To intervene or not? Professionals' relation to early school leaving in Finnish general upper secondary education

Abstract

This study aims to understand intervening in early school leaving-related problems at general upper secondary schools in a large Finnish municipality. Sometimes intervening causes a paradoxical situation because professionals follow legislation by providing guidance and support to promote students' progress in their studies but, at the same time, try to strengthen students' wellbeing, which may not always mean continuing their studies in upper secondary school. We focus on professionals’ action and experience which are studied utilising concepts and methodological principles of subject-scientific psychology. The main material of the study consists of recorded and transcribed group discussions with 32 professionals who encounter the phenomenon of early school leaving in their everyday work. The material is analysed qualitatively 1) to identify how professionals perceive the phenomenon as a reason for intervening, and 2) to identify common contradictions they encounter in their everyday work related to early school leaving. The results suggest that professionals understood students' rocky conduct of everyday school life as consisting of 1) choosing the school without thorough consideration, 2) a mismatch of expectations and reality, 3) learning difficulties, 4) problems in social relationships, and 5) difficulties in other life scenes. Further, we identified six common contradictions which related to 1) students' conduct of everyday life, 2) students' broader life trajectories, and 3) professionals' conduct of their professional everyday lives. We argue that it is essential to consider early school leaving situationally, from the standpoint of the subject, instead of specifying risks or statistical probabilities.

Keywords:

• conduct of everyday life
• conflictual cooperation
• early school leaving
• general upper secondary school
• guidance counselling
• welfare work

Introduction

Psychosocial, conversation-based support is well organised in Finnish general upper secondary schools. It is regulated by the General Upper Secondary Schools (GUSS) Act (Lukiolaki, 2018) and the Pupil and Student Welfare (PSW) Act (Oppilas- ja opiskelijahuoltolaki, 2013), and it is defined in the national core curriculum (NCC) for general upper secondary schools (Opetushallitus, 2019). In addition, the Youth Act (Nuorisolaki, 2016) defines work with those under the age of 29 and the Child Welfare (CW) Act (Lastensuojelulaki, 2007) defines work with those under the age of 18. For Finnish youth, general upper secondary education is an alternative to vocational upper secondary education after nine years of basic education. The students are mainly between 16 and 19 years old.

Students have the right to receive guidance counselling not only from guidance counsellors but also from other professionals (GUSS Act, 2018; NCC, 2019). Guidance counselling covers the planning and support of studies, the matriculation examination, and future careers, as well as support for the comprehensive process of growing up. By guidance, we mean conversation-based work with students, where the professional provides "time, attention and respect" (e.g. Onnismaa, 2007) to the student, and operates in the pedagogical field of teaching, education and socialisation (Latomaa, 2011), despite the professional’s field of expertise. We use the term guidance instead of the term counselling to emphasise that guidance does not include therapeutic work in Finnish schools. The term guidance serves as an umbrella, covering educational, vocational and career guidance, all of which have different meanings in different countries. Still, the terms are used interchangeably even in the Nordic countries, which are generally considered fairly homogenous (Haug et al., 2019).

In addition to guidance, the legislation guarantees welfare services, such as school nurses, school psychologists and school social workers, for students (NCC, 2019; PSW Act, 2013), and outreach youth work services for youth without a place to study or working place (Youth Act, 2016). Guidance and student welfare services should promote learning, health, and wellbeing at both the individual and community levels (GUSS Act, 2018; NCC, 2019; PSW Act, 2013). It follows that professionals must intervene when they see someone in need of support. If students endanger their health or growth, child protection is needed (CW Act, 2007). Although the school is obliged to intervene, intervening itself is not defined in any way in the legislation.

Students are not obliged to participate in guidance, except for the required lessons provided by the guidance counsellor, although the school is obliged to support them. Our previous study showed that the school personnel feel frustrated when they see students in need of support and offer them support, but the students are unwilling to participate in it (Raetsaari, Suorsa & Muukkonen, 2020). At the same time, the nationwide School Health Promotion Study (Kouluterveyskysely, 2019) has reported that 44.1% of general upper secondary school students in the researched city did not receive support from a school psychologist and 33.9% did not receive support from a school social worker, even though they needed help. Furthermore, it has been shown that even well-organised guidance counselling does not sufficiently reach everyone in need (Korhonen & Nieminen, 2010). Some students also end up leaving school early without taking advantage of support for their studies.

In Finland, early school leaving was not defined in any way in the regulations at the time of this study. The only way to discuss this is by using differences in nationwide statistics: “Positive early school leaving” refers to cases where an early school leaver continues to study at another place immediately after resignation, while “negative early school leaving” means leaving without a place to study. The lack of a proper definition seems to confuse professionals working with early school leavers (Raetsaari et al., 2020).

For this particular context of support in Finnish general upper secondary schools, early school leaving has been studied only as a sidetrack in studies concerning educational paths of marginalised youth, for example, pupils with learning disabilities (e.g. Hakkarainen et al., 2015; Kirjavainen et al., 2016) or immigrant backgrounds (e.g. Kalalahti et al., 2017; Molin-Karakoc & Ikola, 2019). Furthermore, burnout is related to early school leaving (Bask & Salmela-Aro, 2013), lowering of educational goals, and delayed graduation (Vasalampi & Salmela-Aro, 2014). According to Niemi and Laaksonen (2020), there are three main discourses regarding special education services in Finnish general upper secondary education: support as a right of students, support as stigmatising and related to students’ deficits, and receiving support depending on students’ responsibility for requesting it. Studies concerning Finnish general and vocational upper secondary education have shown that students intending to leave school early were lacking support from home and peers (Vasalampi et al., 2018) and students with symptoms of psychological ill-being reported more intentions of early school leaving (Parviainen et al., 2020).

When early school leaving is seen as part of one’s personal life trajectory rather than the failure of a given institutional life trajectory (Dreier, 2011), the opportunity arises to study it as a life event, among others, without a negative (or positive) stigma. This perspective is necessary, especially when discussing guidance as a life-long project (Oomen & Plant, 2014). Most international research on early school leaving provides quantitative information on the causes or risks of early school leaving and outlines a picture of average or typical early school leavers (De Witte et al., 2013).

Because of the differences between social structures and education systems in different countries, this kind of knowledge is quite context specific. De Witte et al. (2013) suggested that some generalities can still be drawn: the causes or risks of early school leaving might be connected to the student, the student’s family, the school, or the community, which all include several different aspects. However, none of these aspects has been shown to cause early school leaving alone; rather, they are intertwined in many ways. In particular, these interactions are context specific and require a qualitative approach to be further understood (De Witte et al., 2013).

This research is part of a broader project that aims to gain an understanding of early school leaving. Thereby, it aims to offer possibilities to develop general upper secondary schools’ guidance and welfare practices in a large municipality in Finland. The project follows principles of subject-scientific practice research (Eichinger, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2014; Mozkau & Schraube, 2015; Nissen, 2000). In this article, we focus on early school leaving-related problems and intervening in them, from the standpoint of professionals.

Subject-scientific psychology as a theoretical framework

Subject-scientific psychology addresses the dynamics of agency by focusing on the participants’ conduct of everyday life, the subjective reasons for their actions, and their connection to social practices and societal conditions (Dreier, 2011; Holzkamp, 2013; Osterkamp & Schraube, 2013, see also Peltola, Suorsa & Silvonen, 2021). In this study, our focus is on interventions within guidance and welfare work. We understand this social practice as conflictual cooperation (Axel, 2011; Axel & Højholt, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

Conduct of everyday life means that people are constantly dealing with a challenge of organizing their activities and experiences in different scenes of everyday living (Axel, 2011; Dreier, 1999, 2011; Højholt, 2016; Højholt & Schraube, 2016; Holzkamp, 2013; Kousholt, 2016). They do this in accordance with their personal goals and in relation to various social and societal demands. By acting, they recreate conditions by maintaining and changing them to better their own possibilities for action. In their everyday practices, people make their lives coherent through routines, prioritising different goals and processing contradictions by constantly negotiating with others living under the same conditions (Højholt & Schraube, 2016; Holzkamp, 2013).

People conduct their everyday lives through changing life scenes in which they participate in personally meaningful ways (Dreier, 1999, 2011). In each of these scenes (for example, school, home, and leisure activities), they hold a certain position (for example, student, sister, team member), and from that standpoint, they interpret the prevailing conditions. Additionally, people move along their personal life trajectories. Institutional life trajectories are set by society (for example, preschool, primary school, lower secondary school, and upper secondary school) (Dreier, 1999, 2011). These two types of life trajectories coincide when a person finds it reasonable and possible to participate in an institutionally organised trajectory (Thomsen, 2012).

Here, the term intervention means providing and practising guidance when someone needs support for studying or wellbeing. Dreier (2011) reminds us that counselling sessions are different and separate from students’ everyday lives, though they are meant to have an impact on students’ lives (see also Højholt, 2016). We understand interventions, following Dreier (2011), as situated, separate parts of a student’s everyday life getting "in between all that which is already ongoing" (p. 18). When a student is participating in suggested support, there remains an empirically open question regarding what kind of results the intervention produces (e.g. Silvonen, 2004). Consequently, it is essential to include participants’ points of view in the research design when studying the effects of the interventions.

In the school context, interventions are often about professionals trying to get students “back on track”. Because the intervention is based on a professional’s concern, it can only be successful if the student shares some part of this concern in his/her conduct of everyday life as a challenge that must be overcome (Dreier, 2011; Højholt, 2016; Thomsen, 2014). Moreover, professionals must reach the standpoint of students while simultaneously conducting their own everyday lives. From this perspective, interventions should be viewed from the standpoint of two subjects: the professional and the student.

Conducting our everyday lives together with others entails conflictual cooperation (Axel, 2011; Axel & Højholt, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). This means that participants face contradictions, take a stand on them and thus either adapt to the conditions of the practice or change them. Given that guidance and welfare work must be carried out with continuous collaboration between professionals (NCC, 2019; GUSS Act, 2018; PSW Act, 2013), it is essential to study how collaboration takes place in everyday arrangements. The concept of conflictual cooperation allows us to study collaboration without separating structure and activity (Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

Contradictions arise in a certain practice when people create, maintain, and negotiate their routines with others whose lives are intertwined with their own (Axel, 2011; Højholt & Kousholt, 2014, 2020; Højholt & Schraube, 2016). According to Axel (2011), contradictions are not about being right or wrong, nor are they always something problematic or negative (see also Højholt & Schraube, 2016). Instead, when acting is seen as reasonable from the standpoint of the subject, the term contradiction grasps the moment when the actor’s intention is confronted with conditions. Consequently, knowledge about the contradictions confronted by different participants may help to demonstrate societal dilemmas in the practice (Højholt & Schraube, 2016; Kousholt, 2016).

In conflictual cooperation, Højholt and Kousholt (2020) have distinguished everyday contradictions leading to conflicts at the subjective level and recognised the political-historical groundings of them as general contradictions. Everyday contradictions are discussed with either a student or a colleague within the conduct of everyday school life. General contradictions are political discussions about how to deal with everyday contradictions in prevailing conditions (see Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). Here, we are not interested in individual struggles, but we seek to understand what conflicts reveal to us about professionals’ common practice of intervening (see Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). This understanding makes it possible to reasonably choose whether to develop the common practice and how (Axel & Højholt, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

Subject-scientific practice research is based on the idea that participants explore the conditions of the practice continuously and the research should build upon it (Højholt & Kousholt, 2014). In accordance with the methodological principles of subject-scientific research, we have produced research material together with participants (practitioners) and chosen methods in order to enhance common understanding with researchers and practitioners. By so doing, we have been able to study everyday life situated in the practice, without isolating it for research purposes (Højholt & Kousholt, 2014).

Aim of the study

Given that intervening is the responsibility of professionals working in guidance and welfare services, it is essential to understand it from the standpoint of professionals. Bearing in mind the interventions’ nature of intertwining at least two standpoints, professionals’ and students’, it is essential to involve both when studying interventions. We have previously studied the matter from the students’ standpoints (Raetsaari, Suorsa & Muukkonen, 2021). The present study focuses on the matter from the standpoint of professionals. The overall goal is to gain a deeper understanding of how professionals perceive early school leaving as students’ need for support. In addition, we seek to understand how the practice of intervening works. For this purpose, our research questions in this article are:

1. How do professionals relate to early school leaving?

2. What kinds of contradictions can be identified in professionals’ descriptions of interventions related to early school leaving?

Thus, we aim to study how professionals in guidance and welfare services in general upper secondary schools interpret and maintain prevailing conditions when supporting students who intend to leave school early. This understanding allows the participants to ask themselves if there could be something to be changed in the studied practice.

Research process

Following the principles of subject-scientific practice research (Eichinger, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2014; Holzkamp, 2013; Mozkau & Schraube, 2015; Nissen, 2000), the research material was produced, together with participants, by a practitioner (K.R.) working as a guidance counsellor in one of the general upper secondary schools within the researched practice. The research was conducted in a municipality, which maintains 10 general upper secondary schools for youth with about 1400 new students enrolling each year, and a general upper secondary school for adults, which is open to everyone interested. The principal and one to three guidance counsellors are in charge of a school’s guidance services (NCC, 2019). At the time when the research project started, the general upper secondary schools’ student welfare services administrated by the municipality consisted of four school psychologists and four school social workers. The youth services for those not in education, employment, or training (NEET) are organised by the One-Stop Guidance Center (see Määttä, 2018) with seven outreach youth workers and various other services.

The research material of the study consists of transcribed group discussions of the professionals from the guidance and welfare services in the researched city. The practitioner-researcher organised group discussions to elaborate on the phenomenon of early school leaving (see also Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). The first purpose was to encourage participants to think, together with other practitioners working in the same position, about working with early school leavers, which is not an everyday topic in their work. Another purpose was to produce useful material for the research and, thus, allow professionals to develop their work (Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). The materials and participants are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Discussion characteristics.

Discussion group	Participants	Total in city	Volume	Themes
Guidance counsellors	Groups of 4 and 5	15	1.20 + 1.43 hrs	Phenomenon of early school leaving, Attitudes towards early school leaving cases, Early school leaving in school’s everyday life, Aspirations to develop professionals’ work
Principals	4	10	1.21 hrs
School psychologists	4	4	1.30 hrs
School social workers	4	4	1.29 hrs
Outreach youth workers	7	7	1.23 hrs
Guidance personnel in adult education	4	4	1.21 hrs
Total	32	44	10.07 hrs

Because the phenomenon had not been studied previously in the context of Finnish general upper secondary education, it was first approached in a material-driven way. The practitioner-researcher categorised the transcribed discussion material first with the help of a constant comparative method to gain an overall understanding of the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1968; Peltola et al., 2021; Silvonen & Keso, 1999). As a result of this analysis, she created a category model describing all the themes covered in the professionals’ discussions. In our previous study, we focused on analysing the process of guidance work (Raetsaari et al., 2020). As a finding, a significant shared concern of the professionals arose concerning early school leaving as a term and interventions as a working practice.

Based on this, we (the researchers as well as the authors of this article) formulated the first research question for this work: "How do professionals relate to early school leaving?". Two main categories of the original category model were essential in answering the first research question: "The phenomenon of early school leaving" and "The risk of early school leaving". The first category consisted of two subcategories: A) Conceptions of early school leaving and B) Types of early school leaving, and so did the second one: C) Plans after early school leaving and D) Reasons for early school leaving. Every subcategory in turn consisted of four to seven codes (see Table 2).

Table 2 Professionals’ relation to early school leaving.

A) Conceptions of early school leaving	B) Types of early school leaving	C) Plans after early school leaving	D) Reasons for early school leaving
A1 Looks different for professionals A2 Tied to the number of alternatives A3 Each case unique A4 Cannot be completely prevented	B1 Wants to leave and should be encouraged B2 Wants to leave but decides to continue B3 Should leave but does not want to B4 Wants to leave but should stay	C1 General upper secondary school for adults C2 Vocational upper secondary school C3 Another general upper secondary school for youth C4 Disappears and does not participate in guidance C5 Interim plans while waiting for actual goals to be possible	D1 Unsound reasons for choosing an academic track D2 School does not meet expectations D3 Difficulties in learning D4 Lacking a sense of community D5 Challenges in everyday life D6 Accumulation of difficulties D7 Does not receive or want support

We continued the comparison between the category model of the two chosen main categories and the theoretical concepts of conduct of everyday life and life trajectories. According to the principles of the subject-scientific research, the practitioner-researcher involved participants to the analysis as co-researchers (Eichinger, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2014; Mozkau & Schraube, 2015; Nissen, 2000; Thomsen, 2012, pp. 98–99). The practitioner-researcher introduced our interpretations to and discussed them with professionals on several occasions in practice: in a principals’ monthly meeting, a guidance counsellors’ monthly meeting, an outreach youth workers’ weekly meeting and in the meeting with the manager of pupil and student welfare services (e.g. Eichinger, 2019; Suorsa, 2019). The professionals found our research-based descriptions of their everyday work accurate; thus, no changes were made based on the discussions. Regarding how professionals related themselves to early school leaving, we noticed some considering whether and how to intervene.

Based on this, we formulated the second research question, "What kinds of contradictions can be identified in professionals’ descriptions of interventions related to early school leaving?" The practitioner-researcher continued analysing the same material further focusing the concept of conflictual cooperation: To understand professionals’ considering, she searched for contradictions (Axel, 2011; Axel & Højholt, 2019; Højholt & Kousholt, 2020) in professionals’ descriptions of conducting their everyday lives as they support early school leavers by re-reading the discussion material several times and focusing on various confusing, even overwhelming, moments in the professionals’ discussions. First, she brought together all the subjective-level contradictions (see Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). When she looked at the contradictions of the different professional groups side by side, some of the subjective-level contradictions appeared to be common among other professionals. As a result, another level of common contradictions emerged. The results of the analysis were then further discussed in the research team.

Findings

The theoretical and methodological principles of our study affect the presentation and organization of our results. To answer the first research question, we discuss early school leaving as professionals’ grounds for intervening. We then introduce common contradictions in their work as an answer to the second research question.

Early school leaving from the standpoint of professionals

The professionals discussed four topics related to early school leaving (see Table 2). We introduce the professionals’ views about students’ conduct of everyday life and life trajectories. In conclusion, we propose a model of students’ rocky conduct of everyday life.

Conceptions of early school leaving

Depending on the profession, there were different notions about the number of early school leavers (A1, see Table 2). Psychologists, social workers, and guidance counsellors shared the feeling that there were just a few cases during the school year. In contrast, outreach youth workers and guidance personnel in the general upper secondary school for adults had a strong view of the growing number of early school leavers, especially those who moved to adult education. The principals discussed early school leaving as an issue for a small but slightly growing group. They did not seem to see it as a problem per se. One of them stated, "I think it’s like the spirit of the time (…) youth give up so easily, they don’t want to make the effort".

The probability of leaving school early was seen as greater in large municipalities with plenty of options from which to choose (A2). Regarding the research city, the professionals discussed how difficult it is to change study places in the middle of the school year or how thorough the consideration should be when deciding on the next option. The professionals agreed that each early school leaving case is unique (A3). A guidance counsellor crystallised, "(…) it does not even make sense to prevent early school leaving in all cases (A4), because it’s not our responsibility to force them to go to school". According to our interpretation, the professionals see early school leaving from the perspective of the students’ personal life trajectories, even though the professionals themselves have to follow the guidelines of the institutional life trajectory.

Types of early school leaving

We identified four different types of early school leavers to which the professionals related differently (B, see Table 2). Professionals found it easy to succeed in guidance with two of these types. The first type of early school leaver is students whose intention to leave school is considered appropriate and worth encouraging (B1). One of the school psychologists indicated, "They realise during their studies at general upper secondary school that it’s nothing they like or are good at, and then make another choice, after thorough consideration." The professionals relied on these students’ maturity, skills, and opportunities to continue their studies at another study place. They considered the change to be positive rather than negative for a student’s life trajectory, even if the student did not have the next study place ready at the time (which is called negative early school leaving in Finnish statistics).

The second type of early school leaver is students who express a desire to leave their studies, but after discussing the options with guidance personnel, they end up continuing their studies (B2). These students were described by a guidance counsellor: "They come to see me and tell they want to quit, but it’s more like they asked me to justify otherwise." The professionals highlighted that when other options are discussed with a student and disruptions in students’ everyday lives are remedied, these students may see their studies from a different perspective and manage to complete them.

Two other types were seen as complex in the professionals’ discussions. The third type includes students who, from professionals’ point of view, should leave their studies but still want to continue their underdeveloped studies (B3). A principal worried about these students’ self-esteem and indicated, "(…) who are banging their heads against a wall for years and doing studies on the side (…) while their peers progress”. Students who intend to leave school but who, in the opinion of professionals, should continue their studies form a fourth type of early school leavers (B4). Early school leaving seemed to be the only option for these students, but they had no idea what else they could do. Instead of leaving school, the professionals believed that these students should continue until a decent plan for their future was created.

The professionals’ concerns about the students in groups three and four seemed to be based on the students’ reluctance to make changes in their conduct of everyday life, such as, study habits, as well as their future. The professionals would have liked to support these students in finding an alternative way to proceed in their life trajectories. However, these students were often considered non-participants in guidance.

Plans after early school leaving

Five different discussion themes of professionals describe students’ next plans after early school leaving. They represent the opportunities for young people and how they intend to implement them in the research city (C, see Table 2). By far, the most discussed theme was the transition to general upper secondary school for adults (C1). The professionals were worried about the transition because, in their experience, too many of these students would never graduate. Graduation was seen as probable only if the early school leaver had already completed most of the studies.

Leaving general upper secondary school to attend vocational studies (C2) was seen as a positive change if the student had thoroughly considered the choice and identified the plan and as negative if the vocational track served as an exit from the academic track. Furthermore, leaving school to attend another general upper secondary school for youth (C3) was primarily seen as a positive shift in the student’s life trajectory because it involved everyday arrangements, such as a way to school or peer relations.

The most worrying subgroup for the professionals appeared to be the students who were not going to continue studying anywhere and whose plans seemed unclear (C4). They were seen as being in danger of social exclusion. One of the guidance counsellors described, "They kind of give up, as if they do not have any good options, have not had success with their general upper secondary school studies, and they are usually quite distressed and disappointed with themselves." Some of these students had not been reached, no matter how hard professionals had tried.

There was also a group of early school leavers without a next study place, which the professionals were not worried about: those with a well-thought-out plan for their future and an interim plan for the time they had to wait to implement the master plan (C5). The professionals’ discussions about students’ plans after early school leaving were not linked to whether the students had a next study place. Instead, the professionals were worried (in other words, they took a negative stance on early school leaving) if they could not rely on the students’ ability to proceed and succeed in their personal life trajectories.

Reasons for early school leaving

The professionals brought up several reasons for early school leaving (D, see Table 2), which we categorised into six groups. Some of the reasons why students had initially decided to choose general upper secondary school seemed unsound (D1) to the professionals. If the choice of school was grounded in something other than the student’s will to have an education at the general upper secondary school, the reasons would become understandable if they were viewed in light of the students’ smooth conduct of everyday life; for example, no need to sit for hours on the bus if the school is nearby, a pleasant climate at home when doing what parents want, more fun when old friends are around, and no need to make occupational decisions yet. Moreover, some young people do not want to be labelled as vocational students and some are left without a vocational study place in the joint application system.

If the choice of school is based on a misunderstanding of general upper secondary school content or demands, the school is unlikely to meet the student’s expectations (D2). Meeting the real demands at school, for example, the time required for daily schoolwork or the content of the curriculum, often requires students to change their conduct of everyday life, which is not always easy. Even if a student has managed to cope with some learning difficulties (D3) during basic education, the huge amount of reading and writing in general upper secondary studies may cause problems. Professionals were also concerned if they saw that students had not achieved sufficient learning goals or skills in basic education.

An outreach youth worker crystallised the students’ lack of a sense of community (D4) by saying, "In many cases, friends are the very reason for showing up at school (…) and the motivation for leaving home to go to school." The professionals also discussed student-teacher relationships and the social support gained (or lacking) in other life scenes outside of school and highlighted the importance of the school personnel’s efforts in helping new students get to know each other.

To focus on studying, the students also need to manage the issues they encounter outside of school, in other life scenes, which the professionals discussed as challenges to life management (D5); for example, sleeping problems, moving away from one’s parents' home and substance abuse. Health-related problems were also seen as demanding changes in the students’ conduct of everyday life if they, for instance, prevented a student from participating. A guidance counsellor described, "Some of the students are suffering from depression (…), which of course lowers their initiative and, of course, has an impact on managing their studies." As a separate topic, professionals discussed the accumulation of difficulties (D6), which means school absences and problems with the progress of their studies. If a student is unable to attend classes due to difficulties, there will be consequences like lowered grades and unfinished courses.

In conclusion, we call the reasons for early school leaving, seen from the professionals’ perspective, the rocky conduct of everyday school life (see Figure 1). In light of the concept of the conduct of everyday life, the professionals saw the students’ difficulties in relation to students’ participation in everyday school life, as well as its historicity and translocality (Dreier, 2011; Holzkamp, 2013). As for participation, the rocky conduct of everyday school life may consist of learning difficulties, problems with social relationships and a mismatch between students’ expectations and the reality experienced at the chosen school. Too little consideration in choosing a school reminds us of the meaning of historicity in everyday life, not forgetting that every other difficulty may be rooted in life before general upper secondary studies. Problems in other life scenes of students emphasize translocality, that is, the constant integration of different life scenes.

Figure 1 The rocky conduct of everyday school life in relation to early school leaving, according to professionals working in guidance and welfare services.

Common contradictions in intervening

The first finding concerning contradictions was conceptual; we found two levels of contradictions regarding professionals’ cooperation. The first, subjective level, consists of various everyday contradictions that are discussed with either a student or a colleague within the normal conduct of everyday life (Højholt & Kousholt, 2020). In addition, we identified six common contradictions that form the second collective level inside the studied practice. They represent points of social practice that professionals would like to change but do not know how to do so. Thus, they seemed to disrupt the common practice of intervening and to challenge the professionals’ conduct of everyday life. Here, we do not extend our systematic analysis to the general contradictions concerning political-historical groundings of everyday contradictions (see Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

In discussions with guidance counsellors, outreach youth workers and guidance personnel in the general upper secondary school for adults, the meaning of students’ motivation arose as an ambiguous topic. A guidance counsellor described motivation as "a vague term meaning anything that constitutes a reason for early school leaving." This captures the use of the term in these professionals’ discussions. Another guidance counsellor stated:

I feel it difficult to say that the motivation is missing or something. It's not telling me anything. It’s really like a "safety word". It’s kind of a societally acceptable way for young people not to lose face. Like "of course, I could manage with my studies, but I lost my motivation", and for real, the reason is not coping or something else going on.

In discussions with principals, school psychologists and school social workers, motivation was seen as a dead end: if students said they lacked motivation, these professionals found it very difficult, if not impossible, to encourage students to continue their studies. Thus, the first common contradiction was seen when using the concept of motivation. Cooperation between two professionals is difficult if one thinks the student cannot be helped and the other thinks the opposite.

Another common contradiction was found in the professionals’ idea of students’ lack of social relationships, which was discussed as a possible but uncertain reason for intervening. It was difficult for professionals to determine whether this caused a problem for students. They agreed that some students may not need much company, but some students need the opinions of friends in every decision-making situation. Professionals did not see how to interpret students’ complex needs. Still, a school psychologist recalled, "We all still have a basic need for belonging and becoming seen and heard, and if someone does not have that feeling at school, he/she may not feel comfortable there". The professionals tended to avoid intervening if they did not have clear grounds for it.

The third common contradiction emerged around professionals’ differing definitions of early school leaving. In Finland, a person is only allowed to attend one study place at the upper secondary level at a time, which makes it necessary to give the leaving certificate to the early school leaver for further enrolment. According to the professionals, some early school leavers disappear without asking for certificates. Practices seem to vary between schools as to whether early school leaving is reported in these cases. In some schools, the leaving certificate is provided, according to the law (GUSS Act, 2018), soon after recognising that the student is not going to complete his/her studies. In other schools, missing students continue to be enrolled. Given the school’s responsibility to provide guidance and report early school leavers to outreach youth workers, it is crucial to agree on who is an early school leaver.

The same lack of clarity also emerged in the discussions concerning general upper secondary school for adults. Some professionals argued in favour of students changing schools, leaving them unreported for outreach youth work. Some of them stressed the responsibility of reporting every early school leaver to outreach youth workers. A school psychologist reminded, "The possibilities to survive in general upper secondary school for adults may be quite weak if one leaves without reflecting on the reason for failing in studies in the first place”. The group of guidance personnel at the general upper secondary school for adults raised the same concern: "We also have a big group of young people we know nothing about, who have left their schools early, who are not shown here, and who have not gone back to the school they left behind”.

The fourth common contradiction touches on the professionals’ vague idea of the expulsion of the student. If the students were not proceeding in their studies, expulsion was seen as a means to help students to proceed along their life trajectories. The professionals worried about some students, who seemed to be in trouble but who were still not willing to participate in guidance. Thus, the interventions at school and by outreach youth workers were seen to become more relevant for students if they were expelled from school. However, the professionals did not know how that would be possible. The principals, who are responsible for enrolling and expelling students, stated that no one is expelled until the end of the fourth year. Nevertheless, the other professionals discussed how the reasons for expelling students varied among the schools in practice. School psychologists, social workers and outreach youth workers agreed that "it is surprising how easy it is to stay at a general upper secondary school without promoting studies".

As the fifth common contradiction in the practice of intervening, the professionals discussed the number of study place options available in a large municipality; the more options available, the easier it is to decide to leave school early without thorough consideration. The professionals saw a need for intervention if a student resigned unexpectedly, but they felt uncertain how to encourage a student to obtain guidance while the student saw several options around them. Without considering the options, professionals saw the possibility of another early school leaving in the future. On the other hand, the professionals found it easier to identify a good option for everyone if the student participated in guidance.

The last common contradiction concerned wondering whether, as an intervention, professionals should recommend early school leaving as an option for a student and, if so, in what circumstances. It was seen as necessary in cases where the students’ ability to proceed with studies was not seen as adequate for graduating at a predetermined time and where the early school leaving could open new possibilities enabling the student to move forward. A guidance counsellor described, "I feel these cases very difficult. Like how can you express or hint that there could be some other options if the student still wants to stay". The professionals saw these situations as related to the students’ strong social relationships and their sense of belonging at school, which felt difficult to deny. In addition, the professionals pondered how to convince the student’s parents of early school leaving.

Our overall view of professionals’ conflictual cooperation is presented in Figure 2. In professionals’ conduct of everyday life, there are common contradictions in terms of defining early school leaving, finding the right moment for expulsion and proposing early school leaving to the student. Regarding professionals’ impression of students’ rocky conduct of everyday school life, the common contradictions arose as ways of understanding students’ motivation and lack of social relationships. Finally, the number of options for early school leavers appeared contradictory to the professionals in light of the students’ life trajectories.

Figure 2 Contradictions in conflictual cooperation when professionals consider intervening in early school leaving related problems of general upper secondary school students.

Discussion

In this study, we have shown how guidance and welfare work professionals relate themselves to early school leaving in the context of a large Finnish municipality. We have presented how the professionals see early school leaving as students’ rocky conduct of everyday life. We have also identified the common contradictions that professionals encounter when intervening in students’ early school leaving-related problems. This study provides a new practitioners’ perspective on early school leaving, which has previously been studied mainly in the light of statistics with the aim of preventing it.

Professionals had different conceptions of early school leaving, depending on the perspective of their profession. They found a strong link between early school leaving and the numerous options of what else to study in the city. Professionals emphasised the uniqueness of every early school leaving case and stated that early school leaving could not be prevented completely. Thus, they discussed it from the perspective of students’ personal life trajectories. They also seemed to rely on guidance to find the best personal options for every early school leaver. In the context of Finnish general upper secondary education, students can freely choose whether to participate in guidance. Consequently, some early school leavers seem to shut themselves off from the support.

Professionals considered early school leaving worth encouraging if they trusted the student to succeed, regardless of the student’s following plans. In light of this, general upper secondary school for adults or another general upper secondary school for youth were seen as a good opportunity for students to complete their studies, and the vocational track was seen as an opportunity to implement emerging future career plans. Even for the student without another study place, the professionals only saw early school leaving worthy of support if the student showed the ability to thoroughly consider different options and participate in guidance. In addition, professionals were happy with their guidance and welfare work if the students chose to stay in school after having vague thoughts about early school leaving.

In contrast, professionals felt frustrated and bothered about the student’s future if the student left school without proper plans, such as choosing a general upper secondary school for adults without figuring out what originally went wrong in their studies or choosing a vocational track to avoid a general track. According to our interpretation, the professionals’ perspective of worrying about early school leaving was linked to the professionals’ perceptions of students’ agency. This is in line with the aims of the national core curriculum, which aims for students to gain skills and make plans for their further education and work life during their general upper secondary education (NCC, 2019).

A huge concern and a difficult issue for professionals turned out to be an early school leaver who had no plans and did not want to participate in guidance as well as a student who wanted to continue his/her studies without showing any progress. This concern is interesting in light of the findings of Niemi and Laaksonen (2020), who argued that receiving support in general upper secondary school may depend strongly on students’ own initiatives, which also refers to students’ agency. Given that the legislation guarantees the student’s right to choose whether to participate in the guidance provided (GUSS Act, 2018), we may ask what kind of agency the school requires from the students. Thus, this issue is an example of a general-level contradiction (see Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

Our findings show that, in addition to the concept of conduct of everyday life, the perspective of supporting students’ personal life trajectories is useful in considering whether to intervene. Instead of searching for reasons for early school leaving from conditions in students’ families, schools, or communities (see De Witte et al., 2013), it is fruitful to focus on the meaning of the conditions for the students. Because students see situations from their own standpoints, the same conditions can be a serious threat to someone and a minor challenge to someone else. Understanding this is crucial to professionals’ work.

It is also essential to ask how we should relate ourselves to the knowledge gained from analysing the different statistical risks of early school leaving, as Holte (2017) did concerning the risk of being NEET. He argued that giving someone an “at-risk” status marks one as ready for failure. However, some students have many kinds of troubles, such as burn out, but they still manage to complete their studies, whereas some students with no risk at all end up leaving school. It seems that knowledge of risks does not help professionals in their everyday lives to intervene (see also De Witte et al., 2013). Instead, professionals could benefit from applying subject-scientific concepts that direct their attention to students’ living conditions from the students’ perspectives (Peltola et al., 2021; Raetsaari & Suorsa, 2020;  Suorsa, 2015).

Our work shows that the phenomenon of early school leaving in Finnish general upper secondary schools cannot be understood by a statistical dichotomy of positive or negative early school leaving alone. At the time of writing this article, compulsory education has been extended to cover upper secondary education in Finland, and the Compulsory Education Act now contains a definition of early school leaving (Oppivelvollisuuslaki, 2020). However, the perspective of the definition is institutional, so the student perspective is still needed for practicing guidance and welfare work.

The idea of conflictual cooperation as well as the concept of common contradiction are useful ways to develop practices. Concerning students’ rocky conduct of everyday school life, professionals had different views of how the concept of motivation should be handled and whether a lack of students’ social relationships should be seen as a problem. When professionals are expected to support a student through multi-professional cooperation (NCC, 2019), the professionals’ different views may cause discrepancies in cooperation (cf. Højholt & Kousholt, 2020).

If motivation is judged based on its intrinsic or extrinsic quality and in relation to a goal set by someone other than the person oneself (see e.g. Deci & Ryan, 2008), it may seem impossible to help the person gain motivation. This may be the conclusion if the person either claims or is claimed to have no intrinsic motivation to reach the predetermined goal (for example, completing studies). However, because guidance aims to support students’ growth, studying and future planning (NCC, 2019), it is crucial to study from the standpoint of the student, what the student’s existing motives are and what exactly we should support. When we see motives as aspects of participation in psycho-social collectives and in relation to goals that seem possible to the student (see e.g. Nissen, 2019; Nissen & Sørensen, 2017), helping appears in a different light. Helping becomes finding relevant ways of widening student’s prospects together with the student.

Concerning students’ optional life trajectories without a general upper secondary education certificate, professionals raised a question about the number of options for studying in the city. This issue is essential in the context of the Finnish school system, which has traditionally been seen as a good example of providing equal opportunities for all, regardless of background. Our findings remind that even the variety of study options has different meanings in individual situations, such as the ease of leaving school early.

In their own conduct of everyday life in practicing guidance, professionals defined early school leaving differently, disagreed on the proper time of expulsion when the student is not proceeding and wondered whether they should propose early school leaving for the student. In this conflictual cooperation, intervening shows its paradoxical nature (cf. Røn Larsen, 2018). When professionals try to follow the script of the institutional life trajectory for students, set up by society, they are, at the same time, doing their best to strengthen students’ wellbeing, which also means supporting students in changing their life plans on their personal life trajectories. The success of the intervention cannot be guaranteed if success is defined in relation to institutional life trajectories (see Silvonen, 2004). Instead, we see success as understanding interventions as the intertwining standpoints of at least two subjects.

Conclusion

Using subject-scientific concepts of conduct of everyday life and life trajectory, we gained a fresh understanding of supporting students with interventions, as well as using subject-scientific concepts in the analysis. We have discussed the wide perspectives on early school leaving, seen from the standpoint of professionals’, and described their relation to their work. The conduct of everyday life is primarily a first-person perspective concept (Holzkamp, 2013), offering a way to understand subjects living in certain conditions. We have used it here to describe students’ perspectives, as seen and interpreted by the professionals (see also Peltola et al., 2021). We think that this understanding is essential for professionals when they consider intervening. The concept is also useful in counselling conversations (Raetsaari & Suorsa, 2020;  Suorsa, 2015).

The idea of conflictual cooperation provided a diverse view of early school leaving-related interventions experienced by professionals in their own conduct of everyday life. This shows how professionals maintain the conditions of their work. In addition to the original (Axel, 2011; Axel & Højholt, 2019) and developed (Højholt & Kousholt, 2020) notions of conflictual cooperation, we recognised another level of contradictions. Understanding professionals’ common contradictions, as we have presented in this paper, provides grounds for making changes in practice. With the notion of general contradiction solely (Højholt & Kousholt, 2020), the focus of development would be on the politics and the practice of schooling. Therefore, we suggest developing the concept further.

Practice research has been a successful way to understand the work of professionals. However, the role of practitioners as co-researchers could have been stronger. It was facilitated by the participation of the practitioner-researcher in the studied practice, in-depth research discussions with practitioners and dialogue between professionals and the researcher regarding the preliminary results of the analysis. To help practitioners develop their practice, it would be important also to engage professionals in conceptual conversations, as well as in more thorough conversations about the findings. However, there has not been a possibility for further discussions thus far, given professionals’ hectic everyday living.

When developing practice in the researched city, we, therefore, suggest seeking a shared understanding of motivation, loneliness and the boundaries of early school leaving and finding agreement regarding expulsion. Additionally, we recommend that the whole concept of intervening should be formulated in cooperation, with our results and new legislation. In developing practices, research itself has the role of intervening and widening possibilities to direct development. Despite the situational characteristics of the practice research, we have reached a general level of understanding of the practice which may also be applicable to research concerning other general upper secondary school contexts ( Busch-Jensen & Schraube, 2019; see Højholt & Schraube, 2019). In addition, our article seeks to advance the scientific conversation about the concept of conflictual cooperation.

General upper secondary school is a special context. As an option for vocational studies in Finland, it attracts youth with the possibility of not yet having to decide the direction of their careers. This forms a special basis for guidance and welfare work, which play an important role in supporting students’ growing processes, which sometimes lead to early school leaving. Still, no matter how rocky the conduct of everyday school life, the student may succeed in graduating. To understand the interventions further, it is essential to look at early school leaving from the standpoint of the students, too. As the professionals’ experiences described show, focusing on students’ agency is crucial.

Ethics statement

The study has been conducted in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written consent to take part in the study has been obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the OKKA Foundation and the Scholarship Fund of the University of Oulu. Open access funding provided by University of Oulu including Oulu University Hospital.