperate in the learning process, they develop a common sense of their capacity to
make a difference; the process stimulates a sense of appreciation for one another and shows
teachers and parents an alternative perspective on the competencies of these children (RESL.eu,
see Clycq et al., 2014). In cooperative learning the reliance on sharing different capacities makes
people more competent (Del Rio in INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007a, p. 15).
INCLUD-ED also illustrated that employing ICT helps students with motor disabilities by offering
them easier access to the learning process and for communication, demonstrating their
knowledge, controlling their environment or accessing the curricula (INCLUDE-ED Consortium,
2012b).
4.1.4. The need for cross-policy synergies and multi-professional partnerships
Multi-stakeholder partnerships refer to a school’s efforts to include diverse actors in the learning
process. Different stakeholders can bring a range of complementary perspectives to solving
complex problems (European Commission, 2015b) and propose solutions that are tailored to

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
54
pupils’ specific needs. Partnerships may take different forms and operate at different levels, taking
into account national circumstances and other factors.
INCLUD-ED revealed that jointly coordinated work and effective networking between community
actors (private sector, NGOs and public sector administrations) can be crucial, notably for resource
optimisation. In Slovenia, stakeholders cooperate in the area of health, promoting Schools
Network and the MURA programme which aims to provide training for a healthier lifestyle
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a). NEUJOBS showed that school-community partnerships are an
important driving force for innovation in schools. Schools practising such partnerships engage a
wide spectrum of actors, including primary care services, voluntary and community organisations
as well as local authorities. Such partnerships are beneficial in providing better individual support
corresponding to a variety of individual needs.
RESL.eu has also shown that close school-parent ties improve student attendance and grades,
foster sustainable relationships between schools, parents and children, and are likely to reduce
early school leaving (Pyle and Wexler, 2011 in Nouwen et al., 2015). INCLUD-ED demonstrated
that the involvement of parents in learning activities, curriculum development and evaluation, or
school decision-making processes improves school quality and has a direct positive impact on
children’s academic success (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a).
4.1.5. Early warning systems (EWS)
Being treated as equal partners in their children’s education is especially important for parents
with a disadvantaged, migrant and/or minority background. INCLUD-ED suggested that one of the
transformative aspects in communication between school and family members is the use of
technology (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008b). Some schools use internet-based systems (E-class)
or SMS to keep family members informed about their children’s academic performance and school
attendance. The extent and nature of relationships between teachers and parents can have a
particular influence on educators’ attitudes towards Roma students. According to EDUMIGROM,
when teachers had very little contact with parents, they depicted Roma children in a negative way,
while teachers who were in constant contact with parents tended to understand better the
problems of the families (Szalai, 2011a).
Individualised student monitoring is one way to identify student needs at an early stage and
consolidate their learning processes. Simple systems for detecting school dropout have been
found to be neither sufficient nor sustainable, as they may allow problems to accumulate or
worsen. Hence, early detection and constant monitoring are two crucial interconnected aspects
for identifying potential school drop-out. Early warning systems (EWS) serve as a basis for more
tangible strategies and concrete measures and contribute to tackling early school leaving by
focusing on early indicators reflecting educational progress or failure. Some systems focus on a
family’s socioeconomic status, grades and non-attendance rates; other focus on the development
of one-to-one relations of trust to detect early signals. For example, some Belgian schools
complement the detection and monitoring of students (based upon truancy rates and academic
progress records) with periodic discussions between teachers and pupils to review progress.
Overall, a clear advantage of this approach is that teachers assess the socio-emotional well-being
of pupils in a more fine-grained way, as demonstrated by RESL.eu (Nouwen et al., 2015).
Early warning systems (EWS) also vary in the degree to which they are comprehensive. Fully
comprehensive systems take into account students’ family conditions, and their behavioural,
cognitive and emotional dimensions; while less comprehensive ones focus on one specific
dimension, usually on the behavioural or the cognitive elements (Nouwen et al., 2015). RESL.eu
suggested that schools tackle these educational challenges and early school leaving (ESL) by

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
55
collecting data on the early signs of problematic schooling trajectories. For example, in Hungary,
individual educational programmes prepared and approved by teachers, parents and other
involved actors include individual plans specifying students’ needs and development objectives.
In the Netherlands, ESL policy includes monitoring as a means for early signalling of dropping out
from school. INCLUD-ED underlined that collaboration between different actors is important for
dealing with EWS effectively (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008a). As schools often receive public
funding for EWS, they tend to adapt a broader policy framework designed by local, regional and/or
national governments. In addition, this early detection is at least partially performed by
governmental agencies when extra funding for schools depends on the number of students at risk.
RESL.eu suggested that schools must be capable of interpreting risk factors and applying adequate
measures when designing and implementing early warning systems. Crucially this capacity
requires the professionalisation of teachers and proper support for them and addressing
emotional well-being as well as educational achievement, truancy and transgressive behaviour.
EWS sometimes consider only students with academic or behavioural problems to be at risk and
overlook others with emotional difficulties. It is recommended that the efficiency of EWS should
be evaluated according to the intervention measures that are developed to address low levels of
pupils’ cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement (Nouwen et al., 2015).
4.1.6. Targeted support
Targeted support refers to any kind of school-level measures aimed at improving the performance
of children who need additional support (for example, with behavioural problems). It can consist
of tutoring and assistance with homework for underperforming children, teaching assistants and
individualised support for children with special needs, social skills training, peer mentoring,
language and culture clubs, and so on (Coelho, 2012; Crone et al., 2003; Todd et al., 2008).
Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of targeted interventions in the context of
less frequent problematic child behaviour (Crone et al., 2003; Lewis and Sugai, 1999; Todd et al.,
2008). However, it should be emphasised that targeted support has to be well integrated so that
pupils do not feel singled out or discriminated against (Matsumoto, 2013). Below are several
examples of effective targeted support.
INCLUD-ED provided an example of all-day schools and open school systems targeting students
with learning difficulties. These schools provide educational programmes that serve as additional
support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. All-day schools practice extended school
hours allowing children to receive additional support through their family members and teachers;
they especially attract pupils with a migrant background, allowing them to receive language
courses and integrate more easily into regular classrooms (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007b).
Secondary schools offer learning mentors who provide individualised assistance to disadvantaged
students in order to meet their learning needs. Most often, parents and volunteering adults act as
learning mentors for foreign-speaking students and those with disabilities (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2008b).
Wider literature has demonstrated that learning the language of instruction has a crucial impact
on succeeding in and integrating into school (Verhoeven, 1998, in INCLUD-ED, 2007c). There is
strong evidence that children without the proficiency in the language of instruction are more likely
to be allocated to special education and to lower ability streams (European Commission, 2015c).
Language support programmes benefit migrant students as they tend to reduce the relative
underachievement of these students compared to their peers. The most commonly used methods
include reception classrooms, intensive language classes and transitional classes. Moreover,
teachers with an ethnic minority background are especially valuable as ‘cultural brokers’ and/or
bilingual teachers, as demonstrated by EDUMIGROM (Szalai, 2011a).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
56
Tutoring programmes are one of the main types of academic support measures directed at
students who need additional help to learn educational content. These include: catch-up classes
for general educational content; help with learning the language of instruction; assistance in
preparing homework; and support in preparing for state exams. According to RESL.eu, tutoring
programmes are an effective method to keep students’ academic competence at a satisfactory
level, nurture students’ attachment to school, reduce family stress, and advance skills and
attitudes that improve performance at school (Nouwen et al., 2015).
Socio-emotional and behavioural support improves students’ emotional well-being. RESL.eu
reviewed examples of such individual support that consisted of counselling, coaching and
mentoring. Findings suggested that in most schools using these methods, attention is primarily
focused on the most obvious symptoms, such as non-attendance, disruptive behaviour and
deteriorating study performance, while emotional and behavioural support remains marginal and
is often provided too late. Such responses could be described as punitive and stigmatising rather
than supportive. An active and supportive approach is considered to be most effective, as it seeks
to prevent motivational and behavioural problems. An important precondition for schools to offer
professional support is access to and availability of sufficient funding as well as a willingness on
the part of professional carers to build relationships of trust with students (Nouwen et al., 2015).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Schools that implement diversity-conscious policies and culturally sensitive curricula help
to enhance equal opportunities for more students, foster good relationships, and boost
positive self-identification of children from disadvantaged social backgrounds;
 Supplementary schools (extra-curricular education) have a positive effect on pupils’ well-
being, their development of identity and self-worth, and on their behaviour and
educational success in mainstream education;
 Heterogeneous groupings of students improve academic achievement and create a more
inclusive environment. The practice also supports students in obtaining better social skills
and nurtures a capacity to be more autonomous;
 Positive, stimulating and secure learning and teaching environments are important to
ensure students’ successful academic performance and overall well-being;
 Teachers’ beliefs, devotion, expectations and attitudes towards their students play a
crucial role in students’ achievements, perceptions of their school and overall social
integration;
 The school experience of students from migrant and/or minority backgrounds is strongly
influenced by the ethnic composition of the school staff. Ethnic minority teachers
facilitate integration and serve as role models for ethnic minority students;
 Innovative pedagogies and practices such as web-based, cooperative or learner-centred
approaches help to transform schools into learning communities and positively affect
children’s learning experiences and outcomes;
 The engagement of relevant stakeholders – including parents, civil society, public and
private sector organisations – in the learning process contributes to improving pupils’
learning experience and overall well-being;
 Early warning systems together with comprehensive systems of monitoring are effective
measures for tackling early school leaving because they concentrate on key indicators that
reflect student progress;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
57
 School-level policies and interventions aimed at improving the performance of children
who need additional support are made more effective by targeted support tools,
including: all-day and open schools, linguistic support, individualised support, tutoring
programmes, socioemotional and behavioural support.
4.2. Vocational, adult education and training, informal and non-
formal learning
This chapter focuses on the role and relevance of vocational education and training (VET), adult
education, and informal and non-formal forms of learning
20
for tackling the multiple aspects of
educational inequalities examined in this report.
4.2.1. Importance of quality VET
Vocational training systems have proven to have positive outcomes for the economy (Euler, 2013),
youth employment (Quintini, et al., 2007; Eurofound, 2012) and for students’ educational
outcomes (Alet and Bonnal, 2013), particularly for those facing or at risk of educational
underachievement (Ryan, 1998). EQUALSOC findings pointed out that VET enhances smoother
and faster labour-market integration in comparison to other academic forms of education. While
the merit of VET in facilitating school-to-work transitions has been proven (EQUALSOC Network,
2011), INCLUD-ED findings also suggested that by participating in vocational training, individuals
become more likely to return to education for further or higher qualifications (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2012c).
Nevertheless, vocational education and training faces a number of issues such as a lack of
attractiveness (Szalai, 2011a; Cedefop, 2014), high dropout rates, low attainment levels, social
exclusion and marginalisation (Ryan et al., 2014). In the last two decades, several EU Member
States have implemented reforms aimed at improving vocational training and making it more
attractive, for example by bringing vocational routes under the responsibility of schools; enriching
the VET curricula with academic subjects and hence moving towards convergence between
different educational tracks (Szalai, 2011a); or improving the teacher-student ratio (Ryan et al.,
2014).
Projects reviewed here have identified successful measures to support the quality of VET systems.
WORKABLE findings highlighted effective practices to support the reinsertion of job seekers into
the labour market in the context of the French continuous vocational training (CVT) system. In this
framework, learners participating in training courses have access to a return-to-work training
allowance, while individual employment contracts include a training component. Apart from CVT,
social insertion contracts aimed at long-term unemployed young people alternate periods of work
and training, which helps them to acquire a professional qualification and supports their
professional and social (re)integration (Lambert et al., 2010). These measures have enhanced the
efficacy of the French VET system, to support labour market and social inclusion, as well as to
improve its attractiveness for disadvantaged young people.
INCLUD-ED findings on vocational training schools demonstrated that inclusive educational
practices have a positive impact on learners’ academic results and social inclusion (INCLUD-ED
Consortium, 2008b; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2008c; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2011). VET
20
Definitions of non-formal and informal learning are available here: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-
projects/projects/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning/european-inventory/european-inventory-glossary.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
58
classrooms, characterised by heterogeneity of ability, ethnicity, gender, religion and social
background, help to foster inclusion and good results. Moreover, particularly effective practices
include promoting high expectations and supporting the belief that all students are capable of
achieving good results, encouraging an ethos of inclusion in schools, and empowering students in
school and classroom decision-making processes. Including multicultural perspectives in regular
and vocational training programmes also helped to enhance cross-cultural dialogue and build
cohesion in schools. Finally, effective inclusive practices include stimulating and supporting the
participation of girls and young women in technical vocational fields, promoting the participation
of female experts from all parts of the community, and raising awareness in favour of empowering
girls in vocational careers as well as among companies in technical and crafts-related fields.
4.2.2. Adult education and work-based learning
Adults with educational attainment below upper secondary level represent about a quarter of the
European adult population (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015). EQUALSOC findings
suggested that increasingly rapid technological and organisational changes, as well as the
instability of the European labour market, have highlighted the importance of updating skills and
maintaining employees’ learning capacity in order to avoid unemployment and socioeconomic
marginalisation (EQUALSOC Network, 2011). LLL2010 findings underlined the fact that in order to
facilitate access and participation, it is necessary to consider diverse forms of adult formal
education and take into account the particular situations and needs of adult learners (Saar and
Roosalu, 2011).
Evidence has shown that formal adult education can provide an avenue for low-qualified
employees to enter the labour market (Hefler, 2010) and demonstrated a link between continuing
training and more skilled work (Dieckhoff et al. 2007, in EQUALSOC Network, 2011). Lifelong
training has positive outcomes on employability and employees’ skills and creativity (Studená et
al., 2015). In addition to providing individuals with relevant skills, lifelong learning at the workplace
and adult learning in general contribute to social and labour inclusion (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2012c; Saar and Roosalu, 2011), promote access to promising educational pathways such as higher
education for employees (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012c) and facilitate upward social mobility,
particularly when combined with other sources of ‘competitive advantage’, such as a combination
of work-based competencies and educational attainment (LLL2010; see Hefler, 2010).
There are various compensation measures aimed at creating opportunities for those who left
education and training prematurely but want to gain qualifications at a later stage in their life.
They are intended to create second-chance learning opportunities, develop tailored activities
focusing on the reintegration of young adults into mainstream education, or offer a combination
of work-education programmes (Clycq et al., 2014). Decentralised learning institutions such as
community-based lifelong learning centres are effective types of outreach measures aimed at
reaching disadvantaged or marginalised communities and individuals (LLL2010 Project
Consortium, 2011; Saar and Roosalu, 2011). The development of integrated and strategic outreach
policies by schools and formal education institutions has been identified as a good practice for
reaching and recruiting socioeconomically marginalised adult learners. Moreover, organisational
support for formal adult education is directly influenced by the established learning culture: the
cultural dimensions of a workplace can determine the opportunities for learning, contributing to
the performance of the enterprise and to well-being of the employees (LLL2010, see Hefler, 2010;
Saar and Roosalu, 2011).
Another category of measures is aimed at promoting adult learning and targets migrants.
Introductory programmes, including language courses, cultural skills and assistance in entering

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
59
the labour market, have proved to be useful tools to allow migrants to develop their skills, improve
their learning careers, increase their employability and integrate into society (Hefler et al., 2010;
Kallas et al., 2011; Sarin and Fangen, 2011). In some cases, such measures are aimed at both
migrants and employers, for example through tax incentives. INCLUD-ED findings showed that
training activities promoted by public employment agencies or provided in the workplace can also
support migrants in participating in vocational training, finding work opportunities, reducing
prejudice and improving cultural understanding (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012b; 2012c).
Strategies providing free learning at flexible times, delivering preparation for admission, and
modular courses have helped parents from disadvantaged and/or migrant groups to be more
involved in their children’s education (LLL2010, see Saar and Roosalu, 2011). Moreover,
INCLUDED-ED findings illustrated that programmes promoting the participation of the whole
family in the learning process, literacy and health literacy, have a positive impact on parents’
professional opportunities, interest and aspirations in education, and social cohesion in general
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012b; 2012c).
4.2.3. Informal and non-formal learning
While some projects have shown that informal and non-formal learning activities can enhance
skills and promote creativity, others underlined the capacity of informal and non-formal learning
to promote active citizenship, social inclusion and reduce early school leaving. Research has shown
that informal and non-formal learning is quantitatively more important than formal learning in
many EU countries (Korpi and Tahlin, 2009, in EQUALSOC Network, 2011; Ederer et al., 2015) and
leads to the development of new forms of work organisation based on high-performance work
practices that emphasise employee involvement and development. Informal learning has a strong
impact on the skills level of jobs (EQUALSOC Network, 2011), employability, job security and wage
levels (Ederer et al., 2015). LLLIGHTinEUROPE results demonstrated that socially mediated,
informal work-related learning activities such as learning-by-doing, vicarious (or indirect) learning,
experimental learning and action learning lead to a high level of engagement in innovative
behaviour. Findings highlighted the importance of investing in programmes focused on the specific
workplace in order to trigger employee-driven innovation and entrepreneurship. Research
findings have also shown that since most non-formal learning takes place in the workplace with
the financial and non-financial support of employers, effective policy measures in this area need
input from, and coordination with, employers (Studená et al., 2015). The learning and
entrepreneurial orientations of an organisation, as well as flat hierarchies and a high degree of
autonomy for employees, are key drivers for innovation (Ederer et al., 2015).
Engagement in non-formal and informal learning is linked with active citizenship in society and
democratic life, and serves as a key bridge towards social inclusion (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2012c; LLL2010 Project Consortium, 2011; SI-DRIVE, 2015; YiPPEE, see Jackson and Cameron,
2011). Individuals can participate in informal learning through diverse activities such as sports,
social activities and voluntary work, as well as through various kinds of expressive arts.
Involvement in such activities leads to positive results for the participants’ learning identity, sense
of self-worth, participation in society and choice of formal learning programmes. Most
particularly, in the context of activities aimed at disadvantaged youth, informal learning can
compensate for their lack of opportunities and enable them to gain skills, knowledge and useful
networks, as demonstrated by LLL2010 (Downes, 2011; Jackson and Cameron, 2011). In Belgium,
non-formal learning activities have aimed to bring various learning opportunities as close as
possible to low-skilled and unskilled adults through decentralised courses, and by involving
community leaders and networks in order to reach marginalised communities more effectively
(Downes, 2011).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
60
The non-formal educational sector can indeed be a key bridge towards social inclusion for those
traditionally alienated from the formal educational system, thanks to a more inclusive and flexible
learning environment (LLL2010 Project Consortium, 2011). By emphasising personal and
community development, as well as by training community leaders to be organisers and tutors
themselves, non-formal learning can offer an opportunity for adult learners to gain academic,
professional and social confidence and can represent a key space for nurturing motivation and
moving forward into the formal education system. Community-based non-formal learning in local
and decentralised lifelong learning centres can play a key role in supporting underprivileged
learners in gaining access to education. Non-formal learning can help individuals access
opportunities to obtain recognition for previously-acquired skills, gain experience and knowledge,
access outreach initiatives and education relevant to their emotional development. Finally, non-
formal learning can build bridges towards access to formal education: evidence shows that
participating in non-formal learning can enhance motivation and eagerness to join a formal
education programme (LLL2010, see Downes, 2011; Saar and Roosalu, 2011).
Lessons for policy and practice
 Lifelong learning often does not sufficiently attract or reach out to adults with lower skills
or from disadvantaged backgrounds;
 Greater access to lifelong learning positively influences employability and the development
of relevant competences among adults with low skills, no formal qualifications, or from
disadvantaged backgrounds;
 Adult learning is beneficial for social cohesion and provides a basis for upward social
mobility by promoting access to further educational pathways;
 Income can be a significant barrier to participation in vocational and tertiary education,
especially amongst the lower-paid;
 To better facilitate access and participation, it is necessary to consider diverse forms of adult
formal education and take into account the particular circumstances and needs of adult
learners;
 Informal and non-formal learning activities that are provided in an inclusive and flexible
environment enhance skills and serve as a key bridge towards social inclusion;
 Lifelong learning programmes provided at specific workplace can trigger employee-driven
innovation and entrepreneurship. This underlines the importance that the engagement of,
and coordination with, employers for the development of effective policy measures may
have in this area.

Chapter 5. Cross-sectoral synergies
Inequalities and disadvantages in educational opportunities can be explained by the interplay of
personal, social, cultural and economic factors that reveal the need for cross-sectoral approaches
linking education and training with employment, social inclusion, youth, health, and migration
policies (European Commission, 2006a). More than purely educational interventions, cross-
sectoral strategies are likely to successfully tackle poverty, inequality and related aspects of
disadvantage (European Commission, 2006b).
5.1. Links between education and training and the labour market
Numerous projects have underlined the links and mutual influence existing between education
and training and labour market policies (EQUALSOC Network, 2011; Parreira do Amaral et al.,
2013; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a; Holford et al., 2007; Ryan et al., 2014). Research has
demonstrated that education and training policies tend to focus on employability and labour
market integration as a way to develop a highly skilled workforce as well as to support social
inclusion (Horemans and Marx, 2013; Holford et al., 2007; Saar and Roosalu, 2011; Ryan et al.,
2014).
National education and training policies, as well as local practices across the EU, have also aimed
to develop better and closer relations between key stakeholders in education and training and
employment with a view to providing learners with relevant training and employment
opportunities. The participation of key stakeholders and their mutual collaboration is a major
criterion for the success of VET, work-based learning (European Commission, 2015a) and lifelong
learning. LLLIGHTinEUROPE findings highlighted the role of employers by pointing out that the
financing of continuing education at work is almost exclusively provided by the private sector,
which tends to see public policy measures to encourage lifelong learning at the workplace as
neither efficient nor well targeted (Cort et al., 2015). The project also suggested that cooperation
between employers and education and training institutions has a particularly positive impact on
helping to generate beneficial knowledge exchange and dynamic skills development (Ederer et al.,
2015). Likewise, LLL2010 and LLLIGHTinEUROPE findings demonstrated that, by ensuring multi-
stakeholder forms of collaboration in the design, governance and implementation of VET and adult
learning, the quality of the training is strengthened, education and training needs are better
identified, and programmes are customised to make learning valuable to both employers and
employees and better enforce workers’ rights to continual participation in lifelong learning (Saar
and Roosalu, 2011; Ederer et al., 2015; Cort et al., 2015; Council of the European Union, 2015).
5.2. Links between education and training and the labour market
Research findings and policy documents have demonstrated the need for cross-sectoral
approaches and cooperation between stakeholders at all levels to link education and training with
broader social policies in order to address social exclusion effectively (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2012a; Edwards and Downes, 2013).
INCLUD-ED findings demonstrated the importance of a comprehensive approach to education and
social policy by establishing successful cross-sectoral actions to tackle social exclusion, such as
training for health literacy in schools and communities and projects for social housing combining
actions that facilitate access to housing and the empowerment of vulnerable groups and students
(INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012c). INCLUD-ED underlined two key criteria for the implementation
of successful educational actions: 1) to accompany them with actions in other social areas that
have improved conditions for vulnerable groups in terms of access to employment, housing, social
and political participation, and 2) to engage all involved agents in the decision-making process,
including end-users from vulnerable groups. Such ‘integrative actions’ have succeeded in
promoting the social cohesion and educational inclusion of vulnerable groups by allowing them to

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
62
contribute to solving problems faced by the entire community (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2012a).
Further evidence demonstrated that, by intervening in educational institutions, inter-professional
teams of key stakeholders including teachers, social workers, school health workers and police
officers have been crucial in providing vulnerable students with support that schools alone cannot
offer (Edwards and Downes, 2013). Strategies to counter early school leaving have also integrated
social dimensions of education and training through the engagement of stakeholders to make
early signalling and prevention of drop out more effective through remediation responses
addressing young people’s problematic relationships with schooling (Ryan et al., 2014) or tackling
the discrimination of children and young people (Araújo et al., 2014).
Research projects highlighted the contribution of education and lifelong learning to other areas of
social policy such as poverty reduction. SI-DRIVE findings listed successful examples of cross-
sectoral cooperation where education and lifelong learning act as cross-cutting enabling factors
in VET programmes integrating economic and social responsibility (SI-DRIVE, 2015). In another
example, YIPPEE findings highlighted the importance of cooperation between schools and social
services in the area of education and public care to improve support for students with special
needs and social disadvantages (Casas and Montserrat Boada, 2010).
Other findings demonstrated that there is a lack of multi-stakeholder, multi-level and inter-
institutional cooperation, and of horizontal strategies spanning various fields in the development
of effective policy responses to tackle social and educational inequalities (Szalai, 2011a; KATARSIS,
2009; Warzywoda-Kruszyńska et al., 2006; Casas and Montserrat Boada, 2010). In an example
from Sweden, YIPPEE findings revealed a shared perception among stakeholders that there is a
need for increased cooperation between schools and social services (Casas and Montserrat Boada,
2010), while PROFIT drew attention to the perceived lack of cooperation by stakeholders in the
design and implementation of local and national educational and social policies (Warzywoda-
Kruszyńska et al., 2006).
While specific educational measures have direct links to social policies in general, they can be
particularly important in relation to health, housing and nutrition issues. Ensuring the satisfaction
of basic human needs like nourishment, healthcare and access to shelter can represent a
precondition for schools to keep students on track and successfully support their educational
attainment. RESL.eu findings illustrated examples of national and local education authorities
implementing school-based interventions and cross-sectoral partnerships to provide schools and
students with resources to support basic needs such as free meals in schools, allowances for study
materials and clothing, and access to after-school study facilities (Nouwen et al., 2015).
Several projects have also shown evidence of the importance of cross-sectoral strategies linking
education and training with civic participation and integration (EUMARGINS; LLL2010; INCLUD-
ED). LLL2010 findings demonstrated that, in a number of EU countries, education policies are often
connected with migration and integration policies, in order to improve social cohesion and
enhance the employability of migrants and ethnic minorities. Lifelong learning activities targeted
at migrants and minorities can take the form of language courses, which have proved to be
effective in facilitating communication and the integration of ethnic minorities and migrants, thus
increasing social cohesion overall (Holford et al., 2007).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
63
Lessons for policy and practice
 National policies and local practices that develop better and closer relations among key
stakeholders in the areas of education and employment can provide learners with
increasingly relevant training and employment opportunities;
 The inclusion of stakeholders in the design, governance and implementation of VET and
adult learning improves the quality of training;
 Cross-sectoral approaches and cooperation between stakeholders at all levels to link
education and training with broader social policies have enabled social exclusion to be
addressed more effectively;
 Cross-sectoral strategies that link education and training with civic participation,
migration and integration policies have been successful in increasing social cohesion and
enhancing the employability of migrants and ethnic minorities.
Chapter 6. Conclusions: What can countries do to
tackle educational disadvantage and social
exclusion? Gaps and potential for future research
Inequalities persist in European education systems, with severe consequences for individuals, for
the economy and for social cohesion. A learner’s socioeconomic background remains the strongest
determinant of educational success or failure in all Member States and levels of education. Disability,
ethnicity, migrant or minority status, gender, age, sexual orientation, geographic location and other
factors also impact strongly on people's educational opportunities, learning experiences and
outcomes. Whole social groups or sub-sets of the population persistently achieve less well in
education – often despite the presence of policy initiatives that are designed to redress inequities.
Overall, the research projects reviewed here suggested that tackling educational disadvantage
implies a shift of resources and opportunities towards the more disadvantaged regions, communities
and schools. However, many of the solutions do not imply extra costs. The European and
international evidence shows that countries with higher equity in their education systems tend to:
allocate resources more equitably across schools, often through targeted funding to particular
areas;
make relatively weak links between an individual’s background and his/her trajectory in
education;
provide support to those who need it in order to succeed in education;
have systems where quality and equality are not in tension;
report high rates of tertiary qualifications among adults;
spend a relatively high proportion of GDP on education and training, with teacher salaries
roughly equivalent to that of the average of all graduate occupations.
In addition, the research has revealed that:
high equity countries do not operate a policy of sorting young people into separate educational
tracks, or uses the practice of repeating periods of study (grade repetition) to address individual
low attainment;
they have well-established monitoring systems which can link participation and outcomes for
disadvantaged groups and effectively monitor inequalities in education;

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
64
they have policy evaluation tools to pin down ‘what works’ best in education policy and
practice;
they apply different interventions at different points in the educational career to help tackle
educational disadvantage.
In the light of the above, the findings of the research projects reviewed reveal that education
policies can contribute to the reduction of poverty, inequality and social exclusion through:
1. Measures to widen access and prevent drop-out of disadvantaged learners
Research projects reveal that earlier educational attainment as well as initial academic
achievements influence early school leaving, attitudes towards achieving secondary education,
and participation in formal adult education. Moreover, educational inequalities have significant
societal implications. Low educational attainment can result in greater levels of unemployment,
income inequality, low economic growth and the disengagement of vulnerable groups within the
society. These findings highlight the need to widen access to high quality education for all learners
and ensure that all learners receive equal opportunities to realise their potential and attain a
higher level of education. An important first step to tackling educational disadvantage is routine and
accurate monitoring of educational participation and outcomes. At present very few EU Member
States have mature monitoring systems that collect data on all phases of education and training and
can link the data to track progress over time in terms of participation and attainment of
disadvantaged groups
21
.
Some of the strategies to ensure equal access to high quality education and prevent early school
leaving include:
increasing the participation of disadvantaged children in quality early childhood education and
care (ECEC);
eliminating ‘dead-ends’ in upper-secondary level and providing more flexible, permeable and
diversified learning pathways and access routes into post-compulsory and further learning;
providing specific outreach strategies and/or positive discrimination measures in favour of
under-represented groups;
practicing early warning systems such as individual learning plans or quantitative monitoring
that incorporates early detection and constant monitoring ;
eliminating school segregation and promoting mixed school intakes by introducing sensitive
admission policies which take into account the ethnic and social composition of school districts;
offering meaningful and attractive second chance opportunities to benefit from education and
training;
tackling cultural prejudices in curricula and making the curriculum content more relevant to
particular cultural groups, so that it is not mono-ethnic or discriminatory;
strengthening the links between school and home and helping disadvantaged parents/families
help their children to learn and to succeed;
developing monitoring frameworks, complemented by specific targets for under-represented
groups, are an essential part of such policy measures.
2. Measures to prepare and ensure high quality professional workforce
21
The 2010 Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training highlighted the need to enhance the
monitoring of educational outcomes of disadvantaged learners.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
65
The projects reviewed emphasised the need to better prepare the education workforce for equity,
diversity and inclusion. Teaching in multicultural and challenging socioeconomic settings is one of
the priority areas where teachers themselves across Europe report the highest need for
professional development. Yet, most often training for diversity is either not available or not
mandatory.
There is strong evidence that good teachers, trainers, school leaders and support staff make a
significant difference to educational attainment. Teachers are the single most important in-school
factor in improving student engagement and achievement so their initial education, continuing
professional development but also their deployment must be an important element in improving
the outcomes for disadvantaged learners. The research also confirmed that the presence of
teachers from diverse backgrounds and under-represented groups positively influences the
educational experiences and self-esteem of students from such groups.
Some of the strategies used to improve the quality of the teaching workforce against education
poverty include:
recruitment of teachers/trainers who themselves are members of disadvantaged groups, to
better reflect the diversity of the student population;
explicitly defining competences in teaching disadvantaged groups as a necessary skill for all
teachers;
reinforcement of the sociological, socio-psychological and socio-educational inputs into teacher
education and training to make teachers more aware of the specific difficulties facing
disadvantaged learners and of their needs;
identifying the teaching methods that are most effective at increasing motivation and
augmenting attainment of disadvantaged learners and ensuring that these are disseminated
through professional development programmes.
3. Measures to delay academic selection and abolish grade repetition and promoting continuity of
learning process
The streaming pupils into different ability groups has declined over the years, but is now more
highly concentrated in schools serving disadvantaged populations. Students allocated to lower-
stream classes experience a climate of low expectations and negative student-teacher interaction,
and are much more likely to leave school early. Early separation of pupils into different educational
tracks increases inequality in achievement. When children are separated into different types of
schools at an early age, some may end up in schools that do not enable access to further
education. At present, several EU Member States still have selection into tracks or schools with
differentiated curricula at a relatively early age. This leads to substantial and needless
social/ethnic segregation between schools. In addition, several Member States still practice grade
repetition for weaker students, who also tend to come from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
The evidence shows that this is ineffective and can have a long-term damaging impact.
Some of the strategies used to smoothen the transitions between different education levels and
grades include:
the transitions between early childhood education and care (ECEC) and primary schools can be
smoothed by facilitating collaboration between ECEC educators and primary school teachers,
ensuring curricula continuity, and by organising school visits for kindergarten-age children;
postponing the age of tracking is a measure recommended to ensure the continuity of the
education process, especially for socially disadvantaged students. In early tracking systems,

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
66
increasing opportunities to change tracks and ensuring high-quality curricular standards across
tracks can facilitate transitions.
4. Other strategies that are shown to help tackle educational disadvantage and to foster inclusion
Schools with a high number of students from under-represented/disadvantaged groups should
receive more resources such as higher salaries for teachers, more material resources, or extra
teachers from under-represented groups. Schools should be incentivised and rewarded
according to the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds that they admit and lead
to successful completion.
Schools should be able to provide additional support to the children who need it, to help them
succeed. Such support should be provided in a way that does not stigmatise disadvantaged
students. This can take the form of linguistic support for learners with a migrant and/or minority
background, individualised learning support, tutoring programmes, and/or socio-emotional
and behavioural support.
Good quality initial VET enhances labour market integration and facilitates access to tertiary
education and further learning. This is particularly important for learners from disadvantaged
groups. Countries should develop clear and diverse pathways through VET to further and
learning and employment. The attractiveness and quality of VET can be increased by improving
the permeability between general education and VET, updating curricula to focus on learning
outcomes and in the planning and delivery of professional development for teachers. The
quality and relevance of such programmes can also be enhanced by encouraging stakeholder
partnerships (for example with businesses and regional authorities) at a regional and local level.
The inclusion of stakeholders in the design, governance and implementation of VET and adult
learning improves the quality of the training by better identifying education and training needs
in relation to business development needs in order to make learning valuable for both
employers and employees. Inclusive practices in VET, such as enriching the curricula with
broader academic knowledge, promoting heterogeneous and mixed-ability classrooms,
improving the student-teacher ratio and the participation of girls and young women, all help
tackle the lack of attractiveness of VET, high dropout rates, low attainment levels, social
exclusion and marginalisation.
Adult education enhances learners’ employability, skills, creativity and attitudes to learning.
Greater access to lifelong learning is crucial for the low skilled and disadvantaged. Accessible,
affordable and flexible study programmes should be supported to help increase participation
in adult education. Financial barriers are often a bottleneck to accessing non-compulsory
education, particularly for learners from a disadvantaged background. Lifelong learning
programmes provided at the workplace can trigger employee-driven innovation and
entrepreneurship. The development of effective policy measures in this area requires that
coordination with employers and their engagement should be ensured. Decentralised
community-based learning institutions such as community lifelong learning centres help reach
disadvantaged or marginalised communities and individuals. Individual employment contracts
that include a continuous training component can support the (re)integration of disadvantaged
and/or long-term unemployed young people.
For individuals who are traditionally alienated from the formal education system, such as
newly-arrived migrants, refugees, long-term unemployed or prisoners, informal and non-
formal learning can be a bridge to social inclusion and civic participation. Measures to provide
recognition of non-formal and informal learning, and the implementation of frameworks for
qualifications and monitoring, are necessary to ensure equality and quality in adult learning.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
67
Education policy alone cannot change society. Cross-sectoral strategies are more likely to be
successful in tackling poverty and inequalities than isolated single-policy interventions. Difficult
thought they may be to implement, coordinated cross-sectoral synergies linking education and
training with employment, youth, health, migration, housing, welfare and other policies may
offer the best approach to preventing or mitigating the impact of multiple and cumulative
disadvantage on people's educational experiences and life chances. The increased
fragmentation of education systems has led to an unclear division of responsibilities and
ineffective implementation of national strategies, particularly in areas that are cross-sectoral
by nature, such as the education of children in care, formal and non-formal adult education, or
VET.
Education policy needs to cater for diversity and enable all learners to succeed in education
and to develop their full potential, irrespectively of their background and according to their
specific learning needs. Schools should promote inclusive education and avoid segregation,
providing adequate support to those who need it. Curricula and pedagogies should be inclusive
and flexible (and where necessary individualised) to respond to the diverse needs of learners
and to use learner diversity as a resource. Curriculum content should be relevant to the various
cultural groups, so that it is not mono-ethnic or discriminatory.
Introductory programmes aimed at migrants, including language courses and assistance in
entering the labour market, help improve their learning outcomes, increase their employability
and promote their integration into society. Continuous support for the language of instruction
and mother tongue, as well as teaching approaches that use different languages in the
classroom, are effective tools for engaging children speaking different languages at home and
promote the self-esteem necessary for academic success.
Parents are key to enhancing their children’s educational attainment. However, evidence
reveals that disadvantaged parents do not engage consistently in the education of their children
or lack the tools to do so. Dedicated programmes of family education that promote the
participation of the whole family in the learning process help improve parents’ literacy,
professional opportunities and aspirations in education. Schools should engage parents in
school projects and activities. This could take the form of one-to-one teacher-parent meetings,
if necessary with the help of intermediary workers having special knowledge of specific ethnic
communities. Local community centres can serve as effective platforms for communication
with parents.
An adequate level of autonomy enables municipalities and schools to be innovative and flexible
in addressing specific learner needs. Introduction of greater school autonomy should be linked
to systems of accountability and quality assurance. Participatory governance methods involving
collaboration between key stakeholders should be promoted in order to ensure better
flexibility for schools and improve their preparedness to monitor disadvantages and provide
effective responses. Such collaboration is facilitated by regional agreements that foresee
educational interventions and include specific policy goals.

Gaps and potential for future research
The European research projects reviewed in this report highlight a number of potential areas of
inquiry for future research and provide specific suggestions on data collection and study design.
Several of the projects suggested that a more comprehensive, routine collection of comparable data
and the existence of monitoring frameworks across EU Member States could help advance the
knowledge base and contribute to better policy. Recognising the patterns of inequality is a key step
to tackling them. An important first step to improving equity is routine and accurate monitoring
of educational participation and outcomes of disadvantaged groups, including at the local and
regional level
22
. EQUALSOC emphasised that research on inequalities in educational attainment by
class, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background and cultural resources in the parental family
would be greatly improved by collecting more data on the social origins of respondents (EQUALSOC
Network, 2011). RESL.eu highlighted the scarcity of cross-national survey data on the background
characteristics, aspirations and attitudes of schoolchildren, and in particular early school leavers
(Kaye et al., 2014). Researchers involved in the YIPPEE project suggested that a system of common
indicators should be established to gather information on the educational attainment and academic
performance of young people from public care backgrounds (Casas and Montserrat Boada, 2010).
LLL2010 called for the development of surveys that operationalise and apply a common definition
of formal adult education (and of an adult learner), and thus imply the creation of both a common
indicator for participation and new classifications for lifelong learning (Saar and Roosalu, 2011).
INCLUDE-ED, LLLIGHTinEUROPE, RESL.eu, and YIPPEE emphasised the need for more rigorous policy
evaluation to help improve equity in education (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2007a; Wiederhold, 2015;
Ryan et al., 2014; Casas and Montserrat Boada, 2010). The projects underlined that rigorous
evaluation of the impact of reforms and interventions aiming to improve equity in education and
training systems is necessary to assess their effectiveness in achieving their objectives
23
. They
argued that cooperation at EU-level could help to promote evidence-based policy and practice.
Other projects (CARE, EQUALSOC and INCLUDE-ED) underlined the lack of comparative
longitudinal surveys (LLL2010) and called for more longitudinal studies.
When discussing future research needs in terms of specific thematic areas, the project teams
considered that more and better research is required on the competences of the educators with
regard to a number of themes: improvement of the outcomes of early childhood education and
care (CARE); the effect of work-family policies on the use of public child care among vulnerable
groups (COPE); the effect of ethnic school segregation on educational inequalities (EUMARGINS);
closer links between schools and communities that promote integration and social cohesion
(INCLUDE-ED); how training structures compare to ad-hoc training arrangements in enterprises
(LLLIGHTinEUROPE); the characteristics of carers and the impact of their attitudes on the
educational pathways of young people in public care (YIPPEE) among others.
Finally, several projects expressed the need to investigate further the importance of individual
characteristics with regard to educational outcomes and social cohesion. For instance,
LLLIGHTinEUROPE and EQUALSOC highlighted the potential of studying the relationship between
cognitive and non-cognitive abilities and educational success, occupational attainment and
lifelong learning (Ederer et al., 2015; EQUALSOC Network, 2011). More should be done when
measuring the effects of age and prior educational attainment on adult skills formation and
participation in formal adult education (Ederer et al., 2015; Saar and Roosalu, 2011; Brännlund et
al., 2012).
22
The 2010 Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training highlighted the need to enhance the
monitoring of educational outcomes of disadvantaged learners.
23
It should be noted that none of the projects systematically review impact evaluations or other studies of an evaluative
character.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
69
 Further research and policy would benefit from routine collection across EU Member
States of standardised data on participation and outcomes of disadvantaged groups in
education. This would advance the knowledge base and enable cross-country comparison
and peer-learning. Monitoring frameworks, complemented by specific targets for under-
represented groups, are essential for improving equity.
 It is important to rigorously evaluate the impact of reforms and interventions aimed at
improving equity in education and training systems, in order to assess their effectiveness.
 The methodologies used in research projects often lack a longitudinal element in their
research designs; support and funding of European research projects that include
longitudinal data analysis should be encouraged.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
70
REFERENCES
Aikens, N. L.; Barbarin, O., ‘Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood,
and school contexts’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 2008, pp. 235-251.
Akgündüz, Y. E.; Ünver, Ö.; Plantenga, J.; Nicaise, I., The Socio-Economic Dimension of Early Childhood Education and
Care in Europe, CARE Deliverable 5.1, Utrecht University, 2015.
Alein, C. et al., ‘Quality of research design moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta-analytic,
multilevel analysis’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 2009, pp. 480–499.
Alet, E.; Bonnal, L., ‘L’apprentissage: un impact positif sur la réussite scolaire des niveaux V’, Economie et Statistique,
No 454, 2013, pp. 3-22.
Allmendinger, J.; Ramot, M.; Keraudren, P.; Lemaire, C., An ever closer union among the peoples of Europe? Rising
inequalities in the EU and their social, economic and political impacts: Outcomes of EU–funded research, European
Commission Policy Review, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015.
Altinyelken, H. K.; Aro, M.; Boron, F.; Demozzi, S.; Julkunen, I.; Mellottee, L.; Robertson, S. L.; Taddia, F.; Treptow, R.,
Coping and Support in Educational Transitions, GOETE Work package No. 8, University of Helsinki, University of
Amsterdam, 2012.
Araújo, H. C.; Rocha, C.; Macedo, E.; Magalhães, A.; Oliveira, A., Formulation of a Common Working Definition of ESL:
International Contributions, Reducing Early School Leaving in Europe (RESL.eu), Project Paper 1, University of Porto,
2013.
Araújo, H. C.; Rocha, C.; Magalhães, A.; Macedo, E., Policy Analysis on Early School Leaving (ESL) - Portugal, RESL.eu
Working Paper 1, University of Porto, 2014.
Archer, L.; Halsall, A.; Hollingworth, S., ‘Class, gender, (hetero)sexuality and schooling: paradoxes within working class
girls' engagement with education and post-16 aspirations’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2), 2007.
Ballarino, G.; Bogliacino, F.; Braga, M.; Bratti, M.; Checchi, D.; Filippin, A.; Maestri, V.; Meschi, E.; Scervini, F., Drivers of
Growing Inequalities, GINI Intermediate Work Package 3 Report, University of Amsterdam, 2012.
Ballas et al., Mind the gap: education inequality across EU regions, NESSE report, European Commission, 2012.
Banerji, A.; Huidan Lin, H. and Saksonovs, S., Youth Unemployment in Advanced Europe: Okun’s Law and Beyond, IMF
Working Paper No. 15/5, 2015.
Barone, C.; Schizzerotto, A., Introduction: Career mobility, education, and intergenerational reproduction in five
european societies, European Societies, 13, 3, 2011.
Beblavỳ, M.; Maselli, I.; Veselkova, M., Let’s Get to Work! The Future of Labour in Europe, NEUJOBS, Vol. 1, Centre for
European Policy Studies (CEPS), 2014.
Becker, B., ‘Who profits most from early parental investments? The effects of activities inside and outside the family on
German and Turkish children's language development’, Child Indicators Research, 3 (1), 2010, pp. 29-46.
Bennett, J., ECEC for Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds: Findings from a European Literature Review and Two
Case Studies, EC DGEAC, Brussels, 2012.
Bishop, R., ‘Diversity and educational disparities’. In OECD, Educating Teachers for Diversity, OECD Publishing, 2010, pp.
119-135.
Blanden, J.; Gregg, P.; Machin, S., Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America, Report for Sutton Trust, 2005.
Boeren, E.; Nicaise, I.; Baert, H., 'Adult learners' satisfaction and its relation to characteristics of the individual and the
educational institution', Pedagogies, Vol 7, No 2, 2012, pp. 132-149.
Boeren, E.; Roosma, E.-L.; Saar, E.; Nicaise, I., Adult learners in formal adult education: experiences and perceptions,
LLL2010 Subproject 3 Comparative Report, Tallinn University, 2011.
Bourdieu, P., ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’. In: Brown, R. (ed.), Knowledge, Education, and Social
Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education, Tavistock, London, 1973.
Bourdieu, P., Practical reason: on the theory of action, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1998.
Bourdieu, P.; Passeron, J.C., Reproduction in Education and Society, Sage, London, 1977.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
71
Braga, M.; Checchi, D.; Meschi, E. F., Institutional Reforms and Educational Attainment in Europe: a long run perspective,
GINI Discussion Paper 22, University of Amsterdam, 2011.
Brandsma, J., Education, equality and social exclusion, European Commission Project Final Synthesis Report, DG-
Research, 2002.
Brännlund, A.; Egdell, V.; Ekbrand, H., et al., A Comparison of Effects on Capabilities in Transitions to The Labour Market,
WorkAble, Work Package 5 Final Report, 2012.
Brunello, G.; Checchi, D., ‘Does School Tracking Affect Equality of Opportunity? New International Evidence’, Economic
Policy, Vol 22, 2007, pp. 781–861.
Burchinal, M. R.; Cryer, D., ‘Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes’, Early childhood research
quarterly, 18(4), 2003, pp. 401-426.
Bynner, J.; Egerton, M., The Wider Benefits of Higher Education, Higher Education Funding Council For England, London,
2001.
Bynner, J.; Feinstein, L., ‘The importance of developmental trajectories in mid-childhood: effects on adult outcomes in
the UK 1970 Birth Cohort’, Child Development, 75, 2004, pp. 1329-1339.
Caena, F., Initial teacher education in Europe: an overview of policy issues. Prepared for European Commission based on
Eurydice data, 2014.
Camilleri-Cassar, ‘Youth’, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education, INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2007, pp. 188-215.
CARE, The relations between structural quality and process quality in European early childhood education and care
provisions: Secondary analyses of large scale studies in five countries, CARE Deliverable 2.2, Utrecht University, 2015.
Casas, F.; Montserrat Boada, C., Young People from a Public Care Background: establishing a Baseline of Attainment and
Progression beyond Compulsory Schooling in Five EU countries, YiPPEE Consolidated Report, Work Packages 3 and 4,
University of London, 2010.
Cedefop, Attractiveness of Initial Vocational Education and Training: Identifying What Matters, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014.
Chetty, R.; Friedman, J. N.; Hilger, N.; Saez, E.; Schanzenbach, D. W.; Yagan, ‘How does your kindergarten classroom
affect your earnings? Evidence from Project Star’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 2010, pp. 1593-1660.
Clycq, N.; Nouwen, W.; Timmerman, C., Theoretical and methodological framework on Early School Leaving, RESL.eu
Project Paper 2, University of Antwerp, 2014.
Coelho, E.; Language and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms: A Practical Approach, Multilingual Matters, 2012.
Coleman, J. S., ‘Family, school, and social capital’. In Saha, L.J. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of
education, Oxford, Pergamon, Oxford, 1997.
Coleman, J. S., Parental involvement in education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C., 1991.
Corluy, V.; Verbist, G., Can education bridge the gap? Education and the employment position of immigrants in Belgium,
ImPRovE Discussion Paper No. 14/02, University of Antwerp, 2014.
Cort, P.; Holford, J.; Larson, A.; Melo, S.; Studena, I.; Tota, P. M., Public policies to support lifelong learning among
company employees, LLLight’in’Europe Policy Brief, Zeppelin University, 2015.
Council of the European Union, ‘Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation
in education and training (‘ET2020’)’, 2009/C, 119/02, 2009.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XG0528(01)&from=EN
Council of the European Union, ‘Council conclusions on early childhood education and care: providing all our children
with the best start for the world of tomorrow’, 2011/C, 175/03, 2011a. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011XG0615(04).
Council of the European Union, ‘Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training’, 2010/C 135/02,
2010a. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:135:0002:0007:EN:PDF.
Council of the European Union, ‘Council conclusions on the social dimension of higher education’, 2013/C, 168/02,
2013a. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2013:168:FULL&from=EN.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
72
Council of the European Union, ‘Council recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the member
states’, Employment, Social policy, Health and Consumer affairs Council meeting, 9 and 10 December, 2013b.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/139979.pdf.
Council of the European Union, ‘Council recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving’, 2011/C, 191/01,
2011b. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:191:0001:0006:en:PDF.
Council of the European Union, ‘Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006
on key competences for lifelong learning’, 2006/962/EC, 2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:c11090.
Council of the European Union, ‘Riga Conclusions 2015. On a new set of medium-term deliverables in the field of VET
for the period 2015-2020, as a result of the review of short-term deliverables defined in the 2010 Bruges Communiqué’,
2015. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/2015-riga-conclusions_en.pdf.
Council of the European Union, Breaking the cycle of disadvantage – The role of education in combating poverty,
inequality and social exclusion, Presidency discussion paper, 2010b.
Creese, A.; Baraç, T.; Bhatt, A.; Blackledge, A.; Hamid, S.; Wei, L.; Lytra, V.; Martin, P.; Wu, C. J., Investigating
multilingualism in complementary schools in four communities: Final Report, RES-000-23-1180, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, 2008.
Crone, D. A.; Horner, R. H.; Hawken, L., Responding to problem behavior in the school: The behavior education program,
New York, Guilford, 2003.
Cuaresma, J. C. et al., ‘Age-Specific Education Inequality, Education Mobility and income Growth’, 2013.
https://epub.wu.ac.at/4716/1/WWWforEurope_WPS_no006_MS15.pdf.
Dale, R.; Parreira do Amaral, M.; Amos, K.; Treptow, R.; Barberis, E.; Kazepov, Y., Governance of Educational Trajectories
in Europe. Comparative Report High-Level Governance, Governance of Educational Trajectories in Europe (GOETE),
GOETE Working Paper, Bristol, University of Bristol, Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Urbino, University of Urbino,
Frankfurt, University of Frankfurt, 2012. http://goete.eu/download/cat_view/69-working-papers.
Dee, T., ‘Are There Civic Returns to Education?’, Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2004, pp. 1697-1720.
Dehmel, A, ‘Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality? Some Critical Reflections on the European Union’s
Lifelong Learning Policies’, Comparative Education, Vol 42, No 1, Special Issue (31): European Union Education and
Training Policy, 2006, pp. 49-62.
DG RTD, FP7 projects on Youth, Education, Families, Poverty and Social Innovation, European Commission List of FP7
Projects, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2014.
Downes, P., A Systems Level Focus on Access to Education for Traditionally Marginalised Groups in Europe: Comparing
Strategies, Policy and Practice in Twelve European Countries, Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The
Contribution of the Education System (LLL2010), LLL2010 SP5 Comparative Report, Tallinn, 2011.
Driessen, G., ‘Ethnicity, Forms of Capital, and Educational Achievement’, International Review of Education, 47, 2001,
pp. 513–537.
Dronkers, J.; Korthals, R., Tracking, schools’ entrance requirements and the educational performance of migrant
students, ImPRovE Discussion Paper No. 15/08, University of Antwerp, 2015.
Dryden-Peterson, S., ‘Refugee Education. A global Review’, UNHCR, 2011. http://www.unhcr.org/4fe317589.html.
Duncan, G. J.; Magnuson, K., ‘Investing in Preschool Programs’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 2013, pp. 109-
131.
Dutton, D. H.; Dutton, D. L., ‘Technology to support diverse needs in regular classes’. In: W. Stainback; S. Stainback (eds.),
Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1990, pp.
167–183.
Ebersold, E.; Schmitt, M. J.; Priestley, M., Inclusive Education for Young Disabled People in Europe: Trends, Issues and
Challenges, Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED), VT/2007/005, 2011. http://www.disability-
europe.net/content/aned/media/ANED%202010%20Task%205%20Education%20final%20report%20-
%20FINAL%20%282%29_0.pdf.
Ederer, P.; Brandi, U.; Iannone, R. L., LLLight’in’Europe Lifelong Learning Innovation Growth & Human Capital Tracks in
Europe, LLLIGHTinEUROPE Synthesis Report, Zeppelin University, 2015.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
73
Edwards, A.; Downes, P., Alliances for Inclusion. Cross-sector policy synergies and inter-professional collaboration in and
around schools. An independent report authored for the European Commission on behalf of the NESET network of
experts, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/neset_en.pdf.
EENEE, ‘The economic case for education’, 2014. http://www.eenee.de.
Elbers, E., ‘Learning and social interaction in culturally diverse classrooms’, International Handbook of Psychology in
Education, 2010, pp. 277–318.
Engle et al., Child development in developing countries: 3 Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more
than 200 million children in the developing world, Lancet, 2007, pp. 229–42.
EQUALSOC Network, Final Activity Report, Network of Excellence ‘Economic Change, Quality of Life and Social Cohesion’
(EQUALSOC), Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, 2011.
Euler, D., Germany’s Dual Vocational Training System: A Model for Other Countries?, A study commissioned by the
Bertelsmann Stiftung, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gutersloh, 2013.
Eurofound, Effectiveness of Policy Measures to Increase the Employment Participation of Young People, Study prepared
by GHK Consulting for Eurofound, Eurofound, Dublin, 2012.
Eurofound, Third European Company Survey. Overview report: Workplace practices – Patterns, performance and well-
being, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2015.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Efficiency and
equity in European education and training systems, (COM(2006) 481 final), 2006a.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament: Efficiency
and equity in European education and training systems, Commission staff working document, (COM(2006) 481 final,
SEC/2006/1096), 2006b.
European Commission, Education & Training 2020. Schools Policy: a whole school approach to tackling early school
leaving. Policy messages, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Brussels, 2015b.
European Commission, Education and Training Monitor 2015, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
2015a.
European Commission, Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Commission Recommendation,
(COM(2013) 778 final), 2013a.
European Commission, Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe, Eurydice and Eurostat Report,
European Commission, Brussels, 2014b.
European Commission, Language teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms, Directorate-General for Education
and Culture, Brussels, 2015c.
European Commission, Migration & mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems, Green Paper,
SEC(2008) 2173, (COM/2008/0423 final), 2008. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0423:FIN:EN:PDF.
European Commission, New priorities for European cooperation in education and training, Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions. Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic
framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020), {SWD(2015) 161 final}, Brussels, 2015d.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/et-2020-draft-joint-report-408-2015_en.pdf.
European Commission, PISA 2012: EU performance and first inferences regarding education and training policies in
Europe, 2013b.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/pisa2012_en.pdf.
European Commission, Study on the effective use of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in preventing early school
leaving (ESL), Final report prepared by PPMI for European Commission, 2014a.
European Commission, Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support, Final Report of the Thematic
Working Group on Early School Leaving, 2013c.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, Adult Education and Training in Europe: Widening Access to Learning
Opportunities, Eurydice Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2015.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
74
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, Tackling early leaving from education and training in Europe:
Strategies, policies and measures, Eurydice and Cedefop Report, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European
Union, 2014.
European Council, Joint Report 2015, 2015. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2015.417.01.0025.01.ENG.
European Parliament, Dual Education: A Bridge over Troubled Water?, Report prepared by ICF International for the
European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, European Parliament, Brussels, 2014.
Eurostat, ‘Disability statistics - labour market access’, 2015a. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Disability_statistics_-_labour_market_access.
Eurostat, ‘Employment and unemployment (LFS)’, 2011-2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database.
Eurostat, ‘Young people neither in employment nor in education and training by sex, age and labour status (NEET rates)’,
Labour Force Survey, 2015b.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database.
Eurydice, ‘Responsibilities and teacher autonomy’, 2008.
http://www.sac.smm.lt/images/13%20Vertimas%20SAC%20Teacher_autonomy_Euridyce_%20Anglu%20kalba.pdf.
Eurydice, Funding of Education in Europe 2000-2012: The Impact of the Economic Crisis. Eurydice Report. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2013.
Eurydice, Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in
Europe, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2010.
Eurydice, National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results, EACEA, Eurydice, 2009.
Evans, D.; Gillan-Thomas, K., Supplementary Schools, Descriptive analysis of supplementary school pupils’ characteristics
and attainment in seven local authorities in England, 2007/08— 2011/12, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 2015.
Fangen, K., On the Margins of the European Community – Young Adults of Ethnic Minority Background in Seven European
Countries, EUMARGINS Final Report, University of Oslo, 2011.
Federighi, P., Adult and continuing education in Europe: using public policy to secure a growth in skills, European
Commission Report, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2013.
Feinstein L.; Sabates, R., Education and Youth Crime: Effects of Introducing the Education Maintenance Allowance
Programme, Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 14, 2005.
Flabbi, L., Gender Differentials in Education, Career, Choices and Labour Market Outcomes on a Sample of OECD
Countries, Mimeo, 2011.
Frazer, H.; Marlier, E., Tackling child poverty and promoting the social inclusion of children in the EU Key lessons:
Synthesis Report, Social Protection Committee, DG Employment, Brussels, 2007.
Gangl, M., Education and Labour Market Entry across Europe : The Impact of Institutional Arrangements in Training
Systems and Labour Markets, Education at a Glance, No. 25, OECD, Paris, 2005.
Gay, G., ‘Classroom practices for teaching diversity’. In OECD, Educating Teachers for Diversity. OECD Publishing, 2010,
pp. 257–279.
Gennaioli, N; La Porta, R.; Lopez-de-Silanes, F.; Shleifer, A., ‘Human capital and regional development’, Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 128, No. 1, 2013, pp. 105-164.
Giannetti, M.; Federici, D.; Raitano, M., Does Migration Help Reducing Inequality and Social Exclusion?, INEQ Working
Paper n. 118, Sapienza University of Rome, 2009.
GINI, Summary of Results, GINI Dossier of Results, University of Amsterdam, 2013.
Güntner, S.; Gehrke, A.; Seukwa, L., Local matters? Neighbourhoods and social infrastructure as spaces of reproducing,
producing, mitigating or counteracting social inequalities in 10 European cities, Combating Inequalities through
Innovative Social Practices of and for Young People in Cities across Europe (Citispyce), Fieldwork I: Final Comparative
Report, Work Package 3, HAW Hamburg, 2014.
Hall, R., The work-study relationship: experiences of full-time university students undertaking part-time employment.
Journal of Education and Work 23(5), 2010.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
75
Hayes, A., ‘Transition to School: Position Statement’, Charles Sturt University, 2011.
http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/research-groups/etc/alb-trans-statement-AHayes.pdf
Hefler, G., The qualification-supporting company–The Significance of Formal Adult Education in Small and Medium
Organisations, LLL2010 Subproject 4 Comparative Report, Danube University Krems, 2010.
Hefler, G.; Róbert, P.; Ringler, P.; Sági, M.; Rammel, S.; Balogh, A.; Markowitsch, J., Formal Adult Education in Context:
The View of European Statistics, LLL2010 Subproject 2: Synthesis Report, Danube University Krems, 2010.
Holford, J.; Riddell, S.; Weedon, E., Lifelong Learning: Patterns of Policy in Thirteen European Countries. A Review of
Lifelong Learning Policy and Practices in Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, England, Estonia, Flanders, Hungary,
Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Scotland, Slovenia, Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The Contribution
of the Education System (LLL2010), LLL2010 SP1 Comparative Report, Working Paper No 16, Tallin, 2007.
Horemans, J.; Marx, I., In-work poverty in times of crisis: do part-timers fare worse?, ImPRovE Discussion Paper No.
13/14, University of Antwerp, 2013.
Hussain, A.; Higson, H., Citispyce: Combating Inequalities through Innovative Social Practices of and for Young People in
Cities across Europe, CITISPYCE Fieldwork II: Final Comparative Report, Work Package 3, Aston University, 2014.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Actions for success in schools in Europe, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe
from Education (INCLUD-ED), European Commission, Brussels, 2009a.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Case studies of local projects in Europe (1st Round), INCLUD-ED Deliverable 22.6: Working
Papers, University of Barcelona, 2007.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Contributions of local communities to social cohesion, INCLUD-ED Report 9, University of
Barcelona, 2012a.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Educational practices in Europe. Overcoming or reproducing social exclusion?, INCLUD-ED
Report 3, University of Barcelona, 2008b.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Effective educational practices at a secondary educational level. Project 2: European effective
educational practices: how is education contributing to overcome or reproduce social exclusion?, Strategies for inclusion
and social cohesion in Europe from Education (INCLUD-ED), CREA, Centre of Research in Theories and Practices that
Overcome Inequalities, Universitat de Barcelona, 2008a.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Final INCLUD-ED Report, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from Education
(INCLUD-ED), Final Report, CREA, Centre of Research in Theories and Practices that Overcome Inequalities, Universitat
de Barcelona, 2012a.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Intersection between educational policies and other areas of social policy, INCLUD-ED Project 5
Work Package 18, University of Nottingham, University of Barcelona, 2011.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Report 1: Review of the literature on educational reforms, theories and policy developments in
Europe, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from Education (INCLUD-ED), WP1, European Commission,
Brussels, 2007a.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Report 2: Theories, reforms and outcomes in European educational systems, Strategies for
inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from Education (INCLUD-ED), D.4.1., CREA, Centre of Research in Theories and
Practices that Overcome Inequalities, Universitat de Barcelona, 2007b.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Structural elements, actions of social agents and policies that connect social exclusion/inclusion
with educational exclusion/inclusion, INCLUD-ED Report 8, University of Barcelona, 2012c.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education, 2007c, pp. 188-215.
INCLUD-ED Consortium, Working papers: Case studies of local projects in Europe, Strategies for inclusion and social
cohesion in Europe from Education (INCLUD-ED), D.22.6, Working Paper, CREA, Centre of Research in Theories and
Practices that Overcome Inequalities, Universitat de Barcelona, 2010.Jackson, S.; Cameron, C., Final report of the YiPPEE
project, Young People from a Public Care Background: Pathways to Education in Europe (YiPPEE), WP12, 2011.Jackson,
S.; Cameron, C., Final report of the YiPPEE project, Young People from a Public Care Background: Pathways to Education
in Europe (YiPPEE), WP12, 2011.
Jackson, S.; Cameron, C., Unemployment, education and social exclusion: the case of young people from public care,
YiPPEE Presentation, University of London, 2009.
Jacob, B.; Lefgren, L., ‘The Effect of Grade Retention on High School Completion’, American Economic Journal of Applied
Economics, 1(3), 2009, pp. 33–58.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
76
Jacob, M.; Reimer, D., Differentiation in Higher Education and its Consequences for Social Inequality, EQUALSOC Policy
Brief No. 9, University of Mannheim, Aarhus University, 2015.
Jensen, B.; Iannone, R. L., Comparative review of professional development approaches, CARE Deliverable 3.1, Utrecht
University, 2015.
Kahlenberg, R. D., ‘Combating School Segregation in the United States’. In: Bekker, J.; Denessen, E.; Pteres, D.; Walraven,
G. (eds), International perspectives on countering school segregation, Garant, Antwerp, Apeldoorn, 2011, pp. 13-32.
Kallas, K.; Fangen, K.; Sarin, T., EUMARGINS EU Policy Report, On the Margins of the European Community: Young Adults
with Immigrant Background in Seven European Countries (EUMARGINS), Department of Sociology and Human
Geography, University of Oslo, 2011.
KATARSIS, Tackling Social Exclusion through Social Innovation: Strategy Research Options, Growing Inequality and Social
Innovation: Alternative Knowledge and Practice in Overcoming Social Exclusion in Europe (KATARSIS), European Policy
Brief, European Commission, Brussels, 2009.
Kaye, N.; D’Angelo, A.; Ryan, L.; Lőrinc, M., Early School Leaving in the European Union: Data Availability and Reporting,
Reducing Early School Leaving in Europe (RESL.eu), Project Paper 3, Middlesex University, Social Policy Research Centre
(SPRC), 2014.
Kaye, N.; D’Angelo, A.; Ryan, L.; Lorinc, M., Students’ Survey (A1): Preliminary analysis, RESL.eu Project Paper 5,
Middlesex University, 2015.
Kaylor, M.; Flores, M. M., ‘Increasing academic motivation in culturally and linguistically diverse students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds’, Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 2008, pp. 66-89.
Knijn, T., ‘Three policy paradigms and EU policies on young adults’. In Knijn, T. (ed.), Work, family policy and the
transition to adulthood in Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 2012, pp. 17-38.
Kogan, I., The role of immigration policies for immigrants’ selection and economic success, ImPRovE Discussion Paper
No. 15/05, University of Antwerp, 2015.
Korpi, T.; Tahlin, M., ‘Educational Mismatch, Wages and Wage Growth: Overeducation in Sweden, 1974-2000’, Labour
Economics, Vol 16, 2009, pp. 183-193.
Krzypniak, R., ‘Niepowodzenia szkolne mlodzieży społecznie niedostosowanej [School underachievement of socially
maladjusted youth]’. In Horyzonty edukacji w dialogu i perspektywie [Horizons of educationin dialogue and in
perspective], 2011, Diffin, Warszawa, 2011, pp. 213-225.
Kutsar, D.; et al., Report on top level political and social actors interviews, PROFIT, Volume of the European Studies on
Inequalities and Social Cohesion, University of Lodz, 2006.
Lambert, M.; Marion, I.; Valette, A.; Vero, J.; et al., Educational, Vocational and Policy Landscapes in Europe: An
Institutional Mapping, WorkAble 3rd Workshop Related Papers, Bielefeld University, 2010.
Leicester, M., Creating an Inclusive School, Continuum, London, New York, 2008.
Lewis, T. J.; Sugai, G., ‘Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management’, Effective
School Practices, 17, 1999, pp. 47–53.
LLL2010 Project Consortium, Final Policy Briefing Paper. European Policy Brief, Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in
Europe: The Contribution of the Education System (LLL2010), Deliverable 30, 2011.
Looney, J. W., Assessment and Innovation in Education, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing, 2009.
Machin, S. et al., Education and Mobility, Center for the Economics of Education, 2008.
Mägi, E.; Siarova, H., Migrant education opportunities in the Baltic States: strong dependence on the level of school
preparedness, Praxis Center for Policy Studies, 2014.
Martin, P.; Creese, A.; Bhatt, A.; Complementary schools and their communities in Leicester, Final report to the ESRC,
Leicester, University of Leicester, 2003.
Matsumoto, M., Education and Disadvantaged Children and Young People, Bloomsbury, A&C Black, 2013.
Maylor, U.; Rose, A.; Minty, S.; Ross, A.; Issa, T.; Kuyok, K. A., Exploring the impact of supplementary schools on Black
and Minority Ethnic pupils’ mainstream attainment, British Educational Research Journal, 39, 1, 2013.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
77
Melhuish, E.; Ereky-Stevens, K.; Petrogiannis, K.; Ariescu, A.; Penderi, E.; Rentzou, K.; Tawell, A.; Leseman, P.;
Broekhuisen, M., A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) on child development,
Utrecht University, 2015.
Meschi, E.; Scervini, F., Expansion of schooling and educational inequality in Europe: the educational Kuznets curve
revisited, GINI Discussion Paper 61, University of Amsterdam, 2012.
Morgan, P. L.; Farkas, G.; Hillemeier, M. M.; Maczuga, S., ‘Risk factors for learning-related behavior problems at 24
months of age: Population-based estimates’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 2009, pp. 401-413.
Moss, P. (Ed.), Early Childhood and Compulsory Education Reconceptualising the relationship, Routledge. 2013.
Moulaert, F.; MacCallum, D.; Mehmood, A.; Hamdouch, A., Social Innovation: Collective action, social learning and
transdisciplinary research, KATARSIS WP5 Methodology Development and Final Report: Towards a Handbook,
Newcastle University, 2010.
NESSE, A smart social inclusion policy for the EU the role of education and training, Paper for distribution at the Belgian
EU Presidency conference on education and social inclusion, Ghent, 2010b.
NESSE, The dark side of the whiteboard: education, poverty, inequalities and social exclusion, Paper for distribution at
the Belgian EU Presidency conference on education and social inclusion, Ghent, 2010a.
NESSE, The Challenge of shadow education, An independent report prepared for the European Commission by the NESSE
network of experts, 2011.
Nicaise, I., A smart social inclusion policy for the EU the role of education and training, Paper for distribution at the
Belgian EU Presidency conference on education and social inclusion, Ghent, 2010.
Nouwen, W.; Clycq, N.; Braspenningx, M.; Timmerman, C., Cross-case Analyses of School-based Prevention and
Intervention Measures, RESL.eu Project Paper 6, University of Antwerp, 2015.
Nusche, D., What Works in Migrant Education? A Review of Evidence and Policy Options, OECD Education Working Paper
No. 22, 2008.
OECD and European Commission, Indicators of immigrant integration 2015: Settling in, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/.
OECD, Economic Policy Reforms 2010: Going for growth, OECD Publishing, 2010a.
OECD, Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD
Publishing, Paris, 2010c. http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/44575633.pdf.
OECD, Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, 2012a.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.
OECD, Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012b.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en.
OECD, Off to a good start? Jobs for youth, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2010b.
OECD, PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices, (Volume IV), PISA report,
OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013c.
OECD, Report on the Gender Initiative: Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship, OECD
Publishing, Paris, 2011. http://www.oecd.org/education/48111145.pdf.
OECD, OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, 2013a.
OECD, TALIS 2013 results: an international perspective on teaching and learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014.
Ontario Ministry of Education, Promoting Positive School Climate, A Resource for Schools, Queen’s Printer for Ontario,
2013.
Paasche, E.; Fangen, K., Policy Brief No. 4: Ethnic School Segregation: Effects and Policies, On the Margins of the
European Community: Young Adults with Immigrant Background in Seven European Countries (EUMARGINS),
EUMARGINS Policy Brief, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, 2011.
Parreira do Amaral, M., Walther, A., Litau, J., Final Report: Access, Coping and Relevance of Education for Young People
in European Knowledge Societies in Comparative Perspective, Governance of Educational Trajectories in Europe
(GOETE), GOETE Final Report, University of Frankfurt, 2013.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
78
Parreira do Amaral, M.; Litau, J.; Cramer, C.; Kobolt, A.; Loncle, P.; McDowell, J.; Mellor, D.; Mellottée, L.; Muniglia, V.;
Ule, M.; Walther, A.; Zivoder, A., Governance of educational trajectories in Europe, GOETE Working Paper 1: State of the
Art Report, University of Frankfurt, 2011.
Perrons, D.; Plomien, A., Why socio-economic inequalities increase? Facts and policy responses in Europe, European
Commission Report, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2010.
PROFIT, Briefing Paper: Dissemination Conference 12-14th April 2007, Policy responses overcoming factors in the
intergenerational transmission of inequalities (PROFIT), University of Lodz, 2007.
Quintini, G.; Martin, J. P.; Martin, S., The Changing Nature of the School-to Work Transition Process in OECD Countries,
IZA Discussion Paper, No. 2582, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Bonn, 2007.
Rinne, R.; Aro, M.; Järvinen, T.; Tikkanen, J.; Buchowicz, I.; Fedorczuk, M.; Bledowski, P.; Parreira do Amaral, M.; Walther,
A., The view from the principal’s office: The opinions of principals from 8 European countries compared, Governance of
Educational Trajectories in Europe (GOETE), Comparative analysis institutional survey (Work Package Nr. 5), University
of Turku, Warsaw School of Economics, University of Frankfurt, 2012.
Ryan, L.; Lorinc, M.; D’Angelo, A.; Kaye, N.; Araujo, H. C.; Magalhaes, A.; Rocha, C.; Macedo, E.; Szalai, J.; Kende, A.,
Policies on Early School Leaving in nine European countries: a comparative analysis, Reducing Early School Leaving in
Europe (RESL.eu), Working Paper, University of Antwerp, 2014.
Ryan, P., ‘Is Apprenticeship Better? A Review of Economic Evidence’, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol 50,
No 2, 1998, pp. 289-329.
Saar, E.; Roosalu, T., Results from multilevel mixed methods analysis of different aspects in learning as an adult in Europe,
Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The Contribution of the Education System (LLL2010), LLL2010 Integrated
report, Working Paper No 77, Tallin, 2011.
Safe Schools Action Team, Shaping a culture of respect in our schools: Promoting safe and healthy relationships, Safe
Schools Action Team Report, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008.
Salverda, W.; Nolan, B.; Checchi, D.; Marx, I.; McKnight, A.; Tóth, I. G.; van de Werfhorst, H., Changing inequalities in
rich countries: analytical and comparative perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.
https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GsbRAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22changing+inequalities+in+ri
ch+countries%22&ots=c0xJLtkevY&sig=kmBrtu4n0BQRFQIeFY-ZoWi8wlk.
Sarin, T.; Fangen, K., Barriers or Bridges? EUMARGINS - on the margins of the European community, EUMARGINS
Newsletter, Vol. 3, University of Oslo, 2011.
Savage, M.; Warde, A.; Devine, F., ‘Capitals, assets and resources: Some critical issues’, British Journal of Sociology,
56(5), 2005, pp. 31–48.
Schindler, S.; Reimer, D., Differentiation and social selectivity in German higher education, Springer Higher Educ, 2010.
Schmid, G., New skills and jobs in Europe: Pathways towards full employment, European Commission Report,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2012.
SI-DRIVE, State Of The Art: Social Innovation in Education and Lifelong Learning, Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social
Change (SI-DRIVE), Deliverable 4.1, Technical University of Dortmund, 2015.
Simon, P., ‘France and the unknown second generation: Preliminary results on social mobility’, International Migration
Review, 37(4), 2003, pp. 1091-1119.
Soto Calvo, E. et al., Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-Scale
Assessments in Education, 2015. https://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/JRC95601.pdf.
Stauber, B.; Parreira do Amaral, M., Access and Education: Inequality and Diversity. Executive Summary, Governance of
Educational Trajectories in Europe (GOETE), GOETE Thematic Working Papers, 2013.
Studená, I.; Lubyova, M.; Babos, P., Lifelong Learning is a growing factor in employability, LLLIGHTinEUROPE Policy Brief,
Zeppelin University, 2015.
Sylva, K.; Ereky-Stevens, K.; Aricescu, A.-M., Overview of European ECEC curricula and curriculum template, CARE
Deliverable 2.1, University of Oxford, 2015.
Szalai, J., Contested issues of social inclusion through education in multiethnic communities across Europe, EDUMIGROM
Final Report, Central European University, 2011a.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
79
Szalai, J., Ethnic differences in education and diverging prospects for urban youth in an enlarged Europe, EDUMIGROM
Deliverable 10: Comparative Report on Educational Policies for Inclusion, Work Package 4, Central European University,
2011b.
Szalai, J.; Messing, V.; Nemenyi, M., Ethnic and Social Differences in Education in a Comparative Perspective,
EDUMIGROM Comparative Papers, Central European University, 2010.
Thomas, J.; Harden, A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews, BMC medical
research methodology, 8, 1, 2008.
Tierolf, B.; Nederland, T., Exclusion and Inclusion in Education and Training, KATARSIS WP1 Executive Summary,
Newcastle University, 2007.
Todd, A. W.; Campbell, A. L.; Meyer, G. G.; Horner, R. H., ‘The Effects of a Targeted Intervention to Reduce Problem
Behaviors Elementary School Implementation of Check In–Check Out’, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
January 2008, vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 46-55.
Tumino, A., The effect of local labour market conditions on educational choices: a cross country comparison, ImPRovE
Discussion Paper No. 13/06, University of Antwerp, 2013.
Warzywoda-Kruszyńska, W.; et al., Report on top level political and social actors interviews, PROFIT, Volume of the
European Studies on Inequalities and Social Cohesion, University of Lodz, 2006.
Wei, L., ‘Complementary schools, past, present and future’, Language and Education: An International Journal, 20, 2006,
pp. 76-83.
Wiederhold, S., Macroeconomic Growth and Lifelong Learning, LLLIGHTinEUROPE Thematic Report, Zeppelin University,
2015.
Wiederhold, S.; Woessmann, L., European economies benefit greatly from a higher-skilled workforce, LLLIGHTinEUROPE
Policy Brief, Zeppelin University, 2015.
Woessmann, L.; Hanushek, E. A.; Zhang, L., General Education, Vocational Education, and Labor-Market Outcomes over
the Life-Cycle, CESifo Working Paper No. 3614, Ifo Institute, 2012.
Woodhead, M.; Moss, P., Early Childhood and Primary Education, Early Childhood Education in Focus 2: Transitions in
the Lives of Young Children, The Open University, Walton Hall, 2007.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
80
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: List of FP6 and FP7 research projects reviewed
No.
Project title
Short title
Duration
Coordinating institution24
Website
Final Report
1
Policy Responses Overcoming Factors in the
Intergenerational Transmission of Inequalities
(FP6*)
PROFIT
2004-2007
Institute of Sociology, University of Łódź, PL
http://www.profit.uni.
lodz.pl/
Not available on the project website
2
Economic change, quality of life and social
cohesion (Network of excellence) (FP6)
EQUALSOC
2005-2010
Stockholm University, SE
Not available
Not available on the project website
3
Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe:
the contribution of the education system
(FP6)
LLL2010
2005-2011
Institute for International
and Social Studies, Tallinn
University, EE
http://lll2010.tlu.ee
http://lll2010.tlu.ee/publications/proje
ct-reports/lll2010-working-
papers_77_integrated-report.pdf/view
4
Inequality: mechanism, effects and policies
(FP6)
INEQ
2006-2008
Interuniversity Research Centre on the
Welfare State (CRISS), University of Siena, IT
http://www2.warwick
.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/re
search/projects/ineq/
Not available on the project website
5
Growing Inequality and Social Innovation:
Alternative Knowledge and Practice in
Overcoming Social Exclusion in Europe (FP6)
KATARSIS
2006-2009
Global Urban Research Unit (GURU),
Newcastle University, UK
http://katarsis.ncl.ac.
uk
Not available on the project website
6
Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in
Europe from education (FP6)
INCLUD-ED
2006-2011
Center of Research in Theories and
Practices that Overcome Inequalities
(CREA), University of Barcelona, ES
http://creaub.info/incl
uded/about/
http://creaub.info/included/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/D25.2_Final-
Report_final.pdf
7
Post-compulsory education for young people
with a public care institutions background
(FP7)
YIPPEE
2008-2010
Institute of Education, University of London,
UK
http://tcru.ioe.ac.uk/y
ippee
http://tcru.ioe.ac.uk/yippee/Portals/1/
Final%20Report%20of%20the%20YiPPE
E%20Project%20-
%20WP12%20Mar11.pdf
8
Ethnic Differences in Education and Diverging
Prospects for Urban Youth in an Enlarged
Europe (FP7)
EDUMIGROM
2008-2011
Center for Policy Studies, Central European
University, HU
http://www.edumigro
m.eu/
Not available on the project website
9
On the Margins of the European Community
Young adult immigrants in seven European
countries (FP7)
EUMARGINS
2008-2011
University of Oslo, NO
http://www.sv.uio.no/
iss/english/research/p
rojects/eumargins/
Not available on the project website
24
Information drawn from the websites of projects listed.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
81
10
Making Capabilities Work (FP7)
WORKABLE
2009-2012
Bielefeld Center for Education and
Capability Research, Bielefeld University, DE
http://www.workable
-eu.org/
http://www.workable-
eu.org/publications
11
Growing Inequalities' Impacts (FP7)
GINI
2010-2013
Amsterdam Institute for Advanced labour
Studies (AIAS), University of Amsterdam, NL
http://www.gini-
research.org
Not available on the project website
12
Governance of educational trajectories in
Europe: Access, coping and relevance of
education for young people in European
knowledge societies in comparative
perspective (FP7)
GOETE
2010-2013
Goethe University of Frankfurt, DE
http://www.goete.eu
http://www.goete.eu/download/worki
ng-papers?download=5:goete-project-
final-report-homepage-310713
13
Employment 2025: How will multiple
transitions affect the European labour market
(FP7)
NEUJOBS
2011-2015
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS),
BE
http://www.neujobs.e
u/
Not available on the project website
14
Combating Poverty in Europe (FP7)
COPE
2012-2015
Jean Monnet Centre for Europeanisation
and Transnational Regulations Oldenburg
(CETRO), University of Oldenburg, DE
http://cope-
research.eu
Not available on the project website
15
Lifelong learning, innovation, growth and
human capital tracks in Europe (FP7)
LLLight’in’Europ
e
2012-2015
Zeppelin University, DE
http://www.lllightineu
rope.com/research/
http://www.lllightineurope.com/filead
min/lllightineurope/download/LLLight_
SynthesisReport_20151029.pdf
16
Poverty Reduction in Europe: social policy and
innovation (FP7)
ImPRovE
2012-2016
Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy,
University of Antwerp, BE
http://improve-
research.eu/
Not finalised yet
17
Combating inequalities through innovative
social practices of, and for, young people in
cities across Europe (FP7)
CITISPYCE
2013-2015
Aston University, UK
http://www.aston.ac.
uk/lss/research/resea
rch-
centres/interland/citis
pyce/
Not available on the project website
18
Reducing early school leaving in the EU (FP7)
RESL.eu
2013-2018
Centre of Migration and Intercultural
Studies, University of Antwerp, BE
www.resl-eu.org
https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/projec
ts/resl-eu/publications/
19
Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact
Review of European ECEC (FP7)
CARE
2014-2016
Utrecht University, NL
http://ecec-care.org/
Not finalised yet
20
Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social
Change (FP7)
SI-DRIVE
2014-2017
Technical University of Dortmund (TUDO),
DE
http://www.si-
drive.eu/
Not finalised yet
Note: The review was implemented at December 2015. The project descriptions are presented in Annex 5.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
82
ANNEX 2: Scope, review method and limitations
Annex 2 discusses the process that authors followed in conducting collection and analysis of the project
materials, reviews the research methods employed by the selected projects and lists limitations, mainly
relating to the challenges faced in extracting relevant evidence-based findings.
Collection and analysis of key project documents
The selected research projects generated a considerable number of deliverables and publications, including,
among others, annual and final reports, background papers, case studies and synthesis reports, comparative
studies, literature reviews, theoretical and methodological reports, policy briefs, newsletters, publications
in journals, as well as books. Given this, the first step was to collect the most important and relevant
material. Several strategies were used for this purpose:
In May 2015 the research team reviewed project websites and downloaded all the available publications.
Nonetheless, for some projects the available material remained limited;
A request for support was made to acquire project deliverables uploaded on the internal online platform
administered by DG RTD; documents from several projects were provided in late May 2015;
A number of documents were acquired by contacting the project coordinators (CARE; EQUALSOC).
Overall, a database of over 450 documents was created.
The next step involved the initial review of the final project reports and policy briefs to extract basic
information about each project, and to prepare short summaries of policy-relevant research findings.
In the subsequent stage, the research team coded the gathered material using the Nvivo10 (QSR, 2016)
software package. An initial coding framework with pre-defined codes was developed on the basis of a
preliminary reading. It was later complemented with additional categories as they emerged from the project
materials. Thematic analysis was applied to extract, group and analyse the information.
All relevant project documents were reviewed and coded following the above-mentioned approach. In
addition, the authors complemented specific sections of the report with findings from wider research
literature, including previous reviews: available online (Allmendinger et al., 2015; Perrons and Plomien,
2010; Kutsar and Helve, 2012; Federighi, 2013; Schmid, 2012; Brandsma, 2002) or made accessible by the
EC (DG RTD, 2014).
Research designs employed by the projects included in the review
European research projects reviewed in this report followed various research strategies to arrive at their
conclusions. Generally, the methodologies employed entailed the following characteristics:
Projects frequently combined both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Although most of the
research projects followed this approach, a strategy of merging different methods of inquiry was
explicitly emphasised in EDUMIGROM, EUMARGINS, GOETE, INCLUD-ED, LLL2010, NEUJOBS, PROFIT,
RESL.eu, and WORKABLE;
Research designs encompassing case studies and subsequent cross-national comparison were often
applied for the purpose of examining a range of institutional settings. The cases observed diverged both
in terms of level and object of inquiry: for example, research projects entailed case studies of European
countries (CARE, GINI, YIPPEE, NEUJOBS), cities or municipalities (COPE, PROFIT), neighbourhoods
(CITiSPYCE), or schools (EDUMIGROM, GOETE, INCLUD-ED);

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
83
Several projects employed multidisciplinary perspectives, incorporating researchers and research
methods from various fields, including economics, sociology, political science, and psychology (GINI,
LLL2010, PROFIT).
The particular research methods used varied from project to project (see Annex 3 for more details). With
regard to data collection techniques, desk-based research was carried out by researchers in all the projects.
In addition, focus groups (LLL2010, INCLUD-ED, PROFIT, EDUMIGROM, IMPROVE, CITiSPYCE, RESL.eu) and
personal interviews (14 of the 20 projects reviewed; see Annex 3) were conducted, involving education
experts, policy-makers, young people or students, their parents or family members, educational staff, or
adult workers and their managers. With reference to personal interviews, there were, for example, 445 in
CITiSPYCE, 500 in EDUMIGROM, 200 in EUMARGINS, 781 in GOETE, 525 in INCLUD-ED, 789 in YIPPEE.
Participant observation and fieldwork was another qualitative research strategy employed (INCLUD-ED,
EDUMIGROM, EUMARGINS, CITiSPYCE). Observations were mostly carried out in educational settings,
including schools and classrooms.
Furthermore, surveys were carried out in 9 out of the 20 research projects reviewed. Among those in the
survey samples were young students in secondary education (5 086 in EDUMIGROM, 6 390 in GOETE),
young adults (1 680 in PROFIT), parents (about 2 500 in CARE, 3 290 in GOETE), educational staff (2 172 in
CARE, 984 in GOETE, approximately 900 in RESL.eu), policy-makers (277 in CARE), or other relevant actors.
Various survey strategies were employed: for instance, the EDUMIGROM team distributed questionnaires
in 287 classes at 105 schools (Szalai, 2011a); in order to introduce a longitudinal element, RESL.eu was
designed to run two student surveys with the same sample two years apart (Kaye et al., 2015). Cross-
nationally representative survey results were achieved by researchers from EQUALSOC, who co-designed a
special European Social Survey module on work, family and well-being in 2004 (EQUALSOC Network, 2011).
Across the research projects, collection techniques included, for example, postal, online and telephone
surveys, and face-to-face interviews.
In addition to data collection methods, research projects also utilised various data analysis methods (see
Annex 3). A significant proportion of the research projects reviewed existing literature and previous
findings. This often constituted an initial step in the research undertaken. In addition, several research
projects carried out content analysis of regional, national or EU-level policy and legal documents (CITiSPYCE,
COPE, EDUMIGROM, EUMARGINS, INCLUD-ED, YIPPEE, LLLIGHTinEUROPE, LLL2010, PROFIT, WORKABLE),
as well as education and training curricula (GOETE, CARE). Research teams also employed various methods
to analyse the quantitative data. Descriptive statistics applied in most of the projects (e.g. LLL2010, PROFIT,
KATARSIS, EDUMIGROM, YIPPEE, EUMARGINS, among others) referred to mapping, systematically
reviewing and presenting basic empirical information. At the same time, inferential statistics methods were
used to draw wider conclusions and generalisations about the populations observed.
Limitations
In distilling relevant and cogent findings from the projects reviewed, the authors of this report encountered
a number of challenges.
Some of the FP6 and FP7 projects reviewed were launched as early as 2004 (PROFIT) and 2005 (LLL2010;
EQUALSOC), while others were still being implemented at the time of the analysis (CARE, CITiSPYCE,
IMPROVE, NEUJOBS, RESL.eu, SI-DRIVE). Therefore, part of the evidence may not reflect the more recent
changes to the policy context.
This review is limited by the extent of the discussion on educational inequalities, which varied significantly
among the research projects. Notably, project materials covered a wider set of issues falling outside the
scope of the current review. Therefore it should not be considered comprehensive in tackling all existent
aspects of inequalities.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
84
Research projects did not cover all of the questions set for this review. Most of the deliverables did not
consider the transferability and sustainability of the policy measures overviewed; these issues are discussed
only to a limited extent in the current analysis.
It was often hard to judge which empirical data informed the statements provided in the project
deliverables. This made systematic assessment of the methodological rigour and the robustness of the
conclusions extremely difficult. In most cases, the authors of this review had to assume that research
findings were based on reliable empirical data.
None of the projects aimed to assess the impact of specific policies and practices on individual outcomes.
Neither did they systematically review impact evaluations or other studies of an evaluative character. Other
limitations related to research design and the scope of the selected projects included:
As a general rule, original survey findings stemming from the reviewed projects could not be generalised
as representative of the whole population.
Research projects included a limited number of countries in their sample. This enabled research teams
to provide richer data on specific cases, but limited the generalisability of findings in terms of all the
countries covered in this report.
Some of the projects reviewed encountered difficulties in acquiring primary data for their studies, which
may have lowered the general comparability of their outcomes (INCLUDE-ED, PROFIT).
The projects often reported difficulties in collecting comparable cross-country data due to the (uneven)
availability of national data, the differentiation of educational systems, and the low degree of
comparability of national qualifications (COPE, INCLUDE-ED, RESL.eu, EQUALSOC, LLL2010, WORKABLE,
YIPPEE).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
85
ANNEX 3: Data collection and analysis method
METHODS
LLL2010
(FP6)
INCLUD-ED
(FP6)
PROFIT
(FP6)
KATARSIS
(FP6)
INEQ
(FP6)
EQUALSOC
(FP6)
EDUMIGROM (FP7)
YIPPEE
(FP7)
EUMARGINS
(FP7)
GINI
(FP7)
1. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
1.1. DESK RESEARCH
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
1.2. FOCUS GROUPS
✓
✓
✓
✓
1.3. INTERVIEWS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
1.4. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION & FIELDWORK
✓
✓
✓
1.5. SURVEYS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2. ANALYSIS METHODS
2.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.2. METHODS OF INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.3. LITERATURE REVIEW
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.4. CONTENT ANALYSIS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
METHODS
GOETE
(FP7)
WORKABLE
(FP7)
COPE
(FP7)
IMPROVE
(FP7)
CITiSPYCE
(FP7)
RESL.eu
(FP7)
LLLIGHTinEUROPE
(FP7)
CARE
(FP7)
SI-DRIVE
(FP7)
NEUJOBS
(FP7)
1. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
1.1. DESK RESEARCH
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
1.2. FOCUS GROUPS
✓
✓
1.3. INTERVIEWS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
1.4. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION & FIELDWORK
✓
1.5. SURVEYS
✓
✓
✓
✓
2. ANALYSIS METHODS
2.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.2. METHODS OF INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.3. LITERATURE REVIEW
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
2.4. CONTENT ANALYSIS
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
86
ANNEX 4: Countries covered by individual projects
Pro-
ject
Country
involved
European Union (EU)
EFTA
Non-EU countries
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
NO
CH
AU
CA
CL
CN
EG
IN
JP
RU
TR
US
ZA
LLL2010
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
INCLUDE-ED
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
PROFIT
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
KATARSIS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
INEQ
+
+
+
+
+
+
EQUALSOC
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
EDUMIGROM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
YIPPEE
+
+
+
+
+
EUMARGINS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
GINI
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
GOETE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
WORKABLE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
COPE
+
+
+
+
+
IMPROVE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
CITiSPYCE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
RESL.eu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
LLIGHTinEurope
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
CARE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
SI-DRIVE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
NEUJOBS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Note: Country experts were taken into account while preparing the project list above.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
87
ANNEX 5: Descriptions of reviewed FP6 and FP7 research projects
1. PROFIT
PROFIT was an interdisciplinary research project devoted to studying the social inheritance of inequalities.
The main goal of this project was to inform policy by developing an integrated understanding of how a
knowledge-based society can promote the EU’s objectives of sustainable development, social and territorial
cohesion, and improved quality of life. The project focused on the interrelation between policies and
practices aimed at increasing social mobility, exercised at the national (society) and the local (community)
level. PROFIT employed a mixture of research methods to collect data about intergenerational transfer of
inequalities. These included the critical review of national scientific literature; secondary analysis of
quantitative data; analysis of policy documents, survey findings and media debates; in-depth interviews;
focus groups/vignettes; and surveys among young adults (24-29 years old) in eight European countries
(Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and the United Kingdom). The selected
countries represented different patterns of poverty and social problems contributing to intergenerational
inheritance of inequalities (IIofI).
Website: http://www.profit.uni.lodz.pl
2. EQUALSOC
EQUALSOC was a network created to mobilise and develop research expertise across Europe on economic
change, quality of life and social cohesion. Its aims were: a) to stimulate high-quality comparative European
research on social cohesion and its determinants; b) to encourage the development of additional research
centres; c) to provide infrastructure for training the rising generation of young researchers in the skills of
comparative research; and d) to facilitate access by policy makers and the wider research community to the
most recent studies. The partner organisations of the network came from 10 EU countries: Belgium, Estonia,
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The main
methods used in research projects under EQUALSOC were literature review; secondary analysis of data on
educational attainment, inequalities and employment outcomes; and cross-disciplinary comparative
analysis. The Network also organised research visits for young researchers from partner institutions, PhD
summer school, and methodology workshops.
3. LLL2010
The research project ‘Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The Contribution of the Education
System’ (LLL2010) investigated the reasons behind variations in the proportion of adults in learning between
European countries. The project focused on the contribution of education systems to the process of making
lifelong learning a reality and its role as a potential agency of social integration. The objectives of the
LLL2010 were: a) to develop and carry out a joint research agenda for the better understanding of the
tensions between the knowledge-based society, lifelong learning and social inclusion in the context of EU
enlargement and globalisation; b) to provide an empirically-based analysis of the adequacy of lifelong
learning policies in Europe and their implications for different social groups, especially for socially excluded
groups; c) to develop relevant policy proposals for lifelong learning strategies to reduce social exclusion at
the European and national level; and d) to identify the implications of those policy proposals on relevant
areas of social and economic policies. Researchers from 13 countries were involved in the project’s
activities. Project deliverables included a number of empirical studies using both qualitative and
quantitative methodology. The analysis was based on three levels: taking into account the macro-structural

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
88
factors and national policies, the meso-level institutional factors and actors’ motivations, and the micro-
level actions.
Website: http://lll2010.tlu.ee/
4. INEQ
The research project ‘Inequality: mechanism, effects and policies’ (INEQ) studied the causes, the
mechanisms, and possible solutions to economic and social inequality, both within and around Europe. It
brought together a consortium of seven European universities and research centres from Italy, France,
Spain, Germany, Poland and the UK. The project objectives were: a) to investigate the economic and social
mechanisms that produce polarisation and inequality within Member States and countries neighbouring
the EU; b) to investigate the effects that inequality has in societies, and its relations with economic
performance and social integration; c) to identify actual and possible policies - at the national, EU and global
levels. The analysis consisted of three stages: 1) the collection of relevant data; 2) elaboration of these data;
and 3) theoretical interpretation, paying special attention to policy implications.
Website: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/research/projects/ineq
5. KATARSIS
The purpose of KATARSIS was to bring together theorists, researchers and practitioners interested in the
causes and consequences of inequality, and to work towards better integration of their research programmes
and methodologies. The project concentrated on the creative and innovative strategies by which people react
to conditions of exclusion, both at the individual and collective level. The project involved partners from
Canada and 13 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The coordination activities of
KATARSIS comprised: a) a survey of the literature on social exclusion in five fields (the labour market and
social economy; education and training; housing and neighbourhoods; health and environment; governance
and democracy); b) exercises to integrate policy and collective approaches to three aspects of socially
creative strategies: bottom-up creativity, governance and social innovation); c) the development of
methodologies for researching the organisation and impact of socially innovative initiatives;
d) multidimensional dissemination and user group strategy, involving practitioners and policy makers in the
field of social inclusion, empowerment and participation. Through an iterative series of research packages,
meetings and conferences, KATARSIS members built a set of case studies on socially creative initiatives across
participating countries.
Website: http://katarsis.ncl.ac.uk/
6. INCLUD-ED
INCLUDE-ED was an integrated project of the priority 7 under FP6. The project focused on compulsory
education, special education and vocational training. INCLUD-ED analysed educational strategies that help to
overcome inequalities and promote social cohesion, as well as educational strategies that generate social
exclusion. The project focused in particular on vulnerable and marginalised groups (migrants, cultural
minorities, youth, people with disabilities and women). The interdisciplinary research team implemented a
longitudinal study over a period of five years. Five primary schools (one from each country: Finland, Lithuania,
Malta, Spain, and the United Kingdom) that registered higher academic achievements and a strong
involvement of the community were included in the research. The project team employed a mixed

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
89
methodology involving qualitative and quantitative methods, which aimed to explore the impact of
community involvement in these schools.
Website: http://creaub.info/included/about/
7. YIPEE
The YIPPEE project investigated educational pathways among young people (mostly 19-21 years) who have
spent at least one year of their childhood in the care of public authorities or child protection agencies. The
research examined how young people who are socially excluded in this way can become better integrated
into society through participation in further and higher education. To represent different welfare regimes
in Europe, the research was carried out in Denmark, Hungary, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden, and the UK
(England). YIPPEE applied mixed methods within three phases. Phase 1 consisted of literature review and
comprehensive glossary of terms; study visits and a survey of national and local agencies and authorities;
secondary analysis of national data sets. The second phase involved compiling case studies: examining local
and national policies, and collating the views and experiences (through face-to-face and telephone
interviews) of care/education service managers, young people who had educational potential or
motivation, and adults nominated by the young people as having made a difference to their educational
lives. Finally, the third - dissemination phase involved seminars with EU policy actors, national conferences,
a regular briefing with stakeholders and the project website.
8. EDUMIGROM
EDUMIGROM was a three-year research project focused on ‘ethnic differences in education and diverging
prospects for urban youth in an enlarged Europe’. The project conducted a comparative investigation of
ethnically diverse communities with second-generation migrants and Roma in nine EU countries (Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). The
project critically examined the way schools contribute to reducing, maintaining, or deepening inequalities
in young people’s access to the labour market, further education and training. Different domains of social,
cultural, and political participation were covered in the research. The project had three phases. The first of
these was based on secondary analysis of macro-level data and legal and policy documents. The second
phase consisted of a survey of 14-17-year-old youth in the final year of compulsory. The third phase focused
on minority groups. The project used the following methods: personal interviews and focus groups with
students, parents, and teachers; classroom observations; ethnographic work inside and outside schools;
case studies on civil organisations. The project involved 10 partner institutions from across Europe, and was
led by the Center for Policy Studies at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary.
Website: http://www.edumigrom.eu/
9. EUMARGINS
EUMARGINS was a collaborative project that focused on inclusion and exclusion of young adults. EUMARGINS
investigated the experiences of young adult immigrants in seven urban-metropolitan areas in seven different
European countries: Barcelona (Spain), Genoa (Italy), Gothenburg (Sweden), London (the United Kingdom),
Metz/Nancy (France), Oslo (Norway), and Tallinn (Estonia).The project’s overall aim was to find out what
factors hinder or aid the inclusion of young adult immigrants. Although EUMARGINS was primarily a
qualitative project, quantitative data also played an important role. Combined methods helped to unravel
the complexity of the processes of inclusion and exclusion, as well as the transition between these two. The
research team first analysed existing statistics, past research, migration history and legal sources. These
secondary information sources were then combined with life-story interviews and participant observations.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
90
Immigrants and descendants were interviewed about inclusion and exclusion in different contexts, such as
school, work, friends, family networks, neighbourhood and citizenship. The largest portion of research
material consisted of 30 extended case studies from each country, which established a connection between
micro and macro levels.
Website: http://www.sv.uio.no/iss/english/research/projects/eumargins/
10. WORKABLE
The project ‘Making capabilities work’ (WORKABLE) investigated strategies to enhance the social
sustainability of Europe by strengthening the capabilities of young people to shape their personal and work
lives to cope with today’s economic, cultural, demographic, and technological challenges. WORKABLE
assessed political and institutional strategies at local, national and European level that aim to reduce high
rates of youth unemployment, early school leaving and dropouts from upper secondary education. The
project aimed to answer the following questions: a) How do young people’s skills and capabilities meet the
changing needs of the labour market? b) How are children and young people prepared for employment, and
enabled to enjoy work and make choices? c) How are those who are most disadvantaged assisted to achieve
their potential? d) How can educational strategies enable young people to convert knowledge, skills and
competencies into the capacity to function as fully participating, active citizens? The research combined
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The Capability Approach was applied as a heuristic framework.
The research consisted of three parts: 1) a comparative institutional mapping and analysis of vocational and
labour-market policies in all educational regimes; 2) case studies in nine countries (Austria, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (Scotland); 3) quantitative analysis of national and
European longitudinal data, revealing how effectively these strategies enhance economic performance and
reduce the capability gap for young people.
Website: http://www.workable-eu.org/
11. GINI
The GINI project studied the economic and educational drivers and the social, cultural and political impacts
of increasing inequality. The project team made novel contributions on the measurement of income, wealth
and education inequality. The research explored differences in inequality levels and inequality trends,
between and within countries, to understand their impacts and tease out the implications for policy and
institutions. It highlighted the potential effects of individual distributional positions and increasing inequality
for a host of ‘bad outcomes’ (both societal and individual). The project combined an integrated
interdisciplinary approach, improved methodologies, an enhanced understanding of inequality. Wide range
of countries were covered in this project, including all EU countries (except Cyprus and Malta), Australia,
Canada, Japan, and the USA.
Website: http://www.gini-research.org/articles/home
12. GOETE
The project Governance of Educational Trajectories in Europe (GOETE) analysed how educational trajectories
of young people in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, and the United
Kingdom are being regulated and how decisions are taken at individual, school and policy level. The study
covered the period from transition into lower secondary education to transition into upper secondary
education/vocational education and training, i.e. the age group between 10 and 16 years. Comparative
analysis focused on the regulation of access to education, of support measures for coping with education and

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
91
of securing the relevance of education for social integration and the labour market. The study combined a
life course with a governance perspective which was applied to the dimensions of access to education, young
people’s coping with education and the relevance different actors ascribe to education. The complex
interactions between social structure and individual agency were analysed by a mix-methods design
integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods, such as desk research, institutional survey,
individual survey, expert interviews and case studies.
Website: http://www.goete.eu/
13. NEUJOBS
The overall aim of the research project NEUJOBS was to analyse the possible developments of EU labour
market. Particularly this project took into account four transitions that are challenging EU modern society:
1) the socioecological transition, which concerns the overall evolution of the society both on the
organization side both on the cultural side; 2) a societal transition, which include changes in terms of ages,
fertility, family structure, urbanization and female employment; 3) the skill transition towards a more
literate society; 4) and, finally, the territorial transition, such as the modification of the spatial architecture
of the economy. NEUJOBS involved 29 partners, coordinated by the Centre for European Policy Studies
(CEPS) in Brussels. The project covered 14 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the United
Kingdom. The project team applied a mixed methodology strategy, including qualitative and quantitative
approaches. The analysis was built on the data from the literature review, as well as data gathered during
the project. The special focus was given to the work package dedicated to welfare states development and
labour relations, as well as the constitution of a crosswise task force at EU policy level.
Website: http://www.neujobs.eu/
14. COPE
The main objective of COPE’s analysis were to picture poverty and social exclusion in Europe, to examine the
complex governance structure of European, national and local policies of minimum income schemes, and to
assess their impact on the beneficiaries. The COPE project united experienced researchers and stakeholders
from six European countries, including Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Specifically, the project investigated how the six countries under study organise the link between different
political dimensions (i.e. social and employment policies, but also family policies, training etc.), different
stakeholders (i.e. public, private and civil society) and different politico-administrative levels (i.e. European,
national regional and local) in order to combat poverty and social exclusion. Problem-centred interviews with
long-term unemployed, working poor and single parents, who have received income benefits in the past five
years, were one of the key methods in this project.
Website: http://cope-research.eu/
15. LLLight’in’Europe
The aim of the LLLIGHT’in’EUROPE project was to provide evidence on how human capital is created through
Lifelong Learning activities by individuals, companies and public bodies across Europe, as well as develop
recommendations for individuals, companies and economies on how to best invest their Lifelong Learning
resources to maximize individual and collective economic and social well-being. During the project the
research team investigated the following questions: a) How do successful enterprises actively employ
Lifelong Learning for their competitive advantage?; b) Which public policy environments facilitate Lifelong
Learning for such enterprises and entrepreneurs?; c) How does Lifelong Learning interact with and promote

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
92
innovativeness on the enterprise level?; d) How much of which skills do European adults actually have?; what
are the actual learning mechanisms in adult life that lead to these skills?; e) What are the causal effects of
these skills on growth, competitiveness and social cohesion? As part of the project, a new and innovative
approach – Complex Problem Solving skills (CPS) was used to measure human capital.
Website: http://www.lllightineurope.com/home/
16. ImPRovE
‘Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation’ (ImPRovE) was an international research project
that brought together ten research institutes and a broad network of researchers to study poverty, social
policy and social innovation in Europe. The ImPRovE project focused on improvement of the basis for
evidence-based policy making in Europe, both in the short and in the long term. The two central questions
driving the IMPROVE project were: ‘How can social cohesion be achieved in Europe?’ and ‘How can social
innovation complement, reinforce and modify macro-level policies and vice versa?’. More specifically,
IMPROVE had a strong policy focus on a) evaluating tax-benefit systems in reducing poverty and inequality
in the past; b) scrutinizing the effect of the crisis and austerity measures on poverty and income inequality;
c) assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of targeted vs universal (child) benefits; d) identifying policy
designs of childcare provisions with the most beneficial effects in terms of income inequality, female
employment decisions and poverty; e) mapping the adequacy of minimum income protection schemes in
Europe; developing and evaluating several budget-neutral policy scenarios that contribute to meeting the
EU 2020 social inclusion target under different scenarios of employment growth; f) and carrying out topical
analyses of vulnerable groups: migrants, Roma, young people, nonstandard workers, the poor and deprived.
The project was built on state-of-the-art methodologies.
Website: http://improve-research.eu/
17. CITISPYCE
The research project CITISPYCE examined the state of social innovation against inequalities faced by young
people, explored socially innovative practices being developed by and for young people in urban areas, and
tested the transferability of local models of innovative practice in order to develop new policy approaches.
CITISPYCE brought together stakeholders from civil society experienced in practical policy-making and
implementation with well-established academic researchers. The project programme included a base line
study into the current state of play in 10 countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) between the EU, fieldwork focusing at the
micro-level of individual practices and local communities, the identification of socially innovative practices
and the active piloting of those which may be transferable.
Website: http://www.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-centres/ccisc/power-inequality-and-
justice/citispyce/
18. RESL.eu
The Resl.eu-project (2013 – 2018) studies the processes of early school leaving from an all-factors
perspective searching for new insights on various levels (macro, meso and micro) and applied various
methodologies (document review, survey, ethnographic research) to generate broad and in-depth
comprehension of this complex issue. This project also seeks to study and evaluate good practices that
reduce ESL and help pupils and youngsters. The project involves nine countries across Europe: Austria,
Belgium, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Resl.eu-

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR EQUALITY AND INCLUSION IN AND THROUGH EDUCATION
93
project applies mixed-method design, using both qualitative and quantitative strategies. The research
design includes surveys, qualitative interviews and focus group discussions.
Website: https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/projects/resl-eu/
19. CARE
CARE is a collaborative project funded by the European Union to address issues related to the quality,
inclusiveness, and individual, social, and economic benefits of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in
Europe. The project started in January 2014 and will continue until December 2016. The key objective of the
CARE is to develop an evidence-based and culture-sensitive European framework of developmental goals,
quality assessment, curriculum approaches, and policy measures for improving the quality and effectiveness
of early childhood education and care. The interdisciplinary project team will construct this framework, based
on the competencies and skills that young children need to develop in current societies. The project also
seeks to identify the conditions that have to be fulfilled to promote child development and wellbeing, and
strategies, policy measures that support access to high-quality provisions. During this project the researchers
expect to identify strategies and policy measures that are likely to receive broad support from families,
professionals, and policymakers, thereby enhancing the impact of early childhood education and care. Cost-
benefit analysis of early childhood education and care will be conducted.
Website: http://ecec-care.org/
20. SI-DRIVE
SI-DRIVE is a research project that aims to explore the relationship between social innovation and social
change. The key objectives of this project are: a) to determine the nature, characteristics and impacts of
social innovation as key elements of a new paradigm of innovation (strengthen the theoretical and empirical
base of social innovation as part of a wider concept of innovation that thoroughly integrates social
dimensions); b) to map, analyse and promote social innovations in Europe and world regions to better
understand and enable social innovations and their capacity for changing societies; c) to identify and assess
success as well as failure factors of social innovation in seven particular policy areas, supporting reciprocal
empowerment in various countries and social groups to engage in SI for development, working towards
Europe 2020 targets and sustainable development (e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDG)); and d) to
undertake future-oriented policy-driven research, analyse barriers and drivers for social innovation;
develop tools and instruments for policy interventions. SI-DRIVE involves 15 partners from 12 EU Member
States and 10 from other parts of the world. The project team carries out in-depth analyses and case studies
in seven policy fields, including cross European and world region comparisons, foresight and policy round
tables. The timeframe of the project is January 2014 – December 2017.
Website: https://www.si-drive.eu/

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

NC-04-15-452-EN-N
ISBN: 978-92-79-49058-3