The Approach to School Drop-Out in the Netherlands

8/7/2019 The Approach to School Drop-Out in the Netherlands

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-approach-to-school-drop-out-in-the-netherlands 1/40

The Approach toSchool Drop-out

Policy in the Netherlands and

the results of the -performance agreements

w w w . a a n v a l o p s c h o o l u i t v a l . n l

Minisry o Educaion, Culure andScience





The Approach to School Drop-out

Policy in the Netherlands and the resultsof the - performance agreements

november





1. The approach o drop-ou prevenion in he Neherlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1 Drop-ou prevenion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 How are we going o reduce drop-ou raes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 How will we do his? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4 Resuls o 2007-2008 perormance agreemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Saisics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.1 The naional perspecive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 The European arge and an inernaional comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 The regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 The our larges Duch ciies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.5 Educaional insiuions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.5.1 New school drop-ous a secondar y schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.5.2 New school drop-ous a secondary vocaional (MBO) schools . . . . . . . . 21

3. School-relaed rais o new school drop-ous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1 Educaional level and diplomas o new school drop-ous . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 New school drop-ous in secondar y educaion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.3 New school drop-ous in secondar y vocaional educaion . . . . . . . . . . 28

4. Background rais o new school drop-ous in he Neherlands . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.3 Ehnic background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.4 Siuaion a home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.5 Crime suspec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.6 Corresponding social and economic rais and cumulaive povery areas . . 37

Table of contents





Chaper The approach to drop-outprevention in the Netherlands

. Drop-ou prevenion

Reducing early school-leaving has been explicily saed on

he cabine’s poliical agenda since he early nineies. A

ha ime, he ocus was mainly on he insiuions, hesysems, he procedures and he insr umens. No atenion

was paid o he young people dropping ou, or whaever

reason.

And hen came ‘Lisbon’, he EU 2001 summi. One o he

‘Lisbon goals’ was o halve he school drop-ou rae rom

15.5 % o approximaely 8% by 2010. The naional goal in he

Neherlands is o halve he number o new school drop-

ous: rom over 5% annually in 2002, o 2.5% in 2012, or

rom 71,000 o 35,000 school drop-ous per year. We wan o

oer young people who leave school he prospec o work,

now and in he uure.

More han ever beore an awareness is emerging: dropping

ou o school is a signican socieal and social problem as

well as an individual problem. For his reason, we should

no only be hinking abou he sysems and insiuions bu

raher he ocal poin should be he young people

hemselves.

For his dieren approach – ha has young people a is

cenre – we decided on he Kaa Brigade. This is a orm o

applied research developed by he Universiy o Leiden, in

which problems in he uncioning o auhoriies are expo-

sed rom he perspecive o he ciizen. The Kaa Brigade

lisened closely o he sories o Daniel, Rabi, San, Lisa and

oher young people. These sories showed ha seering and

insrumenaion a ha ime, despie he bes inenions,

mainained school dropping ou raher han reduced i.

Many insiuions busied hemselves wih young people

using dieren mehods every ime. The sories also showed

ha many young people have muliple problems (menal

problems, learning diculies, problems a home) ha

ogeher culminae in dropping ou. The mos imporan

lesson learned by he Kaa Brigade was hus: remain as

close as possible o young people, reduce adminisraive

layers and red ape as much as possible. Provide ailored

programmes (ocus on he child) and specic care where

necessary. Ensure here is a single case manager who akeshe suden under his/her wing aer he inake inerview a

school. In shor: do no jus alk abou young people, alk o

hem as well.

Bearing his recommendaion in mind, in 2006, he previ-

ous cabine began o comba school dropping ou.

Imporan measures have already been implemened. For

insance, he compulsory school age has been exended

rom 16 o 18 in combinaion wih a srenghening o hespecial needs provision in and around he school. The regi-

sraion o school drop-ous has also been signicanly

improved.

The curren Duch cabine (a coaliion o Chrisian

Democras, Social Democras and he Chrisian Union) is

ollowing his line wih deerminaion wih addiional aci-

ons and increased unding – rom € 26 million in 2008 o €

90 million (indicaive) in 2011. In ac his cabine is even

more deermined: i has placed combaing dropping ou

ogeher wih raising he qualiy o educaion and solving

he problem o he eacher shorage in he op-en aims o

is cabine policy. Moreover, a cos-benes sudy (analysedby he Neherlands Bureau or Economic Policy Analysis)

has shown ha hese coss will be ully compensaed by a

drop in criminaliy, ewer benes paymens, ec.

. How are we going o reducedrop-ou raes?

The main principles o he Aanval op Schooluival (Drive o

reduce drop-ou raes) programme are:

Addiional atenion o he ranser rom VMBO [pre-■

vocaional secondary educaion] o MBO (secondary

vocaional educaion);

More and beter special needs provision a school;■

More room or sudens who preer o work wih heir ■

hands and more ailored programmes;

Beter career orienaion and guidance, sudy choice and■

counselling;

More atracive educaion wih spors and culure o keep■

young people in school;

20,000 programmes or school drop-ous in he age■

group rom18 o 23 or ‘compeencies acquired else-

where’ and agreemens wih large employers aimed a

obaining basic qualicaions.



. How will we do his?

Beter regisraion, beter analysisUnil abou wo years ago, here was no qualiaive and

quaniaive analysis o he problem o dropping ou o

school. Daa was lacking, incomplee and ou-daed. An

alderman or educaion reerred o all her eors o reduce

dropping ou as ‘shooing a moving arges’. She did no

know who he drop-ous were or where hey were. An excel-

len move has been made o ackle jus his poin wih he

inroducion o he so-called ‘Educaion Number’, a sysem

ha oers complee and reliable gures on drop-ou raes

naionally, regionally and a he municipal and disric

levels. We have linked his daa o socio-economic daa(including demographics, naive Duch ciizens, ehnic

minoriies, unemploymen, people eniled o benes,

ec.) per region, ciy and disric. In his way we now have a

wealh o inormaion a hand or implemening policy and

adjusing i when necessary. Is somehing working in

Amserdam bu no in Maasrich? Is a measure proving

ruiul or no? We can make adjusmens. We are monio-

ring he resuls and keeping consan rack o wha works

and wha doesn’, using acs and gures and exchanging

good pracices beween he regions.

Regions o ake acion now The involvemen o proessionals rom he region (schools,

municipaliies, youh services, he business communiy,

ec.) is essenial o a ailored atack on dropping ou. These

are he bodies ha know exacly wha is going on in relaion

o he sudens in heir region, rom problems a home o

he local demand or echnicians and he ooball pich

round he corner. Thereore, as was done or he 2006-2007

school year, he Minisry o OCW has made agreemens

wih municipaliies and schools in 39 regions or he period

2008-2011, se down ino covenans. The goal: o reduce he

number o school drop-ous by hal by 2012. Per region,

municipaliies, schools and care insiuions can hemsel-

ves decide wha measures should be implemened: he

measures already menioned or possibly new measures. I is

he resul ha couns. Any school ha manages o reduce

is drop-ou rae will receive € 2,000.00 or each drop-ou

less han he number i had in he reerence year. Furher-

more, addiional unds are available or educaional pro-

grammes aimed a reducing drop-ou raes. A he end o

our years, an analysis will be made o which measures have

had an impac.

The aim o hese agreemens is:

To reduce he number o new school drop-ous by hal by ■

2011-2012: reducion rising rom 10% in 2008 o 40% in

2011 (10% has already been achieved).The unds provided under he agreemens only go o■

schools (schools are oen he place where problems are

ound as well as he place where dropping ou can be

combaed). Via he local governmens, schools can call

on he services o care insiuions, he police and judi-

cial auhoriies.

The regional municipaliy direcs he agreemens.■

Needless o say, he Minisry o OCW will suppor he par-■

ies as much as possible in order o achieve he agreed

oucomes.

. Resuls o he -perormance agreemens

The resuls or he 2007-2008 school year have been calcula-

ed: he number o new school drop-ous was 48,300. Tha

is a reducion o more han 10% compared wih he 2005-

2006 school year. The arge se in he 2007-2008 peror-mance agreemens has hereore been achieved a naional

level. This resul means ha we are on rack o reducing he

number o school drop-ous o 35,000 by 2012. The school

drop-ou percenage has allen rom 5.5% in 2002 o 3.7% in

he 2007-2008 school year.

We are also well on he way o achieving he EU arge, i.e.

o reduce he overall group o school drop-ous o 8%. In

he Neherlands, ha percenage ell rom 15.5% in 2000 o

12% in 2007.

Overall conclusions:The naional school drop-ou percenage or he 2007-■

2008 school year is 3.7%. The larger he own/ciy, he

higher he percenage o drop-ous. In he Neherlands’

our larges ciies (he “G4”), he school drop-ou percen-

age is 6.1%. Tha is 3.1% in owns o ewer han 100,000

inhabians. In he prioriy neighbourhoods (krach-

wijken), he school drop-ou percenage ranges beween

4.4% and 10.9%, making i higher han he naional

average.

I is noable ha he number o new school drop-ous has■

allen sharply in secondary educaion (-19%) bu ha he

decrease has been much smaller in secondary vocaional

educaion (-6.5%). 59% o secondary schools and 35% o

secondary vocaional schools have achieved he 10%

reducion arge. The number o new school drop-ous

has remained saic or increased since 2005-2006 a more

han 30 secondary vocaional schools.

The eecs o he economic recession became visible in■

he rs quarer o 2009. Young people wihou a basic

qualicaion are more likely o be unemployed han

hose ha have obained such a qualicaion. Young

people wihou a basic qualicaion have consequenly

been hi hardes. In he second quarer o 2009, 17.2% o

hem were unemployed; ha is an increase o 6.8% com-

pared wih he previous year.School drop-ous are more likely o be crime suspecs. O ■

he pupils who dropped ou o school in he 2007/08

school year, 21% were suspeced o a crime, as opposed o

only 4% o non-school drop-ous.



The Minisry o Educaion, Culure and Science has made

he school drop-ou gures available o various arge

groups, or example in he School Drop-ou Explorer (VSV-

Verkenner) and he School Drop-ou Alas (VSV-Alas):

School Drop-ou Explorer: an ineracive ool ha works■

wih quaniaive and qualiaive daa on school drop-

ous a naional, regional, local and school level. (A

regional level, he daa is provided by he Regional

Regisraion and Coordinaion Cenres operaing in he

39 RMC regions.) The new school drop-ou gures are

added every year or each level. In addiion o he sais-

ics, he Explorer also has oher “useul inormaion”,

including he perormance agreemen, he educaionalprogramme, example projecs and he regional and

naional conac persons. The Explorer can also compare

school drop-ou gures beween regions or educaional

insiuions and show muliple school years side by side.

This makes i possible o deec regional and oher rends

in he school drop-ou rae in he Neherlands.

School Drop-ou Alas: an annual publicaion based on■

he nal saisics or a specic school year. The Alas

shows he resuls a inernaional, naional, regional and

school level and oers a rich source o inormaion on

background acors. The inormaion in he Alas can be

used o help ackle he school drop-ou rae regionally,locally or wihin schools – wha needs o be changed?

Wha opporuniies are available? Wha can we learn

rom one anoher?

For more inormaion on he drive o reduce he

school drop-ou rae and he School Drop-ou Explorer, see

www.aanvalopschooluival.nl.





Chaper Statistics

Wha were he resuls o he 2007-2008 school drop-ou perormance agreemens concluded beween he Minisry,

local auhoriies and schools? This chaper shows naional, regional and school resuls across several years. In addi-

ion o relaive and absolue drop-ou numbers, i also covers rends in he number o drop-ous compared wih

2005-2006, and where he Neherlands sands wih respec o he EU arge.

The ocus in he Neherlands is on prevening pupils rom

dropping ou o school. The naional arge is o reduce he

number o new school drop-ous in en years’ ime rom71,000 in 2002 o 35,000 in 2012 (by he 2010-2011 school

year).

A naional level, he Neherlands had 48,300 new school

drop-ous beween 1 Ocober 2007 and 1 Ocober 2008. The

number o new school drop-ous in he 2007-2008 school

year ell by an average o more han 10% compared wih he

2005-2006 school year. The naional arge se ou in he

2007-2008 perormance agreemens has hereore been

achieved.

Table 1: new school drop-ous naionally, in numbers and percenages

2002 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Number o

school drop-ous

. . . . . .

Percenage o

school drop-ous

,% ,% ,% ,% ,% 2,8%

Figure 1: naional arge and acual perormance in absolue numbers o new school drop-ous

0

10.000

20.000

30.00040.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

Target

2002

2003

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Actual performance

. The naional perspecive A new drop-ou is a pupil beween and

years o age who leaves school in a paricular

school year wihou a basic qualicaion (senior

general secondary, pre-universiy, or a leas a

level- secondary vocaional diploma).



. The European arge and aninernaional comparison

The Member Saes o he European Union have agreed ha,

beween 2000 and 2010, hey will halve he number o

youngsers beween 18 and 25 who are no enrolled in edu-

caion and do no have a basic qualicaion.

In he EU-15■1 17% o all 18 o 25 year olds did no have a

basic qualicaion in 2007. In 2000 ha gure sood a

20%.

Tha number is smaller in he Neherlands han in he■

overall EU-15. In he Neherlands, i ell rom 15.5% in2000 o 12% in 2007.

Compared wih oher European counries, in he■

Neherlands a relaively large number o young people

are enrolled in an educaional programme. The

Neherlands has ewer young people leaving school wi-

hou a basic qualicaion han he EU does on average.

Sixy-eigh percen o all youngsers in he Neherlands

beween 15 and 25 go o school. The European average is

60%.

. The regions

In he 2008-2011 agreemens alling under is “Drive o

Reduce Drop-ou Raes” programme, he Minisry o

Educaion has agreed wih all 39 School Drop-ou

Regisraion and Coordinaion Regions (in Duch: RMC

regions) ha he number o new school drop-ous beween

he 2005-2006 and 2010-2011 school years should be redu-

ced by 40%. The drop-ou rae should be reduced cumulai-

vely by 10% a year, saring wih 10% in he 2007-2008 school

year and rising o a 40% reducion by 2010-2011.

The resuls or he 2007-2008 school year show some varia-

ion beween RMC regions. Alhough mos o he regionshave seen he school drop-ou rae decline by 10% or more

compared wih he 2005-2006 school year, no all o he

regions have managed o achieve he 10% reducion arge.

This secion concerns he school drop-ou gures o he

various RMC regions. For more inormaion abou he edu-

caional and background rais o he separae RMC regions,

see “regio-ino” a www.aanvalopschooluival.nl (his web-

sie is available in Duch only).

22 regions (56%) have achieved he 10% reducion arge.■

17 regions (44%) have no;

9 regions have reduced he school drop-ou rae by more■

han 15%. In 3 regions, however, he reducion is less

han 5%. In a urher 3 regions, he number o school

drop-ous has even increased;

There is a large percenage o school drop-ous in he■

Agglomeraion Amserdam, Rijnmond, Haaglanden and

Flevoland regions;

The Agglomeraion Amserdam, Rijnmond, Haaglanden■

and Urech regions have he highes number o school

drop-ous in absolue erms;

Souhwes Friesland, IJssel-Vech, Acherhoek, Souhwes■

Drenhe and Norheas Braban have he lowes school

drop-ou percenage, relaively speaking.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

20072000

United Kingdom

Portugal

Spain

Italy

Luxembourg

Greece

France

Germany

Denmark

Belgium

Netherlands

Ireland

Austria

Sweden

Finland

Figure 2: rend in he percenage o school drop-ous in Europe,

2000-2007

Source: Eurosa

The Member Saes o he European Union in . In order o compare he gures or and , we have resriced our analysis o he EU- Member Saes.



Percentage of school drop-outs:

10% or more

Less than 10%

School drop-out percentage 2007-2008

Less than 3.0%

3,0 - 3,8 %

3,8 - 4,6 %

More than 4.6%

Number of school drop-outs by RMC region

Fewer than 500

500 - 1.000

1.000 - 1.500

More than 1500

Figure 3: RMC regions, acual reducion in new school drop-ous in 2007-2008 compared wih

2005-2006

Source: CFI

Figure 4: RMC regions, percenage o new school d rop-ous in

2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 5: RMC regions, number o new school drop-ous in 2007-2008

Source: CFI



Oost-Groningen

Twente

Noord-Groningen en Eemsmond

Centraal en westelijk Groningen

Friesland-noord

De Friese WoudenNoord- en midden-Drenthe

Zuidoost-Drenthe

Zuidwest-Drenthe

IJssel-Vecht

Stedendriehoek

Achterhoek

Arnhem/Nijmegen

Rivierenland

Eem en Vallei

Noordwest-Veluwe

Flevoland

Utrecht

Gooi en Vechtstreek

Agglomeratie Amsterdam

Wesriesland

Kop van Noord-Holland

Noord-Kennemerland

West-Kennnemerland

Zuid-Holland-Noord

Zuid-Holland-Oost

Haaglanden

Rijnmond

Zuid-Holland-Zuid

Oosterschelde regio

Walcheren

Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen

West-Brabant

Midden-Brabant

Noordoost-Brabant

Zuidoost-Brabant

Gewest Noord-Limburg

Gewest Limburg-Zuid

32-7-21-71-22-

Zuidwest-Friesland

2

3

4

5

6

Relative trend 2005-2007

percentage of sch

ool drop-outs in 2007

Figure 6: rend, school drop-ou percenage and absolue number o new school drop-ous by RMC region in 2007-2008

Source: CFI



The gure shows hree relevan dimensions

indicaing how each RMC region sands: he

absolue number o new school drop-ous;

he percenage o school drop-ous; and he

relaive change in he absolue number o

new school drop-ous in 2007-2008 compa-

red wih he 2005-2006 school year.

The size of the circle■ indicaes he number o

school drop-ous in 2007-2008; he big-

ger he circle, in oher words, he larger

he number o new school drop-ous. For example: In RMC regions Rijnmond and

Agglomeraion Amserdam, here was a

considerably larger number o new school

drop-ous han in he Zuidwes-Friesland

and Zuidwes-Drenhe regions.

The horizontal position of each circle■ indicaes

he relaive rend in number o new

school drop-ous be ween he 2005-2006

and 2007-2008 school years. Regions le

o he verical axis have reduced he num-

ber o school drop-ous by more han

10%. Regions righ o he verical axis

have seen a smaller reducion in school

drop-ou numbers han 10%, and a ew

regions on he ar righ have even expe-

rienced an increase in he number o

school drop-ous.

The vertical position of each circle■ indicaes

he relaive number o school drop-ous.

This is he number o school drop-ous asa percenage o he number o pupils

enrolled in school. The cenre o he

graph indicaes he regional average.

Regions above he horizonal axis have a

higher-han-average percenage o school

drop-ous. Regions below he horizonal

axis have a lower-han-average percena-

ge o school drop-ous.

When combined:

The size o he circle or RMC region■

Flevoland, or example, shows ha i is in

he middle bracke when i comes o he

number o school drop-ous. Is posiion

on he ar righ means ha here has

been an unavourable rend in erms o

number o school drop-ous. Their num-

bers have no declined, bu increased.

The posiion relaively ar above he hori-

zonal axis indicaes ha he percenage

o school drop-ous is quie high.

RMC region Noordoos-Braban is locaed■

on he botom le o he gure, combi-

ning a avourable rend in number o

school drop-ous wih a low relaive

percenage.

Explanaion Figure 6



Table 2: RMC regions, reducion in school drop-ous in 2007-2008 compared wih 2005-2006

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

RMC region

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outscompared

with

2005-2006

5 Zuidwes-Friesland 10.203 335 3,3% 10.335 259 2,5% -22,7%

31 Ooserschelde regio 13.531 539 4,0% 13.698 427 3,1% -20,8%

13 Acherhoek 26.409 886 3,4% 26.609 718 2,7% -19,0%

23 Kop van Noord-Holland 13.707 649 4,7% 13.812 526 3,8% -19,0%

36 Noordoos-Braban 52.565 1.923 3,7% 53.447 1.574 2,9% -18,1%

4 Friesland-noord 21.846 888 4,1% 21.802 736 3,4% -17,1%

1 Oos-Groningen 11.985 492 4,1% 12.139 410 3,4% -16,7%

35 Midden-Braban 29.864 1.493 5,0% 29.957 1.255 4,2% -16,0%

34 Wes-Braban 52.939 2.306 4,4% 53.812 1.952 3,6% -15,3%

38 Gewes Noord-Limburg 38.288 1.398 3,7% 38.533 1.192 3,1% -14,7%

8 Zuidoos-Drenhe 13.818 558 4,0% 13.835 476 3,4% -14,7%

25 Wes-Kennnemerland 27.216 1.373 5,0% 27.781 1.173 4,2% -14,6%

33 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen 7.762 313 4,0% 7.870 268 3,4% -14,4%

10 IJssel-Vech 37.480 1.121 3,0% 37.414 968 2,6% -13,6%

32 Walcheren 9.352 440 4,7% 9.316 382 4,1% -13,2%

11 Sedendriehoek 34.269 1.387 4,0% 34.390 1.217 3,5% -12,3%

12 Twene 51.006 1.770 3,5% 51.342 1.569 3,1% -11,4%

21 Agglomeraie Amserdam 91.246 5.790 6,3% 92.689 5.141 5,5% -11,2%

24 Noord-Kennemerland 21.599 1.018 4,7% 21.798 904 4,1% -11,2%

2 Noord-Groningen en Eemsmond 9.928 340 3,4% 9.886 302 3,1% -11,2%

28 Haaglanden 72.070 3.999 5,5% 72.724 3.562 4,9% -10,9%

22 Wesriesland 16.975 770 4,5% 17.467 687 3,9% -10,8%

30 Zuid-Holland-Zuid 40.477 1.733 4,3% 40.528 1.562 3,9% -9,9%

20 Gooi en Vechsreek 18.784 853 4,5% 19.018 775 4,1% -9,1%

37 Zuidoos-Braban 57.404 2.202 3,8% 57.909 2.012 3,5% -8,6%

39 Gewes Limburg-Zuid 46.430 2.207 4,8% 45.523 2.018 4,4% -8,6%

16 Eem en Vallei 49.747 1.998 4,0% 50.503 1.836 3,6% -8,1%

27 Zuid-Holland-Oos 31.329 1.180 3,8% 31.225 1.086 3,5% -8,0%

29 Rijnmond 96.478 5.575 5,8% 96.101 5.141 5,3% -7,8%

6 De Friese Wouden 22.893 804 3,5% 22.949 743 3,2% -7,6%

3 Cenraal en weselijk Groningen 21.069 817 3,9% 21.324 770 3,6% -5,8%

14 Arnhem/Nijmegen 51.001 2.039 4,0% 52.062 1.930 3,7% -5,4%

17 Noord-Veluwe 17.071 580 3,4% 17.146 551 3,2% -5,0%

9 Zuidwes-Drenhe 10.614 318 3,0% 10.526 306 2,9% -3,8%

19 Urech 60.587 2.732 4,5% 60.936 2.644 4,3% -3,2%

26 Zuid-Holland-Noord 31.758 1.254 3,9% 32.060 1.248 3,9% -0,5%

7 Noord- en midden-Drenhe 15.587 468 3,0% 16.078 476 3,0% 1,7%

15 Rivierenland 21.639 732 3,4% 22.300 753 3,4% 2,8%

18 Flevoland 33.364 1.554 4,7% 33.952 1.617 4,8% 4,1%

Table 2 shows he reducion in school drop-ous in 2007-

2008 compared wih 2005-2006 by RMC region. The regions

are lised in descending order by size o relaive reducion in

school drop-ous. A he op o he lis is he region ha has

seen he larges reducion in school drop-ous compared

wih 2005-2006.



0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

2007-20082005-2006

39 Gewest Limburg-Zuid

38 Gewest Noord-Limburg

37 Zuidoost-Brabant

36 Noordoost-Brabant

35 Midden-Brabant

34 West-Brabant

33 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen

32 Walcheren

31 Oosterschelde regio

30 Zuid-Holland-Zuid

29 Rijnmond

28 Haaglanden

27 Zuid-Holland-Oost

26 Zuid-Holland-Noord

25 West-Kennnemerland

24 Noord-Kennemerland

23 Kop van Noord-Holland

22 Wesriesland

21 Agglomeratie Amsterdam

20 Gooi en Vechtstreek

19 Utrecht

18 Flevoland

17 Noord-Veluwe

16 Eem en Vallei

15 Rivierenland

14 Arnhem/Nijmegen

13 Achterhoek

12 Twente

11 Stedendriehoek

10 IJssel-Vecht

9 Zuidwest-Drenthe

8 Zuidoost-Drenthe

7 Noord- en midden-Drenthe

6 De Friese Wouden

5 Zuidwest-Friesland

4 Friesland-noord

3 Centraal en westelijk Groningen

2 Noord-Groningen en Eemsmond

1 Oost-Groningen

Figure 7: RMC regions, rend in percenage o new school drop-ous in 2007-2008

Source: CFI



Den Haag Z-West

Schilderswijk

Stationsbuurt

Transvaal

Priority neighbourhoods< 25 pupils enrolled in school

Less than 5%5 - 7 %

7 - 9 %More than 9%

Overvecht

Kanaleneiland

Ondiep

Zuilen Oost

Priority neighbourhoods< 25 pupils enrolled in school

Less than 5%5 - 7 %

7 - 9 %More than 9%

. The our larges Duch ciies

Amserdam, Roterdam, The Hague and Urech are he our

larges ciies in he Neherlands (reerred o as he “G4” in

Duch) and consequenly ace a highly specic siuaion and

a disinc se o problems. There, he percenage o new

school drop-ous diers rom one posal code area o he

nex. Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11 show he percenage o school

drop-ous in he various posal code areas. The areas ha

are siuaed in one o he ory prioriy neighbourhoods

(krachwijken) are oulined and idenied.

The percenage o new school drop-ous in he our lar-■

ges ciies is higher han he naional average;

More han 10% o pupils enrolled in school live in he G4.■

On he oher hand, more han 17% o all school drop-ous

live in he G4;

Boh Amserdam and The Hague have seen he number o ■

drop-ous all by more han 10% compared wih 2005-2006.

The reducion in Roterdam has been less han 10%. In

Urech, he number o new school drop-ous has risen.

Nieuw West

Bijlmer

Bos en Lommer

Amsterdam Noord

Amsterdam Oost

Priority neighbourhoods

< 25 pupils enrolled in school

Less than 5%

5 - 7 %

7 - 9 %

More than 9%

Oud Zuid

Roerdam West

Vreewijk

Roerdam NoordOverschie

Zuidelijke Tuinsteden

Bergpolder

Priority neighbourhoods

< 25 pupils enrolled in school

Less than 5%

5 - 7 %

7 - 9 %

More than 9%

Figure 8: ciy o Amserdam, percenage o new school drop-ous per

neighbourhood/prioriy neighbourhood in 2007-2008Source: CFI

Figure 9: ciy o Roterdam, percenage o new school drop-ous per

neighbourhood/prioriy neighbourhood in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 10: ciy o The Hague, percenage o new school drop-ous per

neighbourhood/prioriy neighbourhood in 2007-2008Source: CFI

Figure 11: ciy o Urech, percenage o new school drop-ous per

neighbourhood/prioriy neighbourhood in 2007-2008

Source: CFI



Table 3: G4 ciies, summary o new school drop-ous i n 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs

compared with

2005-2006

Amserdam 45.077 3.532 7,8% 44.600 3.045 6,8% -13,8%

The Hague 31.275 2.207 7,1% 31.594 1.915 6,1% -13,2%

Urech 15.407 906 5,9% 15.729 960 6,1% 6,0%

Roterdam 44.348 3.137 7,1% 43.251 2.900 6,7% -7,6%





. Educaional insiuions

This secion considers how secondary (VO) and secondary

vocaional (MBO) schools have perormed. I is imporan o

noe ha various acors may infuence he number o school

drop-ous. There are, or example, various social and econo-

mic rais a regional level ha aec he drop-ou risk among

he school-going populaion. These are acors such as he

percenage o households collecing benes, he percenage

o low-income households, and he percenage o non-Wes-

ern minoriies living in a region. Educaional level also plays

a role. The risk o dropping ou is greaer a educaional insi-

uions ha have a relaively larger number o pupils in secon-

dary vocaional educaion levels 1 and 2.

The drop-ou rae in secondary schools (1.5% average) is lower

han in secondary vocaional schools (8.5%). This secion he-

reore looks more closely a he drop-ou rae in secondary

vocaional educaion.

2.5.1 New school drop-ous a secondary

schools

59% o secondary schools have achieved he 10% reduc-■

ion arge, and 22% even have a reducion o 40% or more;

Somewha more han a quarer o schools have seen an■

increase in he number o school drop-ous;

37% o young people who drop ou o secondary educai-■

on do have a pre-vocaional diploma. This is no a basic

qualicaion, however.

Figure 12 shows he percenage break-down o secondary

schools wih respec o school drop-ou rends compared

wih 2005-2006.

2.5.2 New school drop-ous a secondary

vocaional (MBO) schools

35% o secondary vocaional schools have achieved a■

reducion o 10% or more;

41% o secondary vocaional schools have seen an incre-■

ase in he number o school drop-ous;

A quarer o secondary vocaional schools accoun or ■

almos 50% o all school drop-ous.

Figure 13 shows he percenage break-down o secondary

vocaional schools wih respec o school drop-ou rends

compared wih 2005-2006. Figure 14 shows he relaive per-

cenage and absolue number o school drop-ous o all

secondary vocaional schools, as well as relaive rends com-

pared wih 2005-2006.

≥ 20%

0 tot 20%

-10 tot 0%

-20 tot -10%

<-20%15% 19%

16%

24%

26%

Figure 12: oal secondary schools by % reducion in school drop-ous in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

< -40%

-40 tot -10%

-10 tot 0%

0 tot 20%

≥ 20%

22%17%

10%

14%

37%

Figure 13: oal o secondary vocaional schools by % reducion in 2007-2008 compared wih

2005-2006

Source: CFI



ROC Westerschelde

ROC RivorROC Kop v Noord-Holland

ROC Ter AA

Hoornbeeck College

ROC Zaanstreek-Waterland ROC Flevoland

ROC de Leijgraaf

SG De Rooi Pannen

ROC Arcus College

ROC Onderwijsgroep A12

ROC ZeelandROC Drenthe College

ROC Leeuwenborgh

ROC Graafschap College

ROC Da Vinci College

ROC Midden Brabant

ROC Leiden

ROC Nijmegen eo

ROC Friesland College

Landstede

ROC Alfa College

ID College

ROC Gilde Opleidingen

ROC Koning Willem I

ROC Nova College

ROC AVENTUS

ROC Rijn IJssel

ROC Horizon College

ROC Friese Poort

ROC Noorderpoortcollege

ROC Deltion College

ROC West Brabant

ROC Eindhoven

de Mondriaan onderwijsgroep

ROC Midden Nederland

ROC van Twente

ROC Zadkine

ROC Amarantis

ROC Albeda College

ROC van Amsterdam

3

5

7

9

1

13

15

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Relative trend

2005-2007

Percentage of school

drop-outs in 2007

Figure 14: relaive rend, school drop-ou percenage and absolue number o new school drop-ous by ROC in 2007-2008

Source: CFI



The gure shows hree relevan dimensions

indicaing how each Regional Educaional

Cenre (in Duch: “ROC”) sands: he abso-

lue number o new school drop-ous; he

percenage o school drop-ous in 2007-

2008; and he relaive reducion in he abso-

lue number o new school drop-ous in

2007-2008 compared wih he 2005-2006

school year.

The size of the circle■ indicaes he number o

school drop-ous in 2007-2008; he big-ger he circle, in oher words, he larger

he number o new school drop-ous. For

example: ROC Zadkine and ROC Albeda

College had a considerably larger number

o new school drop-ous han ROC de

Leijgraa and ROC Ter AA.

The horizontal position of each circle■ indicaes

he relaive rend in number o new

school drop-ous be ween he 2005-2006

and 2007-2008 school years. ROCs le o

he verical axis have reduced he number

o school drop-ous by 10% or more. ROCs

righ o he verical axis have seen a

reducion in school drop-ou numbers o

less han 10%, and a ew ROCs on he ar

righ have even experienced an increase

in he number o school drop-ous.

The vertical position of each circle■ indicaes

he relaive number o school drop-ous.The cenre o he graph indicaes he ROC

average. ROCs above he horizonal axis

have a higher-han-average percenage o

school drop-ous. ROCs below he hori-

zonal axis have a lower-han-average

percenage o school drop-ous.

When combined:

The size o he circle or ROC Flevoland,■

or example, shows ha i is in he middle

bracke when i comes o he number o

school drop-ous. Is posiion on he ar

righ means ha here has been an una-

vourable rend in erms o number o

school drop-ous. Their numbers have

no declined, bu increased. The posiion

relaively ar above he horizonal axis

indicaes ha he percenage o school

drop-ous is quie high.

ROC Friesland College is locaed on he■

botom le o he gure, combining a

avourable rend in number o school

drop-ous wih a low relaive percenage.

Explanaion Figure 14:





Chaper School-related traitsof new school drop-outs

This chaper considers he school-relaed rais o new school drop-ous based on naional fgures. Inormaion on

he school-relaed rais o school drop-ous a regional or insiuional level are available under “regio-ino” a

www.aanvalopschooluival.nl (his websie is available in Duch only).

primary school, including special educaion

primary school and special educaion

secondary school (VO), years +

senior general

secondary (HAVO)/

pre-universiy(VWO), years -

pre-vocaional

secondary (VMBO),

years +

vocaional raining

pahway (BOL)

day release

pahway (BBL)

special

needs

pracical

raining

(PRO)

special

secondary

educaion

(VSO)

wih a diploma wihou a diploma

A cohor is a group o persons who have undergone he same (demographic) even or a specied period o ime, or example a calendar year.

Pupils drop ou o school a various levels and in various

secors o he educaion sysem. A secondary level, pupilsdrop ou in he ransiion year and while enrolled in pre-

vocaional secondary (VMBO), senior general secondary

(HAVO) or pre-universiy (VWO) programmes. Pupils drop

ou in all our levels o vocaional secondary educaion, as

well as in he vocaional raining pahway (BOL) or day

release pahway (BBL). There are also dieren secors wi-

hin secondary vocaional educaion.

Figure 15 shows how many pupils in a cohor 1 o 100 pupils

leaving primary school drop ou in he various secors o

he educaion sysem. For example, o he 100 pupils, 4 drop

ou in years 3-4 o pre-vocaional secondary (2 wih and 2wihou a diploma) and 13 rom he vocaional raining

pahway. The diagram has no been adjused or drop-ous

who reurn o school. In secondary educaion, he larges

number o school drop-ous can be ound in pre-vocaional

secondary educaion. Hal o hese do obain heir diploma,

bu do no coninue wih heir educa ion. Many more pupils

drop ou in secondary vocaional educaion, however. The

majoriy o hem were enrolled in he vocaional raining

pahway.

Figure 15: ow char or new school drop-ous, 2007-2008



. Educaional level and diplomas o new school drop-ous

Adul general secondary educaion (VAVO) has he highes■

percenage o school drop-ous. They consiue a small

group in absolue numbers, however. Mos o he drop-ous

(70%) have come rom secondary vocaional educaion;

The reducion in he number o drop-ous in boh adul■

general secondary (-22.1%) and secondary (-19%) educaion

since 2005-2006 has surpassed he naional average. The

reducion in secondary vocaional educaion comes o

6.5%;

37% o young people who drop ou o secondary educai-■

on do have a pre-vocaional secondary diploma. This isno a basic qualicaion, however.

11% o he young people who drop ou o secondary vocaio-■

nal educaion have a level-1 secondary vocaional diploma;

35% 57%

8%

School drop-out

with pre-vocational

(VMBO) diploma

School drop-out with

level-1 secondary vocatio

(MBO) diploma

School drop-out

without diploma

Table 4: new school drop-ous by educaional level and ype o diploma in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Pupils enrolled

in school

School

drop-out with

pre-vocatio-

nal (VMBO)

diploma

School

drop-out with

level-1

secondary

vocational

(MBO)

diploma

School

drop-out

without

diploma

Number of

drop-outs

% of drop-

outs

Trend in

% of

drop-outs

compared

with

2005-

2006

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

2005-

2006

2007-

2008

Total 1.307.635 1.316.561 30.337 27.397 2.828 3.792 20.926 17.123 54.091 48.312 4,1% 3,7% -10,7%

Secondary (VO) 908.652 912.601 6.584 4.884 58 99 9.836 8.370 16.478 13.353 1,8% 1,5% -19,0%

Secondary vocaional

(MBO)

389.711 396.943 23.028 21.916 2.762 3.677 1 0.484 8.324 36.274 33.917 9,3% 8,5% -6,5%

Adul general

secondary educaion

(VAVO)

9.272 7.017 725 597 7 16 606 429 1.338 1.042 14,4% 14,8% -22,1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

2007/20082005/2006

Secondary vocational

(MBO)

Secondary

(VO)

2%

28%

70%

Secondary

vocational

(MBO)

Secondary

(VO)

Adult general

secondaryeducation

(VAVO)

Figure 16: rend in he percenage o school drop-ous by ype o school in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 17: oal group o new school drop-ous by ype o school in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 18: oal group o new school drop-ous by diploma caegories in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

57% o he oal group o drop-ous have a pre-vocaional■

secondary diploma. 8% o he oal group leaves school

wih a level-1 secondary vocaional diploma.



8%

17%

15%

39%

14%

7%

transition,

years 1-2

learning support

(LWOO), years 1-2

learning support

(LWOO), years 3-4

pre-vocational(VMBO), years 3-4

senior general

secondary (HAVO),

years 3-5

pre-university (VWO),

years 3-6

. New school drop-ous insecondary educaion

53% o school drop-ous are in he hird or ourh year o ■

a learning suppor programme (LWOO) or pre-vocaional

educaion programme (VMBO). Some o hem do have

heir pre-vocaional diploma, bu have no (ye) sared

ollow-up raining;

Years 3-4 o he learning suppor and pre-vocaional edu-■

caion programmes have seen he larges reducion in

school drop-ous;

Wha is sriking is he increase in school drop-ous in■

years 3-5 o senior general secondary (HAVO) and years

Figure 20: rend in percenage o new secondary school drop-ous by

ype o programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

2007-20082005-2006

transition year 3

transition,

years 1-2

learning support

(LWOO), years 1-2

learning support

(LWOO), years 3-4

pre-vocational

(VMBO), years 3-4

senior general secondary

(HAVO), years 3-5

pre-university

(VWO), years 3-6

3-6 o pre-universiy (VWO) educaion. The drop-ou per-

cenages in hese groups are sill below he average in

secondary educaion and he naional average, however.

23% o secondary school drop-ous are in years 3-5 o

senior general secondary and years 3-6 o pre-universiy

educaion;

24% o all secondary school drop-ous are in he ransii-■

on year (ransiion years 1-2, learning suppor year 1 and

ransiion year 3).

Figure 19: oal group o new secondary school drop-ous by ype o

programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Table 5: new secondary school drop-ous by ype o programme in

2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

RMC region

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled

in school

Number

of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs

compared

with

2005-2006

secondary education total 908.652 16.478 1,8% 912.601 13.353 1,5% -19,0%

ransiion, years 1-2 337.038 2.478 0,7% 327.893 2.176 0,7% -12,2%

learning suppor (LWOO), years 1-2 54.627 1.480 2,7% 53.694 985 1,8% -33,5%

ransiion year 3 6.444 43 0,7% 6.343 41 0,6% -4,9%

learning suppor (LWOO), years 3-4 43.845 2.907 6,6% 47.669 1.901 4,0% -34,6%

pre-vocaional (VMBO), years 3-4 181.890 7.165 3,9% 169.743 5.073 3,0% -29,2%

senior general secondary (HAVO), years 3-5 136.097 1.475 1,1% 146.245 2.064 1,4% 39,9%

pre-universiy (VWO), years 3-6 148.711 935 0,6% 161.014 1.114 0,7% 19,1%



. New school drop-ous insecondary vocaional educaion

The larges group o school drop-ous can be ound in■

years 2 and 4 o he vocaional raining pahway (BOL)

and year 2 o he day release pahway (BBL). Togeher, hey

accoun or wo-hirds o he number o drop-ous in

secondary vocaional educaion (MBO).

The percenage o drop-ous is highes in level 1. Some o ■

hese youngsers have obained heir level-1 secondary

vocaional diploma, however.

The larges relaive reducion has been seen in year 1 o ■

he vocaional raining pahway and year 3 o he day

release pahway.

Figure 22: oal group o new secondary school drop-ous by ype o

secondary vocaional programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 21: rend in percenage o new school drop-ous by ype o

secondary vocaional programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

2007-20082005-2006

Vocational training

(BOL) level 1

Vocational training

level 2

Vocational training

level 3

Vocational training

level 4

Day release

(BBL) level 1

Day release

level 2

Day release

level 3

Day release

level 49%

3%1% 3% 3%

25%

12%

4%

8%

22%

Vocational

training (BOL)

level 1

Vocational

training level 2

Vocational

training level 3

Vocational

training level 4

Day release

level (BBL) 1

Day release

level 2

Day release

level 3

Day release

level 4

Examination

pupil

Adult general

secondary

education (VAVO)

Table 6: new secondary vocaional school drop-ous by ype o programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

RMC region

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs compared

with 2005-2006

mbo (excl. vavo) total 389.711 36274 9,3% 396943 33917 8,5% -6,5%

Vocaional raining (BOL) year 1 12.592 4.577 36,3% 9.530 3.312 34,8% -27,6%

Vocaional raining level 2 63.160 9.382 14,9% 58.865 8.659 14,7% -7,7%



Day release (BBL) level 1 3.095 1.306 42,2% 3.369 1.316 39,1% 0,8%

Day release level 2 37.219 5.810 15,6% 41.558 6.238 15,0% 7,4%

Day release level 3 24.893 1.559 6,3% 26.381 1.197 4,5% -23,2%

Day release level 4 7.026 452 6,4% 8.080 438 5,4% -3,1%

Examination pupil 1 134 81 60,4% 186 106 57,0% 30,9%

Examination pupil 2 1.413 385 27,2% 1.742 502 28,8% 30,4%



Adult general secondary

education (VAVO)

9.272 1.338 14,4% 7.017 1.042 14,8% -22,1%



Excep or he “combined” secor (which accouns or 1%■

o school drop-ous), he “economics” secor has he

highes percenage o school drop-ous (9.8%). A he

same ime, he reducion in his secor has also been he

greaes (-12.4%);

Almos hree quarers o all school drop-ous in secon-■

dary vocaional educaion are rom he economics and

echnology secors.

Figure 24: oal group o new school drop-ous by secondary vocaional secor

in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Table 7: new school drop-ous by secondary vocaional secor in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

RMC region

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outscompared

with

2005-2006

Secondary vocational

(excluding adult

general secondary)

389.711 36.274 9,3% 396.943 33.917 8,5% -6,5%

economics 142.857 15.474 10,8% 137.675 13.552 9,8% -12,4%

echnology 109.273 11.001 10,1% 114.243 10.743 9,4% -2,3%

healhcare and welare 117.796 8.337 7,1% 122.409 7.961 6,5% -4,5%

agriculure 19.785 1.462 7,4% 20.579 1.373 6,7% -6,1%

combined 2.037 288 14,1%

23%

4% 1%

40%

32%

economics

technology

healthcare and welfare

agriculture

combined

Figure 23: rend in percenage o new school drop-ous by secondary

vocaional secor in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%

2007-20082005-2006

combined

agriculture

healthcare

and welfare

technology

economics





Chaper Background traits of new schooldrop-outs in the Netherlands

Chaper 4 reviews he mos signifcan background rais o new school drop-ous, based on naional fgures. I looks

a gender, age, ehnic background, size o ciy/own, siuaion a home and wheher or no he drop-ou is a crime

suspec. Finally, he chaper looks a areas in which cumulaive povery condiions prevail; various social and econo-

mic rais coincide here.

Figure 24: rend in percenage o new school drop-ous by gender, 2007-2008

Source: CFI

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

2007-20082005-2006

female

male

Table 8: new school drop-ous by gender in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of drop-

outs compared with

2005-2006

Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%

male 666.731 32.153 4,8% 670.149 28.779 4,3% -10,5%

emale 640.904 21.938 3,4% 646.412 19.533 3,0% -11,0%

Figure 25: oal group o school drop-ous by gender in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

. Gender

There are more male han emale school drop-ous, wih■

boys accouning or 60% o he oal group;

There has been a bigger reducion in drop-ous among ■

girls (-11%) han among boys (-10.5%);

The group o boys has a higher percenage o drop-ous■

(4.3%) han he group o girls (3%).

40%

60%

female

male



. Age

18 and 19 year-olds make up he larges group o school■

drop-ous. There has also been an increase in he number

o drop-ous in his age group;

The older youngsers are, he higher he percenage o ■

drop-ous, generally speaking.

Figure 27: oal group o school drop-ous by age in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Table 9: new school drop-ous by age in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outscompared

with

2005-2006

Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%

=< 13 150.227 715 0,5% 148.763 618 0,4% -13,5%

14 188.583 1.478 0,8% 183.796 1.172 0,6% -20,7%

15 192.014 1.810 0,9% 184.954 1.521 0,8% -16,0%

16 189.668 4.455 2,3% 187.883 3.026 1,6% -32,1%

17 179.722 10.832 6,0% 188.372 7.149 3,8% -34,0%

18 150.607 11.481 7,6% 159.508 12.785 8,0% 11,4%

19 105.276 8.801 8,4% 104.634 8.895 8,5% 1,1%20 76.719 6.380 8,3% 76.764 6.064 7,9% -5,0%

21 47.075 4.649 9,9% 50.661 4.202 8,3% -9,6%

22 27.745 3.489 12,6% 31.226 2.880 9,2% -17,5%

1%

3%

6%

15%

27%

18%

13%

9%

6%

2%

18 yrs

19 yrs

20 yrs

21 yrs

22 yrs

13 yrs or younger

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

Figure 26: rend in percenage o new school drop-ous by age in

2007-2008

Source: CFI

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

2007-20082005-2006

22 yrs

21 yrs

20 yrs

19 yrs

18 yrs

17 yrs

16 yrs

15 yrs

14 yrs

13 yrs

or younger



. Ehnic background

Approximaely wo hirds o all school drop-ous are■

Duch naives;

The percenage o minoriy drop-ous is wice as large as■

he percenage o Duch drop-ous (6% and 3% respeci-

vely). The reducion in number o school drop-ous has

been virually he same in boh groups;

The reducion in school drop-ous is larger among ■

Wesern minoriies (-13.4%) han non-Wesern ones

(-6.9%). The percenage o drop-ous is lower among

Wesern minoriies (4.7% compared wih 6.2%);

The number o school drop-ous has increased among ■

pupils rom an Aruban/Anillean background (5.8%) anda Moroccan background (3.7%);

Among non-Wesern minoriies, pupils rom a Turkish■

background have he lowes percenage o school drop-

ous (5.6%). The larges reducion o drop-ous has been

seen among pupils rom a Surinamese background

(-8.8%).

Figure 30: oal group o school drop-ous by ehnic background in 2007-2008

Duch naive: A person whose parens were boh born in he Neherlands, regardless o where he person him/hersel was born. Minoriy: A person who has a leas one paren born abroad. Non-Wesern minoriy: A minoriy whose origins lie in a counry locaed in one o he ollowing regions: Arica, Lain America and Asia (excl. Indonesia and Japan) or Turkey. Wesern minoriy: A minoriy whose origins lie in a counry locaed in one o he ollowing regions: Europe (excl. Turkey), Norh America and Oceania or Indonesia or Japan.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

2007-20082005-2006

Non-Western minority

Western minority

Dutch native

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

2007-20082005-2006

Other non-Western minorities

Morocco

Turkey

Aruba/Netherlands Antilles

Surinam

Figure 28: rend in percenage o new s chool drop-ous by ehnic

background in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 29: rend in percenage o new s chool drop-ous by ehnic background, non-Wesern minoriies, 2007-2008

Source: CFI

65%5%

3%

5%

6%

7%

8%1%

Morocco

Non-Western minorities

Western minorities

unknown

Dutch native

Surinam

Aruba/Netherlands Antilles

Turkey



Table 10: new school drop-ous by ehnic background in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs

compared

with

2005-2006

Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%

duch naive 1.020.910 34.970 3,4% 1.029.942 31.212 3,0% -10,7%

minoriy 286.725 19.121 6,7% 286.619 17.100 6,0% -10,6%

wesern minoriy 81.730 4.264 5,2% 78.300 3.693 4,7% -13,4%

Non-Wesern minoriy 201.900 13.793 6,8% 602.542 12.848 6,2% -6,9%

unknown 3.095 1.064 34,4% 1.777 559 31,4% -47,5%

Table 11: new school drop-ous by non-Wesern background, 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs

compared

with

2005-2006

Total 201.900 13.793 6,8% 602.542 12.848 6,2% -6,9%

Surinam 38.597 2.732 7,1% 37.413 2.492 6,7% -8,8%

Aruba/Neherlands Anilles 15.491 1.217 7,9% 15.475 1.288 8,3% 5,8%

Turkey 44.781 2.749 6,1% 46.977 2.624 5,6% -4,6%

Morocco 41.200 2.799 6,8% 41.938 2.903 6,9% 3,7%

Oher non-Wesern minoriies 61.831 4.296 6,9% 64.739 3.541 5,5% -17,6%



. Siuaion a home

A quarer o school drop-ous come rom single-paren■

amilies; or non-school drop-ous, ha is 15%;

Boh in secondary educaion and secondary vocaional■

educaion, a larger percenage o drop-ous live on heir

own han pupils who say in school.

Source: Saisics Neherlands, -

Total

Total secondary and secondary vocational drop-outs Total non-drop-outs

Living at home 82% 95%

Living a home, 2 parens 57% 80%

Living a home, 1 paren 25% 15%

Living on their own 11% 3%

Living on heir own, single 8% 2%

Living on heir own, oher 1 3% 1%

Other household categories 2 7% 2%

100% 100%

Secondary drop-outs non-drop-outs



Living a home, 1 paren 29% 15%

Living on their own 3% 1%

Living on heir own, single 3% 0%

Living on heir own, oher 0% 0%

Other household categories 5% 2%

100% 100%

Secondary vocational drop-outs non-drop-outs



Living a home, 1 paren 23% 15%Living on their own 15% 9%

Living on own, single 11% 7%

Living on heir own, oher 4% 2%

Other household categories 7% 4%

100% 100%

1 “Living on heir own, oher” reers o he ollowing pupils (Saisics Neherlands):

■ Living on heir own, co-habiing, no children;

■ Living on heir own, co-habiing, children;

■ Living on heir own, single, children.

2 “Oher household caegories” reers o he ollowing pupils (Saisics Neherlands):

■ insiuional residens, pupils in residenial care;

■ oher households no lised previously;

■ caegory unknown.

The columns do no always add up o %. Tha is because he numbers in he able have been rounded o decimal.

Table 121: siuaion a home or drop-ous and non-drop-ous, 2006-2007 (oal, secondary and secondary vocaional)



. Crime suspec

Boh in secondary and secondary vocaional educaion,■

he group o school drop-ous has more young people

suspeced1 o a crime2 han he non-school drop-ous.

There are clear dierences beween he various years and■

levels. More han a quarer o school drop-ous in year 3

o pre-vocaional educaion have been suspeced o a

crime in he hree years prior o heir dropping ou. A

hird o drop-ous in level 1 o secondary vocaional edu-

caion have been crime suspecs.

The percenages or he enire group o pupils are higher ■

in he our larges ciies o he Neherlands (G4); 27% o

new school drop-ous have been suspeced o a crime,

whereas ha gure is 7% or non-school drop-ous.

Crime suspec (Saisics Neherlands): A pupil has been suspeced o a crime i he or she was regisered in he Police Idenicaion Sysem in he hree calendar years prior o

he poin a which i is esablished ha he pupil enrolled in he iniial year has dropped ou o school (i.e. Ocober o he ollowing school year). For he - school

year, his means , and . Crime (Saisics Neherlands): Serious criminal ofence as dened in criminal law.

Table 13: percenage o school drop-ous suspeced o a crime, by year/level in 2007-2008 (provisional fgures)

Source: Saisics Neherlands /Naional Police Services (KLPD), , ,

drop-outs non-drop-outs

Total secondary and secondary vocational 10.140 22% 56.010 4%

total secondary 1.860 15% 23.540 3%

secondary, year 1-2 430 15% 5.000 1%

secondary, pre-vocaional (VMBO), year 3 390 28% 6.340 6%


secondary, senior general secondary (HAVO),

years 3-5/pre-universiy (VWO), years 3-6

190 7% 4.850 2%

total secondary vocational 8.280 24% 32.470 9%

secondary vocaional (MBO) level 1 1.790 38% 2.370 28%


secondary vocaional (MBO) level 3 870 16% 7.000 8%


Table 14: G4, percenage o school drop-ous suspeced o a crime, by year/level in 2006-2007 (provisional fgures)

Source: Saisics Neherlands /Naional Police Services (KLPD), , ,

drop-outs non-drop-outs

G4 total 2.383 27% 9.327 7%

total secondary 517 20% 4.276 3%

secondary, year 1-2 139 21% 1.078 3%



secondary, senior general secondary (HAVO),

years 3-5/pre-universiy (VWO), years 3-6

36 6% 747 3%

total secondary vocational 1.866 30% 5.051 13%

secondary vocaional (MBO) level 1 528 46% 586 31%


secondary vocaional (MBO) level 3 183 20% 945 10%




Figure 31: percenage o pupils residing in a cumulaive povery problem area,

2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 32: percenage o non-Wesern minoriies in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

. Corresponding social and economic rais and cumulaive povery areas

less than 4%

4 - 7 %

7 - 14 %

more than 4%

less than 6%

6 - 10 %

10 - 20 %

more than 20 %

The ables above show ha a number o background rais cor-

respond o he percenage o new school drop-ous and rends

in he size o his group. In addiion o hese individual back-

ground rais, Saisics Neherlands has idenied specic

areas in which various social and economic rais correspond

o he percenage o new school drop-ous. These rais are

households receiving benes, low-income households and

he percenage o non-Wesern minoriies. These rais are

closely inerrelaed; i a region has a high score on one pari-

cular rai, i will usually have high scores on he ohers oo.

Saisics Neherlands calls hese areas “cumulaive povery

problem areas”.

The background rais can be ound in he gures below a

RMC regional level:

Figure 33: percenage o low-income households in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

Figure 34: percenage o households on benef in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

less than 2 %

2 - 4 %

4 - 6 %

more than 6 %

less than 2 %

2 - 4 %

4 - 7 %

more than 7 %



The higher he percenage o households on bene, low-

income households and non-Wesern minoriies in a regi-

on, he higher he percenage o school drop-ous. In addi-

ion, he more young people living in a cumulaive povery

problem area, he higher he percenage o school drop-

ous in general.

The percenage o school drop-ous is wice as high in■

cumulaive povery problem areas as in oher areas: 6.3%

as opposed o 3.2%. The number o drop-ous in such

areas has increased slighly compared wih 2005-2006;

14% o pupils live in a cumulaive povery problem area.■

More han 25% o new school drop-ous come rom such

an area;

I is noable ha he percenages o low-income house-■

holds and households on bene are quie high in he

norh o he Neherlands. Because here are ew non-

Wesern minoriies in hese areas, however, here are

generally ewer cumulaive povery problem areas here.

Table 15: cumulaive povery problem areas, new school drop-ous in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Pupils

enrolled in

school

Number of

drop-outs

% of

drop-outs

Trend in % of

drop-outs

compared

with

2005-2006

Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%

Lives in a cumulaive povery

problem area

181.772 12.842 7,1% 208.473 13.084 6,3% 1,9%

Does no live in a cumulaive

povery problem area

1.125.863 41.249 3,7% 1.108.088 35.228 3,2% -14,6%





This is a publicaion o he Minisry o Educaion, Culure and

Science

The Neherlands

Producion:

Projecdirecie Voorijdig Schoolverlaen

www.aanvalopschooluival.nl

Design:

Balyon, www.balyon.com

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	proiectul-sos
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

The Approach to School Drop-Out in the Netherlands

Documents