You are here

Indicators examples for school-level action plans

Tackling early leaving from education and training requires schools/training providers to change their approach on how to manage this phenomenon. They need to change pedagogical approaches and also put in place measures to identify risks and propose solutions early so that young people do not disengage. Several programmes emphasise the importance of putting in place school-level action plans to tackle early leaving. 

An evaluation of a scheme that stimulates school-level actions should start by clarifying how and why such action plans are expected to provide a solution to the problem, or part of it.

Example:

Factors at school-level play an important role in the causes that lead to early leaving. Examples of such causes are:

  • teachers/leadership do not perceive dropping out as a problem. In fact if troublesome students leave this makes their job easier
  • they do not feel accountable for retaining young people and leading them to a qualification 
  • teachers/leadership are not aware of the signs that signal disengagement, or even if they are, they lack the tools and skills to take action
  • there is no relationship of trust between students and teaching staff

All these aspects mean that young people who face difficulties do not feel welcome or supported. As they start disengaging they do not receive any support or encouragement. 

Programmes that promote school-level action plans typically aim to address these causes by, for example:

  • strengthening the accountability of school leadership and teachers for the phenomenon of early leaving by expecting the schools to establish action plans and procedures to prevent early leaving
  • raising awareness among staff about the negative consequences of early leaving
  • providing training and practical tools to different profiles of staff
  • raising awareness among staff about the importance of positive contact with parents and encouraging schools to put in place activities aiming at reaching out to parents
Intervention logic

This is an example of an intervention logic for a school-level action plan aiming at preventing early leaving from education and training.

Collapsible section
Input indicators

Indicative list:

  • number of experts mobilised to provide training to teachers
  • number of experts mobilised to support teachers in developing motivational activities for students
  • budget allocated

Example:

The evaluation of the ‘Guidance and professional initiation courses’ and ‘Professional initiation courses to diverse professions’, implemented in Luxembourg, included the following input indicators:

  • number of schools implementing the courses
  • number and type of human resources mobilised

Read 2012 evaluation report (in French)>

Collapsible section
Process indicators

Indicative list:

  • training for teachers (number of sessions delivered)
  • meetings held to develop activities to motivate students (number of meetings)
  • guidance for schools
  • tools for schools

Example:

The evaluation of the ‘Guidance and professional initiation courses’ and ‘Professional initiation courses to diverse professions’, implemented in Luxembourg, examines the following aspects related to the process:

  • training for teachers and its adequacy in relation to teachers’ needs
  • number of teachers per class
  • time devoted to individual support to learners outside regular school hours

Read 2012 evaluation report (in French)>

Collapsible section
Output indicators

Indicative list:

  • number of schools with established action plans
  • number of teachers/trainers trained
  • number of schools that put in place procedures to identify those at risk and propose solutions
  • number of schools that use the tools provided
  • number of students who received support through newly introduced procedures

Example:

The evaluation of the Danish initiative Retention Caravan included several output indicators, for instance:

  • number of students involved
  • number of teachers involved
  • number of parents involved

Read 2012 evaluation report (in Danish)>

Collapsible section
Result indicators

Indicative list of quantitative indicators :

  • share of participating teachers who state that the training and meetings contributed to:
    • increasing their understanding of the factors
    • developing their skills to identify/support learners at risk of early leaving
    • developing activities to motivate students
    • changing their working methods and teaching practices
  • share of participating students who state that the activities contributed to:
    • increasing their satisfaction with the school
    • increasing their motivation to study
    • choosing their education or training programme
  • share of participating students who:
    • have lower absenteeism after participation in the programme
    • improved their education performance after the programme
  • share of participating parents who state that the activities contributed to:
    • increasing their satisfaction with the school
    • helping them support their children

Indicative list of qualitative indicators:

  • narratives from beneficiaries about the differenced the new activities made to them. Stories about how the activities helped them:
    • feel better at the school or training centre
    • feel more motivated to study
    • decide on their next steps
  • narratives from teachers, trainers and other staff on what differences the activities made to the beneficiaries, and to the climate at the school or training centre
  • narratives from parents on what differences the activities made to the beneficiaries

Example:

The evaluation of the Danish initiative Retention Caravan included several result indicators:

  • change in teachers’ understanding of how to work with young people at risk of early leaving
  • change in teachers’ teaching practice/methods
  • change in teachers’ capacity to interact with students from various backgrounds
  • the nature of the relationship between teachers and mentors
  • young persons’ development of professional identity
  • change in young persons’ self-confidence

Read 2012 evaluation report (in Danish)>

Collapsible section
Impact indicators

Indicative list of quantitative indicators:

  • share of participants who stay in education and training 3 months/6 months after the implementation of the school action plan
  • share of participants who successfully complete their education/training programme
  • share of participants who move on to further education/training
  • share of participants who are in employment X years after completing their education/training programme

Indicative list of qualitative indicators:

  • narratives from beneficiaries about how the activities they took part in helped them stay in education and training or complete their programme
  • narratives from teachers, trainers or other staff about how the activities helped beneficiaries stay in education and training or complete their programme
  • narratives from parents about how the activities helped beneficiaries stay in education and training or complete their programme

Example:

The 2012 evaluation of the Danish initiative Retention Caravan analysed the change in the retention rate of young people in education and training. It compared the retention of students with Danish and non-Danish origins. It compared the results with a control group of schools that did not take part in the Retention Caravan.

Read 2012 evaluation report (in Danish)>

Collapsible section