1. Individual study paths Statistics and conclusions from Finland

2. National authorities have invested lots of money to the programs concerning reducing dropping out Main goals were: - produce information of those factors which help students forward and factors that cause students´ droping out - evaluate all penetration programmes - develope control 11 different programmes took part to this Main themes were - Pedagogical solutions and teaching arrangements - Flexibility in studies and in examinations. - Develope student councelling - Develope student welfare services - Develope surveillance and information systems - Healthy learning environment

3. Challenges when talking about dropping out - Are we talking about droping out or resigning? - How do we do our statistics? - Our foundation is based on the amount of students – we have two days in a year when we compile our statistics – when do we mark certain drop outs? Dropping out statistics in Upper secondary education, in Vocational education, in polytechnics and in universities during 2002/2003-2011/2012 %

4. Results During school year 2011-2012 97 097 students studied in those vocational colleges which were involved to national droppign out programs Differences between organizations were alarmingly big - Drop out percent varied from 2,4% to 18,8% - KPAO:s percent was 7,5% in 2011-2012 and 5,9% in 2012-2013. - Now it is 8,5 % and we still have one month left…. Over 50% of organizations that percent was between 6-10% Tourism, Catering and Domestic Services had the biggest percent 11,8% - Why? That sector of vocational education have not been the first choice for many applicants. In that sector there are also more special students.

5. Results Social Services, Health and Sport had the lowest percent 8,00%. - Why? That sector of vocational education have less special students than others. Special students` in dropping out percent in vocational schools was 9,3% and in special vocational schools 7,6% Adults (over 20 years old) drop out more often than younger students. Reasons fro dropping out - wrong career choice - school related reasons - Alarming!! What are we going to do?

6. Keskuspuisto Drop out percent 2011-2012 7,5%, in Keskuspuisto 8,8% 2012-2013 5,9%, In Keskuspuisto 8,1% Control period autumn 2009 – spring 2012 - Drop out percent 19,43 examinationNDrop out percent Vehicle mechanic1225,53 Artisan (Product Design and Manufacture)26 Datanomi (User support,Software Production) 1017,86 ICT Technician 1819,35 Property Maintenance Operative 818,18 Machinist1216,44 Practical Nurse 1327,08 Painter816,67 MediaAssistant 1021,74 Merkonomi (Customer Service and Sales) 57,81

7. Keskuspuisto Control period autumn 2009 – spring 2012 - Drop out percent 19,43 examinationNDrop out percent Musician35,77 Design Assistant 2225,88 Cook 2428,92 Dancer 315 Site Facilities Operative 711,66 Piano tuner00 Upholsterer and interior Decorator 2234,36 Warehouse Operative 330

8. Keskuspuisto Age affects to drop outs. Those who are just majors are in a bigger risk (Age 18-21 – 45 %) Health issues and wrong career choice are the most common reasons to dropping out. 38% of drop outs happened in August/September 62% happened in fall semester -> Drop outs are concentrated to Autumn

9. Keskuspuisto Reason for special need educationNumber% of the dropouts% of students Difficulties to perceive, in vigilance and concentration137,226,37 Difficulties in language179,4412,74 Difficulties in interaction and behavior problems1910,554,42 Mild developmental disability158,339,71 Severe developmental disability000,1 Long-term mental problems5228,8823,21 Physical long-term condition63,335,5 Learning difficulties based on Autism and Asperger syndrome73,885,07 Difficulties in movement and motoric functions126,668,74 Hearing impaired31,662,8 Visually impaired126,6612,31 Other reason which requires special needs education158,334,31 No requirement for special needs education954,64

10. Keskuspuisto A Personal factors (no influence school): health issues, financial problems, change of address, dismissed B Personal factors (possible influence school): personal circumstances, learning difficulties, level too high, insufficient level of language or mathematics, personal behaviour/functioning, too many things outside school C School related factors (high level of influence school): school organisation, organisation of edu cation/didactics, social and physical environment, insufficient counselling/support, /equipment, attitude staff D Study and career choice related (possible influence school): wrong perception of course, wrong perception of future job, more interested in different course/job E Labour market and other outside influences (possible influence school): work preferred, no more training company F other Autumn 2009 – spring 2012 89 48,5% 54 30% 123 12,5 3 1,5% 6 3% Drop out reasons (20.9.2012- 20.6.2013) 13 students aged 23-) 19+13 8 42,1% 4 21,05% 4 21,05% 12 10,5% (1.8.2013- 17.4.2014) 13 students aged 23-) 30+13 11 57,89% 5 26,3% 110 52,63% 3 15,78%

11. Keskuspuisto Conclusions: - Early intervention is needed. - We have offered “grouping”- training to all our teachers (group leaders). - other updating training - Student election is developed. - Support and counselling is increased (4 counselors, 4 special teachers, job coaches) - We have a pilot in which we offer neuropsychiatric rehabilitation for 10 students -Teaching methods are developed. - Statistics don`t tell what we need to know. For instance School related reasons are not visible.

12. Erityisesti sinulle! Keskuspuiston ammattiopisto