Inclusion
and
education
in



European
countries


INTMEAS
Report
for
contract
–2007‐2094/001
TRA‐TRSPO


Final report: 14. Experts and PLA

George Muskens
Lepelstraat
August 2009
This is an independent report commissioned by the European Commission's Directorate-
General for Education and Culture. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent the official position of the European Commission.

Drafts of this report benefited from comments and advice from the consortium’s reference
group members and from other experts in this field.

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

The electronic version of this report is available at:

http://www.docabureaus.nl/INTMEAS.html

Available INTMEAS-reports:

1. Summary/sommaire/Zusamenfassung
2. Comparative conclusions
3. Discussion and recommendations
4. France 


5. Germany
6. Hungary
7. Italy
8. The Netherlands
9. Poland
10. Slovenia
11. Spain
12. Sweden
13. UK
14. Experts and PLA

INTMEAS Reference Group

George Muskens, project leader

Jaap Dronkers, expert adviser
José Ramón Flecha, expert adviser
Jill Bourne, expert adviser
Danielle Zay, leader French research team
Ingrid Gogolin, leader German research team
Pál Tamás, leader Hungarian research team
Francesca Gobbo, leader Italian research team
Michał Federowicz, leader Polish research team
Albina Neçak Lük, Sonja Novak Lukanovic, leaders Slovenian research team
Mariano Fernándes Enguita, leader Spanish research team
Elena Dingu Kyrklund, leader Swedish research team
Rae Condie, leader UK research team

 Inclusion measures in ‘further’
European countries and educational
regions



INTMEAS Report for contract –2007-2094/001 TRA-

TRSPO

Report of the expert survey and national examples as presented at

Peer Learning Activities

George Muskens
Lepelstraat, May 2009


TABLE
OF
CONTENTS

1
 AIMS ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2
 RESPONSE
TO
THE
EXPERT
SURVEY ................................................................................. 2

3
 REPORTS
OF
THE
PEER
LEARNING
ACTIVITIES
PLAS ................................................. 3

4
 MEASURES
FOR
KEEPING
EARLY
SCHOOL
LEAVERS
ABOARD.................................. 4

5
 PRIORITY
MEASURES ............................................................................................................. 6

6
 INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
MEASURES ................................................................................... 8

7
 SAFE
EDUCATION
MEASURES,
MEASURES
AGAINST
BULLYING
AND

HARASSMENT ................................................................................................................................ 10

8
 CONCLUSIONS,
SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 11

8.1
 MEASURES
TO
REDUCE
EARLY
SCHOOL
LEAVING:......................................................................... 12

8.2
 PRIORITY
MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 12

8.3
 INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
MEASURES .................................................................................................. 13

8.4
 SAFE
EDUCATION
MEASURES ............................................................................................................ 14



 I

1 Aims

In
the
EU‐Member
States
that
were
not
covered
by
our
ten
national
research

teams
we
have
carried
out
an
expert
survey
on
inclusion
measures
in
education,

and
we
have
added
examples
as
presented
at
Peer
Learning
Activities.
Therefore,

the
materials
in
the
present
report
are
additional
to
the
main
comparative

assessment
of
inclusion
measures
in
ten
Member
States.
Additional
information

was
welcome
for
two
major
reasons,
being:

Most
reliable
knowledge
on
inclusion
measures
regards
qualitative
knowledge,

certainly
as
far
as
implementation,
effects
and
wider
applicability
is
concerned.

Nothing
or
only
a
few
things
are
really
sure
and
evidence
based
policies
and

practice.
In
this
respect,
the
wider
and
richer
our
knowledge
base
would
be
the

better.
It
would
mean:
more
cases
and
enriched
assessment.
Therefore,
we
wanted

to
extend
the
scope
of
the
project
by
expert
reports
on
cases
and
countries
that
were

not
represented
among
the
ten
countries.

The
ten
countries
should
not
be
seen
as
a
representative
sample
of
all
EU‐Member

States.
They
are
a
collection
of
ten
countries,
with
different
educational

arrangements
and
policies.
For
the
wider
interpretation
of
the
outcomes
additional

information
from
the
other
Member
States
would
be
welcome
and
needed.

After
the
first
phase
of
the
project
we
have
concluded
that
all
terms
of
reference

of
the
project
were
to
be
focussed
on
six
major
frames
of
inclusion
measures
in

mainstream
education.
These
frames
were:

How
to
keep
early
school
leavers
aboard
or
how
to
reintegrate
them
after
leaving

the
school
too
early?

What
priority
measures
are
set
out
and
applied
in
schools
for
target
groups
of
pupils

at
risk?

What
inclusive
measures
are
set
out
and
applied
for
pupils
with
handicaps,

disabilities
and
special
needs?

What
measures
should
ensure
safe
education
for
all
pupils,
and
particularly
for

pupils
at
risk
of
bullying
and
harassment?

What
measures
should
support
schools
and
staff?

For
the
expert
survey
and
PLA‐analysis
the
last
focus
was
dropped,
as
it
might

cover
a
too
wide
range
of
possible
measures
or
regard
the
implicit
effects
of

measures
that
are
not
directly
aiming
at
the
inclusion
of
pupils
at
risk
in

mainstream
education.
Therefore,
we
have
asked
the
experts
and
checked
the

PLA‐reports
for
measures
as
undertaken,
on
the
importance
of
the
measures
and

on
evaluation
research
as
available
concerning
four
issues,
namely:

Measures
to
reduce
early
school
leaving.

Measures
to
improve
the
chances
of
disadvantaged
pupils,

Measures
to
include
pupils
with
a
handicap,
with
restrictions
and/or
special
needs

in
mainstream
education,

Measures
against
bullying
and
harassment.

The
questions
were
formulated
as
open
questions
in
a
four‐question

questionnaire.
Further
to
the
questions
short
explanations
have
been
included
in

the
questionnaire,
namely:

Early
school
leaving
–
this
regards
the
full
or
partial
dropout
of
pupils,
not
being
in

the
interest
of
the
pupils
themselves
nor
in
that
of
society.
For
the
European

societies,
the
pupils
should
at
least
reach
a
decent
labour
market
qualification
at
the



 1

 level
of
ISCED
3C,
i.e.
a
level
that
includes
some
upper
secondary
education.
Pupils

may
not
be
interested
in
reaching
that
level
because
of
lost
motivation
and
a

multitude
of
troubles,
or
because
they
obviously
are
unable
to
pass
tests
and

examinations
at
the
level
of
ISCED
3C,
or
because
they
find
their
way
on
the
labour

market
and
in
society
without
passing
ISCED
level
3C.
According
to
the
Lisbon

Declaration
the
number
of
early
school
leavers
is
too
high
in
all
or
most
member

States
of
the
EU;
in
2010
the
number
should
be
halved
compared
to
the
numbers
in

2001.


Improved
chances
for
disadvantaged
minorities
–
most
European
countries
have

set
out
priority
policies
and
measures
to
improve
the
chances
of
pupils
belonging
to

disadvantaged
minorities.
It
regards
disadvantages
that
follow
from
inequities
in

society
and
that
are
independent
of
the
individual
capacities
of
the
pupils.
As
a

result,
the
pupils
are
at
risk
of
exclusion
from
education
and
society,
whereas
talents

may
get
lost.
Sources
of
such
inequities
may
be
gender,
ethnicity
–immigrant
and/or

indigenous,
class,
and
handicaps.
As
far
as
measures
are
undertaken
in
your
country:

for
which
disadvantaged
groups?

Inclusive
education
for
pupils
with
handicaps,
special
needs,
etc.
–
in
varying

degrees
the
European
countries
have
implemented
inclusive
policies
and
measures

in
mainstream
education
for
pupils
with
handicaps,
special
needs,
etc.
In
this
way

the
exclusion
and
discrimination
of
children
and
young
people
with
handicaps
and

special
needs
is
to
be
counter‐acted,
while
at
the
same
time
highest
effort
is
to
be

made
to
assure
‘appropriate
and
tailor‐made
education’
in
relation
to
the
handicaps,

special
needs,
etc.
In
varying
degrees,
the
latter
issue
has
been
an
argument
in

favour
or
against
education
in
special
schools
and
institutions.
Please
reveal
the

position
of
your
country
in
this
respect.

Bullying
and
harassment
–
in
practice
bullied
and
harassed
pupils
are
at
risk
of

marginalisation
and
exclusion
from
schools
and
classes,
while
bullies
and
pupils
or

staff
that
has
harassed
pupils
are
at
risk
of
severe
disciplinary
measures,
including

forced
expulsion
from
school
and
education.
In
a
wider
frame,
safe
educational

conditions
for
all
pupils
were
to
be
safeguarded.
We
should
assess
the
measures
that

enhance
such
conditions
and
that
should
diminish
bullying
and
harassment
in

education.
We
would
be
helped
by
your
information
concerning
measures
in
your

country.

2 Response
to
the
expert
survey

Within
the
tight
conditions
of
time
and
budget
we
have
approached
27
selected

experts
in
the
seventeen
countries.
Through
the
ongoing
snowball‐method
5

further
experts
were
added
to
our
group,
on
recommendation
of
their
colleagues.

All
experts
represent
the
full
EU‐level
1
or
level
2
expertise
in
the
filed
of

primary
and
secondary
education,
and/or
related
fields
such
as
educational

policies
or
youth
at
risk
of
exclusion
and
early
school
leaving.

Not
all
were
effectively
contacted
or
were
able
to
respond
to
the
questionnaire.

We
have
received
valuable
response
from:

Belgium
(Flemish
Community),
Dr.
Peter
van
Puyenbroeck,
Antwerp,

Belgium
(French
Community),
Dr.
Dragana
Avramow,
CSPC
Brussels,

Bulgaria,
Prof.
Krassimira
Daskalova,
St. Kliment Ohridski University Sofia

Czech
Republic,
Prof.
Jan
Jirak,
Charles
University
Prague;
Prof.
Milan
Pol,
Masaryk

University
Brno,

Cyprus,
Dr.
Christos
Panayotopoulos,
Intercollege
Nicosia,

Denmark,
Prof.
Niels
Egelund,
University
of
Århus,

Finland,
Prof.
Marita
Mäkinen,
University
of
Tampere,



 2

 Greece,
Dr.
Roman
Gerodimos,
University
of
Bournemouth

Latvia,
Prof.
Brigitta
Zepa,
Baltic
Institute
of
Social
Sciences
Riga

Malta,
Dr.
Mary
Anne
Lauri,
University
of
Malta

Portugal,
Prof.
Candida
Ferreira,
Technical
University
of
Lisbon;
Prof.
Olga
Pombo,

University
of
Lisbon,
Prof.
Cristina
Maria
Coimbra
Vieira,
University
of
Coimbra,

Luisa
Marroni,
University
of
Coimbra

Slovak
Republic,
Dr.
Gabriel
Bianchi,
Slovak
Academy
of
Sciences
Bratislava


The
present
report
is
based
upon
their
response
to
the
questionnaire.


3 Reports
of
the
Peer
Learning
Activities
PLAs

EU
education
and
training
policy
has
been
given
added
impetus
since
the

adoption
of
the
Lisbon
Strategy
in
2000,
the
EU's
overarching
programme

focusing
on
growth
and
jobs
(Presidency
of
the
European
Council,
2000
March).

EU
Member
States
and
the
European
Commission
have
in
recent
years

strengthened
their
political
cooperation
through
the
Education
and
Training

2010
work
program
(European
Commission,
2008).
There
are
three
overall

objectives:

Improving
the
quality
and
effectiveness
of
education
and
training
systems;

Facilitating
access
to
education
and
training
systems;
and

Opening
up
EU
education
and
training
systems
to
the
wider
world.

The
philosophy
is
that
Member
States
can
learn
a
lot
from
each
other.
The

Commission
organises
peer
learning
activities
between
member
states

interested
in
jointly
developing
national
policies
and
systems
in
specific
fields.

Their
main
working
method
is
the
identification
and
planning
of
Peer
Learning

Activities
(PLAs).
The
PLAs
are
a
process
of
cooperation
at
European
level

whereby
policy
makers
and
practitioners
from
one
country
learn
from
the

experiences
of
their
counterparts
elsewhere
in
Europe
in
implementing
reforms

in
areas
of
shared
interest
and
concern.
The
following
relevant
PLAs
have
taken

place
since
2007:

How
can
Teacher
Education
and
Training
policies
prepare
teachers
to
teach

effectively
in
culturally
diverse
settings?
Olso,
20‐05‐2007,

Validation
of
non‐formal
and
informal
learning
for
teachers
and
trainers
in

vocational
education
and
training,
Lisbon,
14‐01‐2008,

Fight
against
failure
at
school
and
inequality
in
education,
Paris,
12‐11‐2007,

(De)segregation
in
education,
Budapest,
25‐04‐2007,

Preventative
and
compensatory
measures
to
reduce
early
school
leaving,
Dublin,
31‐
01‐2007,

School
integration
of
immigrant
children,
positive
discrimination
measures,
support

to
school
drop‐outs,
Brussels,
09‐10‐2006.

The
reports
of
the
PLAs
have
been
published
on
a
special
website,
being
the

knowledge
system
for
lifelong
learning,
http://kslll.net.

Examples
of
inclusion
measures
from
Member
States
that
were
not
covered
by

our
ten
research
teams
and
the
response
to
the
expert
survey
have
been
added

to
the
response
and
the
report
of
the
expert
survey,
as
further
national
examples.

These
regards
examples
in:

Ireland,



 3

 Turkey.


These
examples
have
been
included
in
the
present
report.


4 Measures
for
keeping
early
school
leavers
aboard
Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Belgium,
 The
transition
from
insertion
classes
to
 Most
schools
are
controlling
for
truancy
 Time‐out
projects.
Since
2006
budgets
are

Flemish
 mainstream
education
is
to
be
improved,
as
 effectively.
 available
for
local
time‐out
project,
short‐
Community
 to
avoid
comparatively
high
numbers
of
 stay
as
well
as
long‐stay.

early
school
leaving
among
side‐ Most
schools
are
controlling
for
truancy

instreamers.
 effectively.
Special
position
is
created
to

support
frequent
absentees,
i.e.
the
JoJo.

JoJos
are
young
starters
on
the
labour

market,
who
are
working
as
mentors
of
the

absentees,
while
in
the
meantime
finishing

their
upper
secondary
education.

Absentees
are
apparently
rather
frequently

foreign
pupils,
who
have
followed
insertion

classes
before.


Early
school
leavers
may
be
found
and

guided
by
youth
coaches,
as
in
Antwerp.

Belgium,
 All
measures
are
actually
bottom‐up
 The
effects
of
the
measures
have
not
been
 In
the
frame
of
three
lines
the
schools
are

French
 measures
in
the
sense
that
they
follow
from
 evaluated
systematically.
With
regard
to
 encouraged
to
take
action
against
early

Community
 active
planning
and
action
on
behalf
of
the
 dual
courses
(school
in
combination
with
 school
leaving.
These
are:

schools.
However,
they
are
underpinned
by
 training
on
the
job),
that
should
keep
early
 • Priority
 education,
 e.g.
 additional

targeted
legislation,
e.g.
on
SAS,
which school
leavers
from
upper
vocational
 funding
 in
 relation
 to
 apparent

means a space of transition. SAS offers a sort training
aboard,
the
outcome
might
be
 deficiencies
 and
 disadvantages
 of

of sabbatical period so as to allow pupils to contradictory
in
the
sense
that
only
a
 pupils,

explore other fields of activities. minority
appeared
to
do
jobs
in
the
sector
 • Special
 services
 against
 school
 failure,


 of
training.
 i.e.
 re‐insertion
 classes
 and
 rebound

It
is
common
sense
knowledge
that
funding
 arrangements
for
dropouts
and
pupils

has
been
too
limited.

 at
risk
of
dropping
out,


 • Encouragement
 of
 dual
 courses
 in
 the

streams
 and
 tracks
 of
 upper
 vocation

training,
 where
 the
 pupils
 at
 risk
 of

dropping
out
are
concentrated.

Bulgaria
 In
Bulgaria
measures
are
mentioned
that
 The
measures
are
supposed
to
be
an
 

should
support
the
groups
of
pupils
at
 effective
first
step
towards
the
inclusion
of

highest
risk
of
exclusion
from
education,
 target
groups
at
risk.

immediately
or
in
a
later
phase.
The
Roma

children
are
mentioned
as
the
group
at

highest
risk.
The
measures
are
applied
in

the
grades
1‐4
of
compulsory
education.

The
national
program
includes
measures

such
as
free
textbooks
and
materials,
free

transportation,
free
good
breakfast.

Cyprus
 Rather
low
priority,
as
numbers
of
early
 
 

school
leavers
are
moderate

Apprentice
scheme
for
dropouts
from

lower
secondary
education
–
dual
courses

Evening
and
over‐night
schools,
with
800

dropouts
from
primary
and
lower

secondary
education

Czech
 Numbers
of
early
school
leavers
are
low,
 Roma
teaching
assistants.
 School
counsellors
and
other
specialised

Republic
 apart
from
target
groups
as
risk,
 No
evaluation
research
but
experience
 staff.

particularly
Roma
children.
 showed
relatively
good
results.

Compulsory
education
up
to
the
age
of
15,

sanctioned.

Curriculum
reform.

Denmark
 Numbers
are
moderate.
 
 

Municipal
psychological
services.

Regional
Youth
and
Career
Counselling

Services



 4



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Ireland
 DEIS
–
Recent
policy
plan
against
 
 


source:
 educational
disadvantages:

(Cluster
 • Home
 School
 Community
 Liaison,

"Access
and
 aimed
 at
 establishing
 collaboration

Social
 between
parents
and
teachers.

Inclusion
in
 • School
 Completion
 Programme,
 a

Lifelong
 positive
 discrimination
 measure,

Learning")
 targeting
 those
 in
 danger
 of
 dripping

out.
 Clusters
 of
 school
 receive
 extra

funding.

• YouthReach,
 second
 chance
 education

for
unemployed
early
school
leavers.

• Area
 Partnerships,
 since
 the
 90’s;

specific
focus
on
education.

Finland
 
 Comprehensive
and
compulsory
education
 Early
support
measures
and
individual

until
the
age
of
18.
The
numbers
that
have
 tracks
for
the
55
that
may
not
reach
the

not
reached
the
ISCED
3C‐level
then
is
very
 requested
level
at
age
18.

low:
0,3%
(EUROSTAT
7,9%
in
2007).


Rather
high
numbers
are
out‐placed
in

special
education
(almost
8%)

Greece
 Not
highest
priority:
numbers
are
 Early
school
leaving
concentrated
in
male
 

moderate
and
declining
(under
EU‐ groups
at
risk.

average),
while
82%
has
completed
upper
 Repressive
approach
appears
not
to
be

secondary
education;
lower
secondary
 effective.

education
is
compulsory
and
sanctioned.

Special
assessment
and
progression

New
measures:
intercultural
education,
 provisions
for
pupils
from
foreign

additional
teaching
support,
Transition
 countries.

Observatory.
 Observed
gap
between
national
policy

making
and
the
promotion
of
new

measures
at
the
grassroots
level
of
the
local

communities.

Latvia
 
 Early
school
leaving
is
increasing,
by
1000
 Possible
measures:


pupils
in
six
years.
 Involvement
of
school
social
workers.

Roma
children
are
the
most
important
 Further
support
personnel
for
the
schools

group
at
risk.
 and
the
teachers
(not
enough
budget).

Report:
Youth
and
inter‐Ethnic
schools
 Adapted
curricula
for
pupils
at
risk
and
in

(DAPHNE
Project)
 need

Pedagogical
correction
and
re‐insertion
or

rebound
classes,
up
to
three
years..

Malta
 Sanctions
of
obvious
absenteeism.
 The
issue
would
be
less
urgent
than
 Improved
registration
of
absenteeism.

(European)
statistics
appear
to
suggest.
 In
case,
intervention
by
a
Social
Worker.

Inefficient
court
proceedings
with
regard
to

sanctions
and
fines.

Portugal
 Compulsory
education
up
to
grade
9;
 Good
results
in
the
1990s,
but
no
further
 Further
job
training
opportunities
for

sanctions
and
fines.
 improvement
thereafter.
 dropouts.

Sanctions
for
employers,
who
employ
 The school is responsible for the
young
people
in
their
compulsory
 implementation for taking measures, with a
education
age.
 permanent evaluation of them and of the
Grants
and
further
support
for
 results.
disadvantaged
pupils
and
families.
 Alternative School Trajectories, if needed
Increased school autonomy that should Courses of Education and Training for pupils
improve the pupils´ learning processes older then 15 years old
The Integrated Program of Education and Territories for priority measures and
Training intents to prevent children/adolescent intervention
from risk situation of child labour Individualized teaching or domestic teaching
Reinforcement and training of teachers in Mobile education for children of itinerant
some areas considered as “key areas”
 professionals
Flexible curriculum management
Full‐time
schools
The schools have been indicating a decrease
in the number of dropouts



 5



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Slovakia
 
 Strong
inter‐relationship
between
early
 

school
leaving
and
disadvantages,

particularly
in
case
of
Roma
children
–
for

measures;
see
under.

Turkey
 In
Turkey,
the
Ministry
of
Social
and
the
 
 (


),
returning
to
school
has
been
provided

(PLA­ Ministry
of
Education
have
launched
a
 to
the
10‐14
aged
children
that
are
out
of

meeting,
see
 program
on
Reducing
Social
Risk.
The
aim
is
 the
education
system
in
the
frame
of

to
develop
a
social
aid
web
in
order
to
 “Compensation
Education”.
The
students

footnote)

support
poor
children
to
access
basic
 who
become
successful
in
this
education

education
services.
A
financial
aid
is
given
 system
have
the
chance
of
continuing
to

to
underprivileged
families
at
condition
 their
education
by
settling
them
to
the

that
they
bring
their
children
to
school
and
 classes
according
to
their
ages.
640.000

to
health
services.
Additional
support
is
 students
have
taken
advantage
of
this

given
to
girls.
 education
till
the
end
of
2006.


5 Priority
measures
Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Belgium,
 Extension
of
compulsory
education
for
all
 The
Flemish
authorities
have
issued
 Schools
may
use
the
GOK‐budget
that
is

Flemish
 2,5‐4
year
is
considered
as
to
guarantee
 legislation
with
regard
to
GOK,
being
 allocated
to
them
for
measures,
such
as:

Community
 full
participation
in
pres‐school
education.
 priority
education
for
disadvantaged
pupils,
 • Remedial
teaching,

e.g.
in
relation
to
home
language
use,
low
 • Additional
classes
and
hours,

cultural
capital
from
home
or
poverty,
other
 • Language
 education
 in
 Dutch
 as
 second

socio‐economic
disadvantages,
or
moderate
 language
(after
language
tests),

individual
disorder.
In
this
frame
a
GOK‐ • Intercultural
education,

budget
is
available
for
the
schools
with
high
 • Orientation
classes
for
further
education,

numbers
of
disadvantaged
pupils.
 • Socio‐emotional
development
training,


 • Participation
of
pupils
and
parent.

Belgium,
 Decree
on
Positive
Discrimination
 Bridge
classes
have
proven
to
be
effective;
 Tutoring
university
and
college
students,

French
 Bridge
classes
for
newcomers
(French,
 they
take
one
week
up
to
one
year.
 helping
disadvantaged
pupils
in
the

Community
 civic
education,
math
and
science)
 Tutoring
has
also
proven
to
be
useful.
Some
 transition
phase
from
secondary
to
tertiary

lack
of
co‐operation
from
some
teachers,
 education.

who
may
be
reticent
towards
students

entering
the
school.

Bulgaria
 Anti‐discrimination
programme
2006‐ 5500
pupils
and
300
teachers
until
2010
 

2015,
for
the
integration
of
Roma
children

and
other
discriminated
groups
without

segregation.

Remaining gender discrimination, especially
concerning the content of the textbooks. They
continue to perpetuate the old gender
stereotypes. Lack of gender sensitivity is a
common feature for the whole educational
system.

Cyprus
 Zones
of
Educational
Priority,
since
2003
 Ongoing
evaluation
research.
 

on
a
pilot
basis,
for
zones
with
high
 Permanent
working
group
for
the

concentrations
of
ethnic
minorities
 promotion
of
literacy
and
school.

(Turkish
Cypriots),
immigrants,
asylum

seekers,
among
others.
 Nationwide
individual
assessment
of

functional
illiteracy.

Literacy
programme
to
tackle
functional

illiteracy
at
the
end
of
compulsory

education,

Special
needs
education
and
individualised

programmes



 6



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Czech
 Applicable
laws
with
regard
to
special
 Obviously
not
effective,
particularly
 Roma
school
assistants

Republic
 needs
children,
including
“socially
 among/for
Roma
children
children.
These
 Preparatory
and
insertion
classes.

disadvantaged”
children
 are
labelled
as
being
“unadaptable”.

Linking
the
Roma
families
and
the
schools.

Linking
the
Roma
families
and
the
schools

are
potentially
very
promising.
 Local
centres
for
the
integration
of

minorities.

The
local
centres
for
the
integration
of

minorities
are
viewed
as
being
effective.

Denmark
 Enforced
language
screening
for
 
 

proficiency
in
Danish,
at
the
age
of
3
and
6.

In
case
of
need,
supplementary
language

stimulation
will
take
place
(from
2009

onwards).

1975‐2002
mother
tongue
education
for

bilingual
children.

Finland
 Debate
on
(new)
immigration
and
 Teaching
for
Lappish
children
at
Lappish
 

education
is
going
on.
 language
schools.

Offered
is
preparatory
education
 The
own
culture
of
the
Romanie
people
is

(insertion
classes)
for
newcomers.
 taken
into
account.

Greece
 Implementation
of
programmes
and
 Quite
effective
minimum
framework
over
 Support
programmes
for
disadvantaged

curricula
for
intercultural
education
 the
last
ten
years
(Support
Centres,
 pupils,
particularly
pupils
with
a
handicap
–

(Roma,
Muslims).
 Intercultural
Education).
 developed
by
national
expert
centres.

However:
reaming
low
school
participation
 Reliance
on
the
national
ombudsman

in
secondary
education
of
Roma
children.
 (Children’s
Advocate)
in
case
of

However
too:
latent
discrimination
and
 discrimination

stigmatisation
in
the
national
curriculum

(e.g.
predominance
of
the
Greek‐Orthodox

Christian
religion).

Latvia
 Bilingual
classes
for
the
Russian
etc.
 The
Latvian
knowledge
has
increased
 

minorities,
as
to
ensure
the
learning
of
 among
minority
children.

Latvian.
 Attitudes
towards
Latvia
and
Latvian

remained
negative,
and
reform
was

evaluated
controversially.

Malta
 None
 
 Training
of
staff
in
multicultural
knowledge

and
skills.

Own
school
projects
and
initiatives.

Portugal
 Entitlement
for
social
insertion
revenues
 No
decrease
of
the
poor
population.
 Social
housing
programs

(very
moderate).
 Immigrants
from
Latin
America
(Brazil)
and
 Goodwill
and
scarce
measures
in
some

Expert
centres
for
the
relevant
handicaps,
 Africa
(former
colonies).
 schools

to
support
inclusive
education
 Strong
rhetorical
discourse
on
multicultural
 School
for
children
of
travelling
people


 society.
 Mobile
School

Mother‐tongue
education
if
appropriate
 Full‐time
schools

Individualized/domestic
teaching


Specialised
professionals



 7



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Slovakia
 The
School
Act
of
2008
has
formalised
the
 Roma
educational
expert
centre
in
Presov.
 Assistant
teachers.

rights
of
the
child
and
students
and
has
 Several
proposed
measures
remained
 Improved
curricula.

banned
all
forms
of
discrimination
and
 unused,
such
as
‘individual
education’
–

segregation
in
education.
 National
pilot
project
in
the
Presov
region.

reasons:
missing
training
and
skills
of

Governmental
definition
of
a
socially
 teachers,
missing
materials
and
equipment,
 Co‐operation
with
parents.

disadvantaged
environment,
with
financial
 missing
standards.
 Public
relations
and
public
awareness

benefits
for
socially
disadvantaged
 Many
further
obstacles
in
practice.
 campaigns.

children:
smaller
classes,
special
‘zero’‐ PHARE‐supported
projects
for
the

classes
(preparatory
classes)
 Control
mechanisms
in
hands
of
regional

educational
authorities,
and
the
State
 integration
of
Roma
children.

Government
resolutions
on
the
education
 School
Inspectorate.
 Opportunities
for
Roma
language
education.

of
Roma
children,
since
2003.

National
Guidance
and
Decree
on
Special

Obligatory
pre‐school
education,
from
age
 School
Enrolment
Procedures.

4
onwards.

Consultation
with
Amnesty
International

and
the
Minority
Council
of
the

Government
on
special
Roma
school,
and

Roma
in
special
education.

National
priority
with
regard
to
the

inclusion
of
Roma.


6 Inclusive
education
measures
Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Belgium,
 
 National
budgets
are
available
for
specific
 Support
by
GON‐guides,
often
being

Flemish
 GON‐support,
i.e.
support
of
pupils
with
an
 specialist
pedagogues.

Community
 indication
in
the
autism
spectre.
 Special
programmes:
TEACCH
(Treatment

Further
‘difficult’
pupils
are
to
be
managed
 and
Education
of
Autistic
and
related

in
the
frame
of
priority
education,
if
 Communication
handicapped
Children),

applicable.
 STICORDI
(stimulating,
compensating,

remedial
teaching,
dispensating).

The

model
of
inclusive
education
was
 Inclusive
education
usually
regards
the

introduced
rather
lately
in
the
Flemish
 following
successive
steps:

Community.

• Individual
plan,

• Empowering
 learning
 environment
 as

created
by
the
teachers
themselves,

• Additional
 care
 as
 offered
 by
 GOK‐
 or

GIN‐teachers,
in
case
of
need,

• Further
individual
measures,
if
needed.

Belgium,
 Centres
for
Psychological,
Medical
and
 50%
of
the
children
with
special
needs
and
 

French
 Social
Services
give
support
to
the
 disabilities
are
receiving
education
in

Community
 mainstream
schools
in
relation
to
pupils
 mainstream
schools.

with
special
needs.
 No
comprehensive
evaluation

Bulgaria
 
 The
number
of
included
pupils
in
 90
projects
for
improved
architectural

mainstream
education
has
risen
from
700
 access
of
55
schools,
with
state
funding

to
around
5500
in
three
years
time.

Cyprus
 Inclusive
education,
since
1999,
in
 
 Programmes
for
special
education.

mainstream
classes
or
in
special
classes
of
 550
specialised
support
staff.

mainstream
schools.
Only
pupils
with

severe
difficulties
are
educated
in
special
 In‐service
training.

schools.
 N.B.
Not
enough,
with
problems
related
to

steps
from
primary
to
secondary
education.

Czech
 New
legislation
underway,
allocating
track
 Effective
measures
for
the
full
integration.
 Any
programs
for
the
full
integration
of

Republic
 money
for
the
inclusive
education
of
 handicapped
pupils
in
mainstream

handicapped
etc.
pupils.
 education.

Expert
support
centres
and
specialised
staff



 8



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Denmark
 Inclusive
if
possible
 3.8%
of
all
pupils
is
educated
in
special
 

schools.
Increased
segregation
since
twenty

years,
particularly
in
the
field
of
ADHD,

autism,
Asperger,
and
social
or
emotional

problems.

Finland
 New
legislation
and
implementation
of
 
 

‘appropriate
education’
for
special
needs

pupils,
based
upon
their
individual
troubles

and
capacities.

Public
debate
on
pupils’
welfare
and
stress.

Greece
 Implementation
of
Special
Education
Act
 Longstanding
exclusion,
discrimination
and
 Online
resources
and
civil
society
websites.

and
extension
of
special
schools.
 marginalisation
of
handicapped
etc.
 Expert
support
and
diagnostics
centres.

children/pupils.

Need
for
cultural
change.

Improvements
since
some
10
years
(e.g.

legal
framework
for
non‐discrimination).

Investments
needed
in
architecture,

facilities
and
equipment.
Need
to
include

disabled
students
into
mainstream

education.

Insufficient
teacher
training.

Latvia
 Recent
changes
are
introduced
in
the
 Soviet
history:
institutionalised
treatment
 Parental
support
programs.

direction
of
inclusive
education.
 of
handicapped
etc.
children/pupils.
 European
funding
(ESF)

Still
prevalent
model.
 Individualised
education
and
home

Still
insufficient
teacher
training
 education,
if
possible
and
wanted.

Malta
 Inclusive
Education
Act
2000,
Inclusive
and
 Only
few
pupils
in
special
schools.
 Expert
support
centres
(former
special

Special
Education
Act
2005.
 schools)

Teacher
training
materials
and
support

staff;
upgraded
qualification.

Portugal
 Inclusive
education
is
promoted.
 But
not
easy
to
get
the
necessary
additional
 SEN‐pupils
have
the
right
to
be
recognized

The
Ministry
of
Education
has
developed
 human
resources.
 in
their
specificity
and
to
benefit
from
the

measures
related
to
the
training
and
 Portugal
is
not
yet
able
to
assure
a
true
 availability
of
appropriate
educative

stability
of
teachers
in
schools,
to
the
 appropriate
educative
regime
for
 answers


enlargement
of
timetable,
to
the
 handicapped
etc.
pupils.
 Adapted
materials
and
equipment.

maintenance
of
a
“full
time
school”,
and
by
 Teacher
training.

disseminating
the
“good
practices”

Parents
complain
that
they
prefer
special

The
classes
for
SEN‐pupils
are
shorter
 education
for
their
children.

(maximum
of
20)
and
the
per
class
is

limited
(maximum
of
2)

Evaluation
of
‘inclusive
education’
is
in
the

making

Slovakia

 Special
schools
for
children
with
a
health
 
 Assistant
teachers

disadvantage.
 Special
textbooks

Inclusive
education
(or
better
‘integration‐ Special
equipment,

oriented’
education)
in
mainstream

schools,
in
special
classes
or
in
mixed
 Right
of
using
sign
language,
Braille
writing,

classes.
‘Integration’
means:
adaptation
of
 etc.

the
handicapped
etc.
pupils
to
the

requirements
of
the
schools,
and
not
vice

versa:
schools
should
adapt
to
the
special

needs
of
the
pupils.



 9

 7 Safe
education
measures,
measures
against
bullying
and

harassment
Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Belgium,
 
 
 No‐Blame
approach
–
child‐oriented

Flemish
 approach
of
bullies;
apparently
and

Community
 evidence‐based
successful
as
underlined
at

national
expert
conferences
and
at
the

Flemish
Consultation
Platform
concerning

Bullying.

Key
person:
school
co‐ordinator
(often
the

remedial
teacher).

Seven
steps,
i.e.

• Meeting
with
the
victim,

• Bringing
 all
 together,
 who
 were

involved,

• Explanation
of
the
problem(s),

• Shared
responsibilities,

• Groups
proposals
fro
improvement,

• Group
takes
action,

• Meeting
with
each
child
individually.

Belgium,
 
 Violence
is
a
general
characteristic
of
 Mediators,
who
are
to
facilitate

French
 schools
with
a
high
concentration
of
 communication

Community
 children
from
low
socio‐economic
 Mobile
mediation
teams,
intervening
at
the

background
and
immigrant
children.
 request
of
the
head
of
an
educational

Mediators
should
be
effective
for
children
 establishment

who
are
apparently
unable
to
cope
with

their
high
emotions.

Bulgaria
 No
state
measures.
 Permanent
media
coverage
on
violence
in
 

schools,
etc.

Cyprus
 
 Educational
Psychology
Services:
 Pilots
of
the
Ministry
in
11
schools.

preventive
programmes.

European
DAFNI‐program.

Evaluation
of
the
11
pilots.

Lack
of
official
numbers
with
regard
to

bullying
and
harassment.

Anecdotal
evidence.

Small
scale
studies.

Czech
 
 Public
discussion.
 In‐service
training
of
teachers
and
staff.

Republic
 New:
attention
for
cyber‐bullying.
 Protection
of
teachers.

Measures
taken
by
the
principal.

Teachers
can
confiscate
mobile
telephones.

Defensive
reactions
of
parents
against

‘repressive’
teachers
and
schools.

Denmark
 
 Research
project
(1
million
euro).
 Schools
should
deal
with
the
issue.

Public
attention.

Children’s
Council.

Centre
for
Environmental


Issues
(around
the
school)

Finland
 Multi‐professional
forms
of
collaboration
 Most
schools
are
involved
in
the
project
 

which
surpass
administrative
boundaries
 called
“Nice
School”,
which
intends
to
find

have
been
developed.

The
regulations
 practical
ways
of
preventing
bullying
in
the

concerning
professional
confidentiality
are
 whole
of
Finland.

The
most
recent
results

being
changed
to
the
effect
that
an
 show
that
this
consistent
and
long‐lasting

organiser
of
education
will
have
better
 programme
has
helped
to
decrease
bullying

access
to
necessary
information
for
the
 considerably.

benefit
of
the
children
concerned.



 10



Top­down
measures
as
effectively

Country
 Top­down
measures
as
to
be
applied
 applied
 Bottom­up
measures

Greece
 
 Direct
relation
with
the
exclusion
of
 

disadvantaged
and
discriminated
pupils.

Low
on
bullying
and
harassment
or
low
on

transparency
on
the
issue?

Media
attention
for
‘happy
slapping’
and

other
incidents.

Ban
on
mobile
telephones
in
schools?

Latvia
 
 No
data,
no
measures
 

Malta
 
 
 Victims
and
perpetrators
are
referred
to

school
counsellors.

Portugal
 Local
police
intervention,
if
needed.
 
 Intervention
strategies
can
be
developed
by

In
last
years,
several
studies
refer
to
an
 Services
of
Psychology
and
Guidance,
in

increase
in
the
number
of
bullying
 schools
or
by
groups
of
schools


situations
in
schools,
not
clarifying
if
this
 Individualized
victim
support,
such
as:


fact
is
due
to
a
greater
facility
of
students
to
 • A
more
private
room,


explain/complain
about
the
several
 • A
laptop
with
internet
access,


situations
to
which
they
are
subjected
or
if
 • Teacher
of
support,

this
fact
is
due
to
a
real
increase
of
bullying
 • A
specialist
from
the
Services
of

in
schools.
 Psychology
and
Guidance.

Additional
human
resources
and
specialists,

although
financing
these
is
rather

demanding.

Schools
should
educate,
not
punish
the

pupils,
including
the
‘bullies’.

However,
teachers
are
now
endowed
with

several
legal
means,
necessary
for
the

maintenance
of
their
scholar
authority.

Mobile
school

Individualized/domestic
teaching

Slovakia
 Methodical
guidance
of
the
Ministry
to
 National
webpage.
 Reluctant
response
of
the
schools
and
staff

prevent
bullying
and
harassment
in
schools.
 Training
of
prevention
coordinators.
 (school
policies
to
prevent
to
be
identified

Implementation
of
OECD‐Network.
 as
a
school
where
such
things
happen;

Monitoring
f
the
issue
in
the
schools.
 keeping
the
bad
news
out
of
the
media).

Sensitising
parents,
etc.


8 Conclusions,
summary

The
response
to
the
expert
survey
has
enriched
and
extended
the
knowledge

base
concerning
inclusion
and
education,
and
particularly
the
knowledge
base

concerning
strategies,
policies
and
measures
in
the
frame
of:

The
reduction
of
early
school
leaving
and
the
reintegration
of
early
school
leavers,

Priority
education,

Inclusive
education,

Safe
education
in
general
and
the
reduction
of
bullying
and
harassment
in
particular.

The
response
reconfirmed
the
rich
variety
of
possible
strategies,
policies
and

measures
as
undertaken
in
the
countries
concerned.
Many
or
even
most
of
these

appear
to
be
worth
further
attention
of
European,
national,
regional
and
school‐
related
actors,
offering
interesting
examples
and
ideas.
They
were
to
be

incorporated
in
a
European
knowledge
centre
for
measures
to
enhance
inclusion

in
education.
Most
worthwhile
are
the
bottom‐up
measures
and
practices,
in

general
and
those
that
have
been
evaluated,
in
particular,
i.e.
the
practices
and

examples
that
are
listed
in
column
3
and
4
of
the
schemes
above.




 11

8.1 Measures
to
reduce
early
school
leaving:

Truancy
control
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Time‐out
projects
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Mentoring
and
coaching
for
early
school
leavers
and
job
starters
(Belgium,
Flemish

Community),

Re‐insertion
classes
and
rebound
arrangements
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Priority
measures
for
disadvantaged
pupils
at
risk
of
early
school
leaving
(Belgium,

Walloon
Community),

Dual
vocational
courses
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

School
counsellors
and
other
specialised
staff
(Czech
Republic),

Comprehensive
and
compulsory
education
until
the
age
of
18
(Finland),

Early
support
measures
and
individual
tracks
(Finland),

Apparently
ineffective
repression
(Greece),

Involvement
of
school
social
workers
(Latvia),

Further
support
personnel
for
the
schools
and
the
teachers
(Latvia),

Adapted
curricula
for
pupils
at
risk
and
in
need
(Latvia),

Pedagogical
correction
and
re‐insertion
or
rebound
classes,
up
to
three
years

(Latvia),

Improved
registration
of
absenteeism
(Malta),

In
case,
intervention
by
a
Social
Worker
(Malta),

Further
job
training
opportunities
for
dropouts
(Portugal),

Alternative
School
Trajectories,
if
needed
(Portugal),

Individualized
teaching
or
domestic
teaching
(Portugal),

Flexible
curriculum
management
(Portugal),

Full‐time
schools
(Portugal),

Compensation
education
(Turkey).

8.2 Priority
measures

A
central
budget
for
priority
education
as
available
for
schools,
to
be
used
for:

• Remedial
teaching,

• Additional
classes
and
hours,

• Language
education
in
Dutch
as
second
language
(after
language
tests),

• Intercultural
education,

• Orientation
classes
for
further
education,

• Socio‐emotional
development
training.

Participation
of
pupils
and
parent
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Tutoring
university
and
college
students
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Bridge
classes
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Linking
Roma
families
and
schools
(Czech
Republic),

Roma
school
assistants
(Czech
Republic),

Preparatory
and
insertion
classes
(Czech
Republic),

Local
integration
centres
(Czech
Republic),

Lappish
language
schools
(Finland),

Support
centres
for
intercultural
education
(Greece),

Support
programmes
for
disadvantaged
pupils,
particularly
pupils
with
a
handicap
–

developed
by
national
expert
centres
(Greece),

Reliance
on
the
national
ombudsman
(Children’s
Advocate)
in
case
of
discrimination

(Greece),

Training
of
staff
in
multicultural
knowledge
and
skills
(Malta),

Own
school
projects
and
initiatives
(Malta),

Mother‐tongue
education
(Portugal),

Social
housing
programs
(Portugal),

Goodwill
and
scarce
measures
in
some
schools
(Portugal),

School
for
children
of
travelling
people
(Portugal),



 12

 Mobile
School
(Portugal),

Full‐time
schools
(Portugal),

Individualized/domestic
teaching
(Portugal),

Specialised
professionals
(Portugal),

Roma
educational
expert
centre
Presov
(Slovakia),

National
pilot
project
in
the
Presov
region
(Slovakia),

PHARE‐supported
projects
for
the
integration
of
Roma
children
(Slovakia),

Opportunities
for
Roma
language
education
(Slovakia),

Assistant
teachers
(Slovakia),

Improved
curricula
(Slovakia),

Co‐operation
with
parents
(Slovakia),

Public
relations
and
public
awareness
campaigns
(Slovakia),

National
Guidance
and
Decree
on
Special
School
Enrolment
Procedures
(Slovakia).

8.3 Inclusive
education
measures

National
budgets
are
available
for
GON‐support
of
pupils
with
an
indication
in
the

autism
spectre
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Support
by
GON‐guides,
often
being
specialist
pedagogues
(Belgium,
Flemish

Community),

Special
programmes:
TEACCH
(Treatment
and
Education
of
Autistic
and
related

Communication
handicapped
Children),
STICORDI
(stimulating,
compensating,

remedial
teaching,
dispensating)
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Inclusive
education
usually
regards
the
following
successive
steps
(Belgium,
Flemish

Community):

• Individual
plan,

• Empowering
learning
environment
as
created
by
the
teachers
themselves,

• Additional
care
as
offered
by
GOK‐
or
GIN‐teachers,
in
case
of
need,

Further
individual
measures,
if
needed.
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

90
projects
for
improved
architectural
access
of
55
schools,
with
state
funding

(Bulgaria),

Programs
for
special
education
(Cyprus),

550
specialised
support
staff
(Cyprus),

Specialised
in‐service
training
(Cyprus),

Programs
for
the
full
integration
of
handicapped
pupils
in
mainstream
education

(Czech
Republic),

Expert
support
centres
and
specialised
staff
(Czech
Republic),

Online
resources
and
civil
society
websites
(Greece),

Expert
support
and
diagnostics
centres
(Greece),

Parental
support
programs
(Latvia),

European
funding
(ESF)
(Latvia),

Individualised
education
and
home
education,
if
possible
and
wanted
(Latvia),

Expert
support
centres
(former
special
schools)
(Malta),

Teacher
training
materials
and
support
staff;
upgraded
qualification
(Malta),

SEN‐pupils
have
the
right
to
be
recognized
in
their
specificity
and
to
benefit
from
the

availability
of
appropriate
educative
answers
(Portugal),

Adapted
materials
and
equipment
(Portugal),

Specialised
teacher
training
(Portugal),

Assistant
teachers
(Slovakia),

Special
textbooks
(Slovakia),

Special
equipment
(Slovakia),

Right
of
using
sign
language,
Braille
writing,
etc.
(Slovakia).



 13

8.4 Safe
education
measures

No‐Blame
approach
–
child‐oriented
approach
of
bullies;
apparently
and
evidence‐
based
successful
as
underlined
at
national
expert
conferences
and
at
the
Flemish

Consultation
Platform
concerning
Bullying
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community),

Key
person:
school
co‐ordinator
(often
the
remedial
teacher)
(Belgium,
Flemish

Community),

Seven
steps,
i.e.

• Meeting
with
the
victim,

• Bringing
all
together,
who
were
involved,

• Explanation
of
the
problem(s),

• Shared
responsibilities,

• Groups
proposals
fro
improvement,

• Group
takes
action,

• Meeting
with
each
child
individually
(Belgium,
Flemish
Community).

Apparently
effective
mediators
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Mediators,
who
are
to
facilitate
communication
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Mobile
mediation
teams,
intervening
at
the
request
of
the
head
of
an
educational

establishment
(Belgium,
Walloon
Community),

Pilots
of
the
Ministry
in
11
schools
(Cyprus),

In‐service
training
of
teachers
and
staff
(Czech
Republic),

Protection
of
teachers
(Czech
Republic),

Measures
taken
by
the
principal
(Czech
Republic),

Teachers
can
confiscate
mobile
telephones
(Czech
Republic),

Defensive
reactions
of
parents
against
‘repressive’
teachers
and
schools
(Czech

Republic),

Research
project
(1
million
euro)
(Denmark),

Public
attention
(Denmark),

Children’s
Council
(Denmark),

Centre
for
Environmental
(Denmark),

Issues
(around
the
school)
(Denmark),

Schools
should
deal
with
the
issue
(Denmark),

The
project
“Nice
School”,
which
intends
to
find
practical
ways
of
preventing

bullying
in
the
whole
of
Finland.

The
most
recent
results
show
that
this
consistent

and
long‐lasting
programme
has
helped
to
decrease
bullying
considerably
(Finland),

Ban
on
mobile
telephones
in
schools?
(Greece),

Victims
and
perpetrators
are
referred
to
school
counsellors
(Malta),

Intervention
strategies
can
be
developed
by
Services
of
Psychology
and
Guidance,
in

schools,
or
groups
of
schools
(Portugal),

Individualized
victim
support,
such
as:


• A
more
private
room,


• A
laptop
with
internet
access,


• Teacher
of
support,

• A
specialist
from
the
Services
of
Psychology
and
Guidance
(Portugal),

Additional
human
resources
and
specialists,
although
financing
these
is
rather

demanding
(Portugal),

Schools
should
educate,
not
punish
the
pupils,
including
the
‘bullies’
(Portugal),

Teachers
are
now
endowed
with
several
legal
means,
necessary
for
the
maintenance

of
their
scholar
authority
(Portugal),

Mobile
school
(Portugal),

Individualized/domestic
teaching
(Portugal),

National
webpage
(Slovakia),

Training
of
prevention
coordinators
(Slovakia),

Monitoring
f
the
issue
in
the
schools
(Slovakia),

Sensitising
parents.
(Slovakia).

Reluctant
response
of
the
schools
and
staff



 14

The
response
is
further
discussed
in
the
final
INTMEAS‐report
“Conclusions
and

Recommendations”.
The
present
report
is
an
attachment
to
that
report.



 15