Ministry of Education, Culture and

Science

The Approach to
School Drop-out
Policy in the Netherlands and
the results of the 2007-2008
performance agreements

www.aanvalopschooluitval.nl
The Approach to School Drop-out

Policy in the Netherlands and the results

of the 2007-2008 performance agreements

november 2009
 5

Table of contents

1. The approach to drop-out prevention in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.1 Drop-out prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
1.2 How are we going to reduce drop-out rates? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
1.3 How will we do this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
1.4 Results of 2007-2008 performance agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

2. Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11
2.1 The national perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11
2.2 The European target and an international comparison . . . . . . . . . . . .   12
2.3 The regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12
2.4 The four largest Dutch cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   18
2.5 Educational institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21
2.5.1 New school drop-outs at secondary schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21
2.5.2 New school drop-outs at secondary vocational (MBO) schools . . . . . . . .   21

3. School-related traits of new school drop-outs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   25

3.1 Educational level and diplomas of new school drop-outs . . . . . . . . . . .   26
3.2 New school drop-outs in secondary education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27
3.3 New school drop-outs in secondary vocational education . . . . . . . . . . .   28

4. Background traits of new school drop-outs in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . .   31
4.1 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   31
4.2 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   32
4.3 Ethnic background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
4.4 Situation at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35
4.5 Crime suspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   36
4.6 Corresponding social and economic traits and cumulative poverty areas . .   37

Chapter 1
The approach to drop-out
prevention in the Netherlands
1.1 Drop-out prevention
Reducing early school-leaving has been explicitly stated on
the cabinet’s political agenda since the early nineties. At
that time, the focus was mainly on the institutions, the
systems, the procedures and the instruments. No attention
was paid to the young people dropping out, for whatever
reason.
And then came ‘Lisbon’, the EU 2001 summit. One of the
‘Lisbon goals’ was to halve the school drop-out rate from
15.5 % to approximately 8% by 2010. The national goal in the
Netherlands is to halve the number of new school drop-
outs: from over 5% annually in 2002, to 2.5% in 2012, or
from 71,000 to 35,000 school drop-outs per year. We want to
offer young people who leave school the prospect of work,
now and in the future.
More than ever before an awareness is emerging: dropping
out of school is a significant societal and social problem as
well as an individual problem. For this reason, we should
not only be thinking about the systems and institutions but
rather the focal point should be the young people
themselves.
For this different approach – that has young people at its
centre – we decided on the Kafka Brigade. This is a form of
applied research developed by the University of Leiden, in
which problems in the functioning of authorities are expo-
sed from the perspective of the citizen. The Kafka Brigade
listened closely to the stories of Daniel, Rabi, San, Lisa and
other young people. These stories showed that steering and
instrumentation at that time, despite the best intentions,
maintained school dropping out rather than reduced it.
Many institutions busied themselves with young people
using different methods every time. The stories also showed
that many young people have multiple problems (mental
problems, learning difficulties, problems at home) that
together culminate in dropping out. The most important
lesson learned by the Kafka Brigade was thus: remain as
close as possible to young people, reduce administrative
layers and red tape as much as possible. Provide tailored
programmes (focus on the child) and specific care where
necessary. Ensure there is a single case manager who takes
the student under his/her wing after the intake interview at
school. In short: do not just talk about young people, talk to
them as well.
7
Bearing this recommendation in mind, in 2006, the previ-
ous cabinet began to combat school dropping out.
Important measures have already been implemented. For
instance, the compulsory school age has been extended
from 16 to 18 in combination with a strengthening of the
special needs provision in and around the school. The regi-
stration of school drop-outs has also been significantly
improved.
The current Dutch cabinet (a coalition of Christian
Democrats, Social Democrats and the Christian Union) is
following this line with determination with additional acti-
ons and increased funding – from € 26 million in 2008 to €
90 million (indicative) in 2011. In fact this cabinet is even
more determined: it has placed combating dropping out
together with raising the quality of education and solving
the problem of the teacher shortage in the top-ten aims of
its cabinet policy. Moreover, a cost-benefits study (analysed
by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis)
has shown that these costs will be fully compensated by a
drop in criminality, fewer benefits payments, etc.
1.2 How are we going to reduce
drop-out rates?
The main principles of the Aanval op Schooluitval (Drive to
reduce drop-out rates) programme are:
■■ Additional attention to the transfer from VMBO [pre-
vocational secondary education] to MBO (secondary
vocational education);
■■ More and better special needs provision at school;
■■ More room for students who prefer to work with their
hands and more tailored programmes;
■■ Better career orientation and guidance, study choice and
counselling;
■■ More attractive education with sports and culture to keep
young people in school;
■■ 20,000 programmes for school drop-outs in the age
group from18 to 23 for ‘competencies acquired else-
where’ and agreements with large employers aimed at
obtaining basic qualifications.
8
1.3 How will we do this?
Better registration, better analysis
Until about two years ago, there was no qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the problem of dropping out of
school. Data was lacking, incomplete and out-dated. An
alderman for education referred to all her efforts to reduce
dropping out as ‘shooting at moving targets’. She did not
know who the drop-outs were or where they were. An excel-
lent move has been made to tackle just this point with the
introduction of the so-called ‘Education Number’, a system
that offers complete and reliable figures on drop-out rates
nationally, regionally and at the municipal and district
levels. We have linked this data to socio-economic data
(including demographics, native Dutch citizens, ethnic
minorities, unemployment, people entitled to benefits,
etc.) per region, city and district. In this way we now have a
wealth of information at hand for implementing policy and
adjusting it when necessary. Is something working in
Amsterdam but not in Maastricht? Is a measure proving
fruitful or not? We can make adjustments. We are monito-
ring the results and keeping constant track of what works
and what doesn’t, using facts and figures and exchanging
good practices between the regions.
Regions to take action now
The involvement of professionals from the region (schools,
municipalities, youth services, the business community,
etc.) is essential to a tailored attack on dropping out. These
are the bodies that know exactly what is going on in relation
to the students in their region, from problems at home to
the local demand for technicians and the football pitch
round the corner. Therefore, as was done for the 2006-2007
school year, the Ministry of OCW has made agreements
with municipalities and schools in 39 regions for the period
2008-2011, set down into covenants. The goal: to reduce the
number of school drop-outs by half by 2012. Per region,
municipalities, schools and care institutions can themsel-
ves decide what measures should be implemented: the
measures already mentioned or possibly new measures. It is
the result that counts. Any school that manages to reduce
its drop-out rate will receive € 2,000.00 for each drop-out
less than the number it had in the reference year. Further­
more, additional funds are available for educational pro-
grammes aimed at reducing drop-out rates. At the end of
four years, an analysis will be made of which measures have
had an impact.
The aim of these agreements is:
■■ To reduce the number of new school drop-outs by half by
2011-2012: reduction rising from 10% in 2008 to 40% in
2011 (10% has already been achieved).
■■ The funds provided under the agreements only go to
schools (schools are often the place where problems are
found as well as the place where dropping out can be
combated). Via the local governments, schools can call
 
on the services of care institutions, the police and judi-
cial authorities.
■■ The regional municipality directs the agreements.
■■ Needless to say, the Ministry of OCW will support the par-
ties as much as possible in order to achieve the agreed
outcomes.
1.4 Results of the 2007-2008
performance agreements
The results for the 2007-2008 school year have been calcula-
ted: the number of new school drop-outs was 48,300. That
is a reduction of more than 10% compared with the 2005-
2006 school year. The target set in the 2007-2008 perfor-
mance agreements has therefore been achieved at national
level. This result means that we are on track to reducing the
number of school drop-outs to 35,000 by 2012. The school
drop-out percentage has fallen from 5.5% in 2002 to 3.7% in
the 2007-2008 school year.
We are also well on the way to achieving the EU target, i.e.
to reduce the overall group of school drop-outs to 8%. In
the Netherlands, that percentage fell from 15.5% in 2000 to
12% in 2007.
Overall conclusions:
■■ The national school drop-out percentage for the 2007-
2008 school year is 3.7%. The larger the town/city, the
higher the percentage of drop-outs. In the Netherlands’
four largest cities (the “G4”), the school drop-out percen-
tage is 6.1%. That is 3.1% in towns of fewer than 100,000
inhabitants. In the priority neighbourhoods (kracht­
wijken), the school drop-out percentage ranges between
4.4% and 10.9%, making it higher than the national
average.
■■ It is notable that the number of new school drop-outs has
fallen sharply in secondary education (-19%) but that the
decrease has been much smaller in secondary vocational
education (-6.5%). 59% of secondary schools and 35% of
secondary vocational schools have achieved the 10%
reduction target. The number of new school drop-outs
has remained static or increased since 2005-2006 at more
than 30 secondary vocational schools.
■■ The effects of the economic recession became visible in
the first quarter of 2009. Young people without a basic
qualification are more likely to be unemployed than
those that have obtained such a qualification. Young
people without a basic qualification have consequently
been hit hardest. In the second quarter of 2009, 17.2% of
them were unemployed; that is an increase of 6.8% com-
pared with the previous year.
■■ School drop-outs are more likely to be crime suspects. Of
the pupils who dropped out of school in the 2007/08
school year, 21% were suspected of a crime, as opposed to
only 4% of non-school drop-outs.
 9

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science has made

the school drop-out figures available to various target
groups, for example in the School Drop-out Explorer (VSV-
Verkenner) and the School Drop-out Atlas (VSV-Atlas):
■■ School Drop-out Explorer: an interactive tool that works

with quantitative and qualitative data on school drop-

outs at national, regional, local and school level. (At
regional level, the data is provided by the Regional
Registration and Coordination Centres operating in the
39 RMC regions.) The new school drop-out figures are
added every year for each level. In addition to the statis-
tics, the Explorer also has other “useful information”,
including the performance agreement, the educational
programme, example projects and the regional and
national contact persons. The Explorer can also compare
school drop-out figures between regions or educational
institutions and show multiple school years side by side.
This makes it possible to detect regional and other trends
in the school drop-out rate in the Netherlands.
■■ School Drop-out Atlas: an annual publication based on

the final statistics for a specific school year. The Atlas

shows the results at international, national, regional and
school level and offers a rich source of information on
background factors. The information in the Atlas can be
used to help tackle the school drop-out rate regionally,
locally or within schools – what needs to be changed?
What opportunities are available? What can we learn
from one another?

For more information on the drive to reduce the

school drop-out rate and the School Drop-out Explorer, see
www.aanvalopschooluitval.nl.
 11

Chapter 2
Statistics
What were the results of the 2007-2008 school drop-out performance agreements concluded between the Ministry,
local authorities and schools? This chapter shows national, regional and school results across several years. In addi-
tion to relative and absolute drop-out numbers, it also covers trends in the number of drop-outs compared with
2005-2006, and where the Netherlands stands with respect to the EU target.

2.1 The national perspective A new drop-out is a pupil between 12 and 23

years of age who leaves school in a particular
Figure 1: national target and actual performance in absolute numbers of new school drop-outs school year without a basic qualification (senior
Target Actual performance general secondary, pre-university, or at least a
80.000 level-2 secondary vocational diploma).
70.000
60.000
The focus in the Netherlands is on preventing pupils from
50.000
dropping out of school. The national target is to reduce the
40.000 number of new school drop-outs in ten years’ time from
71,000 in 2002 to 35,000 in 2012 (by the 2010-2011 school
30.000
year).
20.000
10.000 At national level, the Netherlands had 48,300 new school
drop-outs between 1 October 2007 and 1 October 2008. The
0
number of new school drop-outs in the 2007-2008 school
2002

2003

2010-2011
2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

year fell by an average of more than 10% compared with the

2005-2006 school year. The national target set out in the
2007-2008 performance agreements has therefore been
achieved.

Table 1: new school drop-outs nationally, in numbers and percentages

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

Number of 71.000 60.500 54.100 52.700 48.300  35.000
school drop-outs
Percentage of 5,5% 4,7% 4,1% 4,0% 3,7% 2,8%
school drop-outs
12

2.2 The European target and an 2.3 The regions

international comparison
The Member States of the European Union have agreed that,
between 2000 and 2010, they will halve the number of
youngsters between 18 and 25 who are not enrolled in edu-
cation and do not have a basic qualification.
■■ In the EU-151 17% of all 18 to 25 year olds did not have a
basic qualification in 2007. In 2000 that figure stood at
20%.
■■ That number is smaller in the Netherlands than in the
overall EU-15. In the Netherlands, it fell from 15.5% in
2000 to 12% in 2007.
■■ Compared with other European countries, in the
Netherlands a relatively large number of young people
are enrolled in an educational programme. The
Netherlands has fewer young people leaving school wit-
hout a basic qualification than the EU does on average.
Sixty-eight percent of all youngsters in the Netherlands
between 15 and 25 go to school. The European average is
60%.
Figure 2: trend in the percentage of school drop-outs in Europe,
2000-2007
Source: Eurostat
2000 2007
Finland
Sweden
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
In the 2008-2011 agreements falling under its “Drive to
Reduce Drop-out Rates” programme, the Ministry of
Education has agreed with all 39 School Drop-out
Registration and Coordination Regions (in Dutch: RMC
regions) that the number of new school drop-outs between
the 2005-2006 and 2010-2011 school years should be redu-
ced by 40%. The drop-out rate should be reduced cumulati-
vely by 10% a year, starting with 10% in the 2007-2008 school
year and rising to a 40% reduction by 2010-2011.
The results for the 2007-2008 school year show some varia-
tion between RMC regions. Although most of the regions
have seen the school drop-out rate decline by 10% or more
compared with the 2005-2006 school year, not all of the
regions have managed to achieve the 10% reduction target.
This section concerns the school drop-out figures of the
various RMC regions. For more information about the edu-
cational and background traits of the separate RMC regions,
see “regio-info” at www.aanvalopschooluitval.nl (this web-
site is available in Dutch only).
■■ 22 regions (56%) have achieved the 10% reduction target.
17 regions (44%) have not;
■■ 9 regions have reduced the school drop-out rate by more
than 15%. In 3 regions, however, the reduction is less
than 5%. In a further 3 regions, the number of school
drop-outs has even increased;
■■ There is a large percentage of school drop-outs in the
Agglomeration Amsterdam, Rijnmond, Haaglanden and
Flevoland regions;
■■ The Agglomeration Amsterdam, Rijnmond, Haaglanden
and Utrecht regions have the highest number of school
drop-outs in absolute terms;
■■ Southwest Friesland, IJssel-Vecht, Achterhoek, Southwest
Drenthe and Northeast Brabant have the lowest school
drop-out percentage, relatively speaking.

Germany

France

Greece

Luxembourg

Italy

Spain

Portugal

United Kingdom

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

1
The Member States of the European Union in 2000. In order to compare the figures for 2000 and 2007, we have restricted our analysis to the EU-15 Member States.
 13

Figure 3: RMC regions, actual reduction in new school drop-outs in 2007-2008 compared with
2005-2006
Source: CFI

Figure 4: RMC regions, percentage of new school drop-outs in

2007-2008
Source: CFI

Percentage of school drop-outs:

10% or more
Less than 10%

Figure 5: RMC regions, number of new school drop-outs in 2007-2008

School drop-out percentage 2007-2008
Source: CFI

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
 14

Figure 6: trend, school drop-out percentage and absolute number of new school drop-outs by RMC region in 2007-2008
Source: CFI

Agglomeratie Amsterdam

Rijnmond

Haaglanden

5
Flevoland

Gewest Limburg-Zuid

Utrecht

West-Kennnemerland Midden-Brabant
Noord-Kennemerland

Walcheren Gooi en Vechtstreek

Westfriesland Zuid-Holland-Noord
4 Zuid-Holland-Zuid
Relative trend 2005-2007
Arnhem/Nijmegen
-2 2 -1 7 -1 2 -7 -2 3
West-Brabant Eem en Vallei
Kop van Noord-Holland
Stedendriehoek

Centraal en westelijk Groningen

Zuidoost-Drenthe
Friesland-noord Rivierenland

Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen Zuid-Holland-Oost Zuidoost-Brabant

Oost-Groningen Noord-Groningen en Eemsmond
Oosterschelde regio Gewest Noord-Limburg

Noordwest-Veluwe
Noordoost-Brabant De Friese Wouden
Noord- en midden-Drenthe
3 Zuidwest-Drenthe

Twente

Achterhoek
percentage of school drop-outs in 2007

IJssel-Vecht

Zuidwest-Friesland

2

Explanation Figure 6
The figure shows three relevant dimensions
indicating how each RMC region stands: the
absolute number of new school drop-outs;
the percentage of school drop-outs; and the
relative change in the absolute number of
new school drop-outs in 2007-2008 compa-
red with the 2005-2006 school year.
■■ The size of the circle indicates the number of
school drop-outs in 2007-2008; the big-
ger the circle, in other words, the larger
the number of new school drop-outs. For
example: In RMC regions Rijnmond and
Agglomeration Amsterdam, there was a
considerably larger number of new school
drop-outs than in the Zuidwest-Friesland
and Zuidwest-Drenthe regions.
■■ The horizontal position of each circle indicates
the relative trend in number of new
school drop-outs between the 2005-2006
and 2007-2008 school years. Regions left
of the vertical axis have reduced the num-
ber of school drop-outs by more than
10%. Regions right of the vertical axis
have seen a smaller reduction in school
drop-out numbers than 10%, and a few
regions on the far right have even expe-
rienced an increase in the number of
school drop-outs.
■■ The vertical position of each circle indicates
the relative number of school drop-outs.
This is the number of school drop-outs as
a percentage of the number of pupils
enrolled in school. The centre of the
graph indicates the regional average.
Regions above the horizontal axis have a
higher-than-average percentage of school
drop-outs. Regions below the horizontal
axis have a lower-than-average percenta-
ge of school drop-outs.
15
When combined:
■■ The size of the circle for RMC region
Flevoland, for example, shows that it is in
the middle bracket when it comes to the
number of school drop-outs. Its position
on the far right means that there has
been an unfavourable trend in terms of
number of school drop-outs. Their num-
bers have not declined, but increased.
The position relatively far above the hori-
zontal axis indicates that the percentage
of school drop-outs is quite high.
■■ RMC region Noordoost-Brabant is located
on the bottom left of the figure, combi-
ning a favourable trend in number of
school drop-outs with a low relative
percentage.
16

Table 2: RMC regions, reduction in school drop-outs in 2007-2008 compared with 2005-2006
Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
RMC region school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
5  Zuidwest-Friesland 10.203 335 3,3% 10.335 259 2,5% -22,7%
31  Oosterschelde regio 13.531 539 4,0% 13.698 427 3,1% -20,8%
13  Achterhoek 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  Noordoost-Brabant 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  Oost-Groningen 11.985 492 4,1% 12.139 410 3,4% -16,7%
35  Midden-Brabant 29.864 1.493 5,0% 29.957 1.255 4,2% -16,0%
34  West-Brabant 52.939 2.306 4,4% 53.812 1.952 3,6% -15,3%
38  Gewest Noord-Limburg 38.288 1.398 3,7% 38.533 1.192 3,1% -14,7%
8  Zuidoost-Drenthe 13.818 558 4,0% 13.835 476 3,4% -14,7%
25  West-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-Vecht 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  Stedendriehoek 34.269 1.387 4,0% 34.390 1.217 3,5% -12,3%
12  Twente 51.006 1.770 3,5% 51.342 1.569 3,1% -11,4%
21  Agglomeratie Amsterdam 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  Westfriesland 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 Vechtstreek 18.784 853 4,5% 19.018 775 4,1% -9,1%
37  Zuidoost-Brabant 57.404 2.202 3,8% 57.909 2.012 3,5% -8,6%
39  Gewest 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-Oost 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  Centraal en westelijk 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  Zuidwest-Drenthe 10.614 318 3,0% 10.526 306 2,9% -3,8%
19  Utrecht 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-Drenthe 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 the reduction in school drop-outs in 2007- school drop-outs. At the top of the list is the region that has
2008 compared with 2005-2006 by RMC region. The regions seen the largest reduction in school drop-outs compared
are listed in descending order by size of relative reduction in with 2005-2006.
 17

Figure 7: RMC regions, trend in percentage of new school drop-outs in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008

1 Oost-Groningen
2 Noord-Groningen en Eemsmond
3 Centraal en westelijk Groningen
4 Friesland-noord
5 Zuidwest-Friesland
6 De Friese Wouden
7 Noord- en midden-Drenthe
8 Zuidoost-Drenthe
9 Zuidwest-Drenthe
10 IJssel-Vecht
11 Stedendriehoek
12 Twente
13 Achterhoek
14 Arnhem/Nijmegen
15 Rivierenland
16 Eem en Vallei
17 Noord-Veluwe
18 Flevoland
19 Utrecht
20 Gooi en Vechtstreek
21 Agglomeratie Amsterdam
22 Westfriesland
23 Kop van Noord-Holland
24 Noord-Kennemerland
25 West-Kennnemerland
26 Zuid-Holland-Noord
27 Zuid-Holland-Oost
28 Haaglanden
29 Rijnmond
30 Zuid-Holland-Zuid
31 Oosterschelde regio
32 Walcheren
33 Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen
34 West-Brabant
35 Midden-Brabant
36 Noordoost-Brabant
37 Zuidoost-Brabant
38 Gewest Noord-Limburg
39 Gewest Limburg-Zuid

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
18

2.4 The four largest Dutch cities

Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht are the four
largest cities in the Netherlands (referred to as the “G4” in
Dutch) and consequently face a highly specific situation and
a distinct set of problems. There, the percentage of new
school drop-outs differs from one postal code area to the
next. Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11 show the percentage of school
drop-outs in the various postal code areas. The areas that
are situated in one of the forty priority neighbourhoods
(krachtwijken) are outlined and identified.
■■ The percentage of new school drop-outs in the four lar-
gest cities is higher than the national average;
■■ More than 10% of pupils enrolled in school live in the G4.
On the other hand, more than 17% of all school drop-outs
live in the G4;
■■ Both Amsterdam and The Hague have seen the number of
drop-outs fall by more than 10% compared with 2005-2006.
The reduction in Rotterdam has been less than 10%. In
Utrecht, the number of new school drop-outs has risen.

Figure 8: city of Amsterdam, percentage of new school drop-outs per Figure 10: city of The Hague, percentage of new school drop-outs per
neighbourhood/priority neighbourhood in 2007-2008 neighbourhood/priority neighbourhood in 2007-2008
Source: CFI Source: CFI

Amsterdam Noord

Bos en Lommer Bergpolder

Overschie Rotterdam Noord
Nieuw West

Amsterdam Oost
Rotterdam West

Oud Zuid
Bijlmer
Vreewijk

Zuidelijke Tuinsteden

Priority neighbourhoods Less than 5% 7-9% Priority neighbourhoods Less than 5% 7-9%
< 25 pupils enrolled in school 5-7% More than 9% < 25 pupils enrolled in school 5-7% More than 9%

Figure 9: city of Rotterdam, percentage of new school drop-outs per Figure 11: city of Utrecht, percentage of new school drop-outs per
neighbourhood/priority neighbourhood in 2007-2008 neighbourhood/priority neighbourhood in 2007-2008
Source: CFI Source: CFI

Overvecht
Zuilen Oost
Ondiep

Stationsbuurt

Transvaal Schilderswijk

Kanaleneiland
Den Haag Z-West

Priority neighbourhoods Less than 5% 7-9% Priority neighbourhoods Less than 5% 7-9%
< 25 pupils enrolled in school 5-7% More than 9% < 25 pupils enrolled in school 5-7% More than 9%
 19

Table 3: G4 cities, summary of new school drop-outs in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
Pupils Pupils drop-outs
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of compared with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
Amsterdam 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%
Utrecht 15.407 906 5,9% 15.729 960 6,1% 6,0%
Rotterdam 44.348 3.137 7,1% 43.251 2.900 6,7% -7,6%
 21

2.5 Educational institutions

This section considers how secondary (VO) and secondary
vocational (MBO) schools have performed. It is important to
note that various factors may influence the number of school
drop-outs. There are, for example, various social and econo-
mic traits at regional level that affect the drop-out risk among
the school-going population. These are factors such as the
percentage of households collecting benefits, the percentage
of low-income households, and the percentage of non-Wes-
tern minorities living in a region. Educational level also plays
a role. The risk of dropping out is greater at educational insti-
tutions that have a relatively larger number of pupils in secon-
dary vocational education levels 1 and 2.
The drop-out rate in secondary schools (1.5% average) is lower
than in secondary vocational schools (8.5%). This section the-
refore looks more closely at the drop-out rate in secondary
vocational education.
2.5.1 New school drop-outs at secondary
schools
■■ 5 9% of secondary schools have achieved the 10% reduc-
tion target, and 22% even have a reduction of 40% or
more;
■■ Somewhat more than a quarter of schools have seen an

increase in the number of school drop-outs;

Figure 12: total secondary schools by % reduction in school drop-outs in 2007-2008 ■■ 37% of young people who drop out of secondary educati-
Source: CFI on do have a pre-vocational diploma. This is not a basic
qualification, however.
< -40%
17%
22% Figure 12 shows the percentage break-down of secondary
-40 tot -10% schools with respect to school drop-out trends compared
with 2005-2006.
-10 tot 0%
10%

0 tot 20%
2.5.2 New school drop-outs at secondary
vocational (MBO) schools
≥ 20%

14% ■■ 3 5% of secondary vocational schools have achieved a

reduction of 10% or more;
37% ■■ 41% of secondary vocational schools have seen an incre-

ase in the number of school drop-outs;

■■ A quarter of secondary vocational schools account for

almost 50% of all school drop-outs.

Figure 13: total of secondary vocational schools by % reduction in 2007-2008 compared with
2005-2006 Figure 13 shows the percentage break-down of secondary
Source: CFI
vocational schools with respect to school drop-out trends
compared with 2005-2006. Figure 14 shows the relative per-
<-20% centage and absolute number of school drop-outs of all
15% 19%
secondary vocational schools, as well as relative trends com-
-20 tot -10% pared with 2005-2006.

-10 tot 0%

0 tot 20%
26% 16%
≥ 20%

24%
 22

Figure 14: relative trend, school drop-out percentage and absolute number of new school drop-outs by ROC in 2007-2008
Source: CFI

ROC van Amsterdam

15

ROC Albeda College

ROC Midden Brabant

ROC Zaanstreek-Waterland ROC Flevoland

13 ROC Zadkine

ROC Midden Nederland

de Mondriaan onderwijsgroep ROC Amarantis ROC Leiden

ROC Da Vinci College

ROC Horizon College
ROC Nijmegen eo
ROC West Brabant 1
ID College

Relative trend ROC Arcus College ROC Leeuwenborgh

2005-2007 ROC Nova College ROC Kop v Noord-Holland ROC Rivor

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

ROC Koning Willem I ROC Eindhoven
ROC Westerschelde
9
ROC Rijn IJssel
ROC Ter AA ROC Noorderpoortcollege
ROC Friesland College ROC Onderwijsgroep A12
ROC Drenthe College ROC Zeeland ROC AVENTUS
ROC Friese Poort

ROC van Twente ROC Deltion College

7 Landstede

ROC de Leijgraaf
ROC Gilde Opleidingen ROC Alfa College
ROC Graafschap College
SG De Rooi Pannen

5
Percentage of school

Hoornbeeck College
drop-outs in 2007

3

Explanation Figure 14:
The figure shows three relevant dimensions
indicating how each Regional Educational
Centre (in Dutch: “ROC”) stands: the abso-
lute number of new school drop-outs; the
percentage of school drop-outs in 2007-
2008; and the relative reduction in the abso-
lute number of new school drop-outs in
2007-2008 compared with the 2005-2006
school year.
■■ The size of the circle indicates the number of
school drop-outs in 2007-2008; the big-
ger the circle, in other words, the larger
the number of new school drop-outs. For
example: ROC Zadkine and ROC Albeda
College had a considerably larger number
of new school drop-outs than ROC de
Leijgraaf and ROC Ter AA.
■■ The horizontal position of each circle indicates
the relative trend in number of new
school drop-outs between the 2005-2006
and 2007-2008 school years. ROCs left of
the vertical axis have reduced the number
of school drop-outs by 10% or more. ROCs
right of the vertical axis have seen a
reduction in school drop-out numbers of
less than 10%, and a few ROCs on the far
right have even experienced an increase
in the number of school drop-outs.
■■ The vertical position of each circle indicates
the relative number of school drop-outs.
The centre of the graph indicates the ROC
average. ROCs above the horizontal axis
have a higher-than-average percentage of
school drop-outs. ROCs below the hori-
zontal axis have a lower-than-average
percentage of school drop-outs.
23
When combined:
■■ The size of the circle for ROC Flevoland,
for example, shows that it is in the middle
bracket when it comes to the number of
school drop-outs. Its position on the far
right means that there has been an unfa-
vourable trend in terms of number of
school drop-outs. Their numbers have
not declined, but increased. The position
relatively far above the horizontal axis
indicates that the percentage of school
drop-outs is quite high.
■■ ROC Friesland College is located on the
bottom left of the figure, combining a
favourable trend in number of school
drop-outs with a low relative percentage.
 25

Chapter 3
School-related traits
of new school drop-outs
This chapter considers the school-related traits of new school drop-outs based on national figures. Information on
the school-related traits of school drop-outs at regional or institutional level are available under “regio-info” at
www.aanvalopschooluitval.nl (this website is available in Dutch only).

Pupils drop out of school at various levels and in various
sectors of the education system. At secondary level, pupils
drop out in the transition year and while enrolled in pre-
vocational secondary (VMBO), senior general secondary
(HAVO) or pre-university (VWO) programmes. Pupils drop
out in all four levels of vocational secondary education, as
well as in the vocational training pathway (BOL) or day
release pathway (BBL). There are also different sectors wit-
hin secondary vocational education.
Figure 15 shows how many pupils in a cohort1 of 100 pupils
leaving primary school drop out in the various sectors of
the education system. For example, of the 100 pupils, 4 drop
out in years 3-4 of pre-vocational secondary (2 with and 2
without a diploma) and 13 from the vocational training
pathway. The diagram has not been adjusted for drop-outs
who return to school. In secondary education, the largest
number of school drop-outs can be found in pre-vocational
secondary education. Half of these do obtain their diploma,
but do not continue with their education. Many more pupils
drop out in secondary vocational education, however. The
majority of them were enrolled in the vocational training
pathway.

Figure 15: flow chart for new school drop-outs, 2007-2008

13 5

vocational training day release

pathway (BOL) pathway (BBL)

senior general
pre-vocational
secondary (HAVO)/
secondary (VMBO), 2 with a diploma
pre-university
2 (VWO), years 3-6
years 3+4
2 without a diploma

special special
needs secondary
practical education
2 secondary school (VO), years 1+2 training (VSO)
(PRO)

primary school, including special education

primary school and special education

1
A cohort is a group of persons who have undergone the same (demographic) event for a specified period of time, for example a calendar year.
 26

3.1 Educational level and diplomas of

new school drop-outs
■■ Adult general secondary education (VAVO) has the highest ■■ 57% of the total group of drop-outs have a pre-vocational
percentage of school drop-outs. They constitute a small secondary diploma. 8% of the total group leaves school
group in absolute numbers, however. Most of the drop-outs with a level-1 secondary vocational diploma.
(70%) have come from secondary vocational education;
■■ The reduction in the number of drop-outs in both adult Figure 16: trend in the percentage of school drop-outs by type of school in 2007-2008
general secondary (-22.1%) and secondary (-19%) education Source: CFI
since 2005-2006 has surpassed the national average. The 2005/2006 2007/2008
reduction in secondary vocational education comes to
6.5%; Secondary
■■ 37% of young people who drop out of secondary educati-
(VO)
on do have a pre-vocational secondary diploma. This is
not a basic qualification, however. Secondary vocational
■■ 11% of the young people who drop out of secondary vocatio- (MBO)
nal education have a level-1 secondary vocational diploma;
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Figure 17: total group of new school drop-outs by type of school in 2007-2008 Figure 18: total group of new school drop-outs by diploma categories in 2007-2008
Source: CFI Source: CFI
2% School drop-out
Secondary
(VO) with pre-vocational
(VMBO) diploma
28% Secondary
vocational 35% 57% School drop-out with
(MBO) level-1 secondary vocational
(MBO) diploma
Adult general
secondary School drop-out
education without diploma
(VAVO)

70% 8%

Table 4: new school drop-outs by educational level and type of diploma in 2007-2008
Source: CFI

School Trend in
drop-out with % of
School level-1 drop-outs
drop-out with secondary School compared
pre-vocatio- vocational drop-out with
Pupils enrolled nal (VMBO) (MBO) without Number of % of drop- 2005-
in school diploma diploma diploma drop-outs outs 2006
2005- 2007- 2005- 2007- 2005- 2007- 2005- 2007- 2005- 2007- 2005- 2007-
2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 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 vocational 389.711 396.943 23.028 21.916 2.762 3.677 10.484 8.324 36.274 33.917 9,3% 8,5% -6,5%
(MBO)
Adult general 9.272 7.017 725 597 7 16 606 429 1.338 1.042 14,4% 14,8% -22,1%
secondary education
(VAVO)
 27

3.2 New school drop-outs in

secondary education

■■ 53% of school drop-outs are in the third or fourth year of
a learning support programme (LWOO) or pre-vocational
education programme (VMBO). Some of them do have
their pre-vocational diploma, but have not (yet) started
follow-up training;
■■ Years 3-4 of the learning support and pre-vocational edu-
cation programmes have seen the largest reduction in
school drop-outs;
■■ What is striking is the increase in school drop-outs in
years 3-5 of senior general secondary (HAVO) and years
3-6 of pre-university (VWO) education. The drop-out per-
centages in these groups are still below the average in
secondary education and the national average, however.
23% of secondary school drop-outs are in years 3-5 of
senior general secondary and years 3-6 of pre-university
education;
■■ 24% of all secondary school drop-outs are in the transiti-
on year (transition years 1-2, learning support year 1 and
transition year 3).

Figure 19: total group of new secondary school drop-outs by type of Figure 20: trend in percentage of new secondary school drop-outs by
programme in 2007-2008 type of programme in 2007-2008
Source: CFI Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
8% transition,
17% years 1-2
transition,
learning support years 1-2
15% (LWOO), years 1-2
learning support
7% learning support (LWOO), years 1-2
(LWOO), years 3-4
transition year 3
pre-vocational
(VMBO), years 3-4
learning support
senior general (LWOO), years 3-4
14% secondary (HAVO),
years 3-5 pre-vocational
(VMBO), years 3-4
pre-university (VWO),
39% senior general secondary
years 3-6
(HAVO), years 3-5

pre-university
(VWO), years 3-6
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%
Table 5: new secondary school drop-outs by type of programme in
2007-2008
Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils Number compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled of % of with
RMC region school drop-outs drop-outs in school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
secondary education total 908.652 16.478 1,8% 912.601 13.353 1,5% -19,0%
transition, years 1-2 337.038 2.478 0,7% 327.893 2.176 0,7% -12,2%
learning support (LWOO), years 1-2 54.627 1.480 2,7% 53.694 985 1,8% -33,5%
transition year 3 6.444 43 0,7% 6.343 41 0,6% -4,9%
learning support (LWOO), years 3-4 43.845 2.907 6,6% 47.669 1.901 4,0% -34,6%
pre-vocational (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-university (VWO), years 3-6 148.711 935 0,6% 161.014 1.114 0,7% 19,1%
 28

3.3 New school drop-outs in Figure 21: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by type of
secondary vocational education secondary vocational programme in 2007-2008
Source: CFI

■■ The largest group of school drop-outs can be found in 2005-2006 2007-2008

years 2 and 4 of the vocational training pathway (BOL)
and year 2 of the day release pathway (BBL). Together, they Vocational training
(BOL) level 1
account for two-thirds of the number of drop-outs in
Vocational training
secondary vocational education (MBO). level 2
■■ The percentage of drop-outs is highest in level 1. Some of
Vocational training
these youngsters have obtained their level-1 secondary level 3
vocational diploma, however.
Vocational training
■■ The largest relative reduction has been seen in year 1 of level 4
the vocational training pathway and year 3 of the day Day release
release pathway. (BBL) level 1

Day release
Figure 22: total group of new secondary school drop-outs by type of level 2
secondary vocational programme in 2007-2008 Day release
Source: CFI level 3

3% 9% Day release
1% 3% Vocational Day release
level 4
3% training (BOL) level 2
level 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Day release
25% Vocational level 3
training level 2
18% Day release
Vocational level 4
training level 3
Examination
Vocational pupil
training level 4
Adult general
4% Day release secondary
level (BBL) 1 education (VAVO)

12%
22%

Table 6: new secondary vocational school drop-outs by type of programme in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Pupils Pupils Trend in % of
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of drop-outs compared
RMC region school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs with 2005-2006
mbo (excl. vavo) total 389.711 36274 9,3% 396943 33917 8,5% -6,5%
Vocational training (BOL) year 1 12.592 4.577 36,3% 9.530 3.312 34,8% -27,6%
Vocational training level 2 63.160 9.382 14,9% 58.865 8.659 14,7% -7,7%
Vocational training level 3 67.919 4.586 6,8% 69.318 4.101 5,9% -10,6%
Vocational training level 4 169.605 7.762 4,6% 174.560 7.649 4,4% -1,5%
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%
Examination pupil 3 1.655 235 14,2% 1.966 235 12,0% 0,0%
Examination pupil 4 1.000 139 13,9% 1.388 164 11,8% 18,0%
Adult general secondary 9.272 1.338 14,4% 7.017 1.042 14,8% -22,1%
education (VAVO)
 29

■■ E xcept for the “combined” sector (which accounts for 1% Figure 23: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by secondary
of school drop-outs), the “economics” sector has the vocational sector in 2007-2008
Source: CFI
highest percentage of school drop-outs (9.8%). At the
same time, the reduction in this sector has also been the 2005-2006 2007-2008
greatest (-12.4%);
■■ Almost three quarters of all school drop-outs in secon- economics
dary vocational education are from the economics and
technology sectors. technology

healthcare
and welfare

agriculture

Figure 24: total group of new school drop-outs by secondary vocational sector combined
in 2007-2008
Source: CFI 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%
4% 1%
economics

23% technology
40%

healthcare and welfare

agriculture

combined

32%

Table 7: new school drop-outs by secondary vocational s­ ector in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
RMC region school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
Secondary vocational 389.711 36.274 9,3% 396.943 33.917 8,5% -6,5%
(excluding adult
general secondary)
economics 142.857 15.474 10,8% 137.675 13.552 9,8% -12,4%
technology 109.273 11.001 10,1% 114.243 10.743 9,4% -2,3%
healthcare and welfare 117.796 8.337 7,1% 122.409 7.961 6,5% -4,5%
agriculture 19.785 1.462 7,4% 20.579 1.373 6,7% -6,1%
combined 2.037 288 14,1%
 31

Chapter 4
Background traits of new school
drop-outs in the Netherlands
Chapter 4 reviews the most significant background traits of new school drop-outs, based on national figures. It looks
at gender, age, ethnic background, size of city/town, situation at home and whether or not the drop-out is a crime
suspect. Finally, the chapter looks at areas in which cumulative poverty conditions prevail; various social and econo-
mic traits coincide here.

4.1 Gender
Figure 24: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by gender, 2007-2008
■■ There are more male than female school drop-outs, with Source: CFI
boys accounting for 60% of the total group; 2005-2006 2007-2008
■■ There has been a bigger reduction in drop-outs among

girls (-11%) than among boys (-10.5%); male

■■ The group of boys has a higher percentage of drop-outs

(4.3%) than the group of girls (3%).

female

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

Figure 25: total group of school drop-outs by gender in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

male

female

40%

60%

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

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Pupils Pupils Trend in % of drop-
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of outs compared with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 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%
female 640.904 21.938 3,4% 646.412 19.533 3,0% -11,0%
 32

4.2 Age
■■ 18 and 19 year-olds make up the largest group of school Figure 26: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by age in
drop-outs. There has also been an increase in the number 2007-2008
Source: CFI
of drop-outs in this age group;
■■ The older youngsters are, the higher the percentage of 2005-2006 2007-2008
drop-outs, generally speaking.
13 yrs
Figure 27: total group of school drop-outs by age in 2007-2008 or younger
Source: CFI
14 yrs
1%

2% 15 yrs
6% 3% 13 yrs or younger 18 yrs
6%
9% 16 yrs
14 yrs 19 yrs

15% 17 yrs
13% 15 yrs 20 yrs

18 yrs
16 yrs 21 yrs

19 yrs
17 yrs 22 yrs

20 yrs
18%
27%
21 yrs

22 yrs

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

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

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 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%
 33

4.3 Ethnic background1 Figure 28: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by ethnic
background in 2007-2008
Source: CFI
■■ Approximately two thirds of all school drop-outs are
Dutch natives; 2005-2006 2007-2008
■■ The percentage of minority drop-outs is twice as large as

the percentage of Dutch drop-outs (6% and 3% respecti- Dutch native

vely). The reduction in number of school drop-outs has
been virtually the same in both groups; Non-Western minority
■■ The reduction in school drop-outs is larger among

Western minorities (-13.4%) than non-Western ones Western minority

(-6.9%). The percentage of drop-outs is lower among
Western minorities (4.7% compared with 6.2%); 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
■■ The number of school drop-outs has increased among

pupils from an Aruban/Antillean background (5.8%) and Figure 29: trend in percentage of new school drop-outs by ethnic
a Moroccan background (3.7%); background, non-Western minorities, 2007-2008
Source: CFI
■■ Among non-Western minorities, pupils from a Turkish
background have the lowest percentage of school drop- 2005-2006 2007-2008
outs (5.6%). The largest reduction of drop-outs has been
seen among pupils from a Surinamese background Surinam
(-8.8%).
Aruba/Netherlands Antilles

Turkey

Morocco

Other non-Western minorities

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

Figure 30: total group of school drop-outs by ethnic background in 2007-2008

1%
8% Dutch native Morocco

7%
Surinam Non-Western minorities

6%
Aruba/Netherlands Antilles Western minorities

5%
Turkey unknown

3%

5% 65%

1
Dutch native: A person whose parents were both born in the Netherlands, regardless of where the person him/herself was born.

Minority: A person who has at least one parent born abroad.

Non-Western minority: A minority whose origins lie in a country located in one of the following regions: Africa, Latin America and Asia (excl. Indonesia and Japan) or Turkey.

Western minority: A minority whose origins lie in a country located in one of the following regions: Europe (excl. Turkey), North America and Oceania or Indonesia or Japan.
34

Table 10: new school drop-outs by ethnic background in 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%
dutch native 1.020.910 34.970 3,4% 1.029.942 31.212 3,0% -10,7%
minority 286.725 19.121 6,7% 286.619 17.100 6,0% -10,6%
western minority 81.730 4.264 5,2% 78.300 3.693 4,7% -13,4%
Non-Western minority 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-outs by non-Western background, 2007-2008

Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 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/Netherlands Antilles 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%
Other non-Western minorities 61.831 4.296 6,9% 64.739 3.541 5,5% -17,6%
 35

4.4 Situation at home

■■ A quarter of school drop-outs come from single-parent
families; for non-school drop-outs, that is 15%;
■■ Both in secondary education and secondary vocational

education, a larger percentage of drop-outs live on their

own than pupils who stay in school.

Table 121: situation at home for drop-outs and non-drop-outs, 2006-2007 (total, secondary and secondary vocational)
Source: Statistics Netherlands, 2006-2007

Total
Total secondary and secondary vocational drop-outs Total non-drop-outs
Living at home 82% 95%
Living at home, 2 parents 57% 80%
Living at home, 1 parent 25% 15%
Living on their own 11% 3%
Living on their own, single 8% 2%
Living on their own, other 1 3% 1%
Other household categories 2 7% 2%
100% 100%
Secondary drop-outs non-drop-outs
Living at home 92% 98%
Living at home, 2 parents 64% 83%
Living at home, 1 parent 29% 15%
Living on their own 3% 1%
Living on their own, single 3% 0%
Living on their own, other 0% 0%
Other household categories 5% 2%
100% 100%

Secondary vocational drop-outs non-drop-outs

Living at home 78% 87%
Living at home, 2 parents 55% 72%
Living at home, 1 parent 23% 15%
Living on their own 15% 9%
Living on own, single 11% 7%
Living on their own, other 4% 2%
Other household categories 7% 4%
100% 100%
1
“Living on their own, other” refers to the following pupils (Statistics Netherlands):
n Living on their own, co-habiting, no children;
n Living on their own, co-habiting, children;
n Living on their own, single, children.

2
“Other household categories” refers to the following pupils (Statistics Netherlands):
n institutional residents, pupils in residential care;
n other households not listed previously;
n category unknown.

1
The columns do not always add up to 100%. That is because the numbers in the table have been rounded to 1 decimal.
36

4.5 Crime suspect
■■ Both in secondary and secondary vocational education,
the group of school drop-outs has more young people
suspected1 of a crime2 than the non-school drop-outs.
■■ There are clear differences between the various years and
levels. More than a quarter of school drop-outs in year 3
of pre-vocational education have been suspected of a
crime in the three years prior to their dropping out. A
third of drop-outs in level 1 of secondary vocational edu-
cation have been crime suspects.
■■ The percentages for the entire group of pupils are higher
in the four largest cities of the Netherlands (G4); 27% of
new school drop-outs have been suspected of a crime,
whereas that figure is 7% for non-school drop-outs.

Table 13: percentage of school drop-outs suspected of a crime, by year/level in 2007-2008 (provisional figures)
Source: Statistics Netherlands /National Police Services (KLPD), 2006, 2005, 2004

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-vocational (VMBO), year 3 390 28% 6.340 6%
secondary, pre-vocational (VMBO), year 4 850 16% 7.360 7%
secondary, senior general secondary (HAVO), 190 7% 4.850 2%
years 3-5/pre-university (VWO), years 3-6
total secondary vocational 8.280 24% 32.470 9%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 1 1.790 38% 2.370 28%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 2 4.350 28% 12.970 15%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 3 870 16% 7.000 8%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 4 1.270 15% 10.140 6%

Table 14: G4, percentage of school drop-outs suspected of a crime, by year/level in 2006-2007 (provisional figures)
Source: Statistics Netherlands /National Police Services (KLPD), 2006, 2005, 2004

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, pre-vocational (VMBO), year 3 111 36% 1.241 10%
secondary, pre-vocational (VMBO), year 4 231 22% 1.210 11%
secondary, senior general secondary (HAVO), 36 6% 747 3%
years 3-5/pre-university (VWO), years 3-6
total secondary vocational 1.866 30% 5.051 13%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 1 528 46% 586 31%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 2 885 32% 2.111 19%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 3 183 20% 945 10%
secondary vocational (MBO) level 4 270 19% 1.409 9%

1
Crime suspect (Statistics Netherlands): A pupil has been suspected of a crime if he or she was registered in the Police Identification System in the three calendar years prior to
the point at which it is established that the pupil enrolled in the initial year has dropped out of school (i.e. 1 October of the following school year). For the 2007-2008 school
year, this means 2007, 2006 and 2005.
2
Crime (Statistics Netherlands): Serious criminal offence as defined in criminal law.
 37

4.6 Corresponding social and economic traits and cumulative poverty areas
The tables above show that a number of background traits cor- the percentage of non-Western minorities. These traits are
respond to the percentage of new school drop-outs and trends closely interrelated; if a region has a high score on one parti-
in the size of this group. In addition to these individual back- cular trait, it will usually have high scores on the others too.
ground traits, Statistics Netherlands has identified specific Statistics Netherlands calls these areas “cumulative poverty
areas in which various social and economic traits correspond problem areas”.
to the percentage of new school drop-outs. These traits are The background traits can be found in the figures below at
households receiving benefits, low-income households and RMC regional level:

Figure 31: percentage of pupils residing in a cumulative poverty problem area, Figure 32: percentage of non-Western minorities in 2007-2008
2007-2008 Source: CFI
Source: CFI

less than 4% less than 6%

4- 7% 6 - 10 %
7 - 14 % 10 - 20 %
more than 4% more than 20 %

Figure 33: percentage of low-income households in 2007-2008 Figure 34: percentage of households on benefit in 2007-2008
Source: CFI Source: CFI

less than 2 % less than 2 %

2-4% 2-4%
4-6% 4-7%
more than 6 % more than 7 %
38

The higher the percentage of households on benefit, low-
income households and non-Western minorities in a regi-
on, the higher the percentage of school drop-outs. In addi-
tion, the more young people living in a cumulative poverty
problem area, the higher the percentage of school drop-
outs in general.
■■ The percentage of school drop-outs is twice as high in
cumulative poverty problem areas as in other areas: 6.3%
as opposed to 3.2%. The number of drop-outs in such
areas has increased slightly compared with 2005-2006;
■■ 14% of pupils live in a cumulative poverty problem area.
More than 25% of new school drop-outs come from such
an area;
■■ It is notable that the percentages of low-income house-
holds and households on benefit are quite high in the
north of the Netherlands. Because there are few non-
Western minorities in these areas, however, there are
generally fewer cumulative poverty problem areas there.

Table 15: cumulative poverty problem areas, new school drop-outs in 2007-2008
Source: CFI

2005-2006 2007-2008
Trend in % of
drop-outs
Pupils Pupils compared
enrolled in Number of % of enrolled in Number of % of with
school drop-outs drop-outs school drop-outs drop-outs 2005-2006
Total 1.307.635 54.091 4,1% 1.316.561 48.312 3,7% -10,7%
Lives in a cumulative poverty 181.772 12.842 7,1% 208.473 13.084 6,3% 1,9%
problem area
Does not live in a cumulative 1.125.863 41.249 3,7% 1.108.088 35.228 3,2% -14,6%
poverty problem area
This is a publication of the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Science
The Netherlands

Production:
Projectdirectie Voortijdig Schoolverlaten
www.aanvalopschooluitval.nl

Design:
Balyon, www.balyon.com

November 2009

No rights can be derived from this publication.