Social inclusion : a challenge for Europe’s career guidance professionals

Abstract

Over the past decade, career guidance has attracted an unprecedented amount of policy attention in Europe, leading to several initiatives at both national and cross-national levels. While there is a long history of European Union policy involvement in the field of career guidance (Watts, Sultana & McCarthy, 2009), the OECD review of guidance services, . launched in 2000 and finalized four years later (OECD, 2004), served as a trigger for the intensification of policy 'busyness' both in high and middle income countries. Several single country studies were carried out, leading to comparative regional analyses of the state of career guidance across the European Union and European Economic Area countries (Sultana, 2003, 2004, 2008; Sultana & Watts, 2006). The reviews focused on guidance services in both the education and labour market sectors, and considered guidance not only as a way to meet labour market goals - such as improving the match between the demand and supply of skills - but also as a policy tool to help attain social equity and inclusion goals for both young people and adults. In Europe, such an approach ties into strongly embedded notions of social welfare which, while increasingly challenged by neo-liberal imperatives, nevertheless continue to strive to ensure solidarity towards all citizens, especially those most at risk of social exclusion. Career guidance as it is currently conceived in Europe is thus keen not only to facilitate autonomy and self-sufficiency by equipping citizens with the life-skills needed to manage educational and occupational pathways, but also to provide the support required throughout life, when and where needed. The various reviews of career guidance in Europe show that most countries value career guidance as a public service that is freely available inside and outside schools. There is an appreciation of the fact that guidance helps identify and re-motivate under-achieving students, can significantly lower dropout rates, and can cater for those at risk of disengaging by supporting their move back into education and training, thus improving their chances of labour market integration. Similarly, in the labour market sector, funding of European public employment services (PES) is often justified in relation to the principle of solidarity towards marginalised groups and the disadvantaged. Such groups include young people who leave school without any qualifications, and who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the long-term unemployed. Some countries have developed services targeting other vulnerable groups, such as those who risk losing their jobs due to the restructuring of the enterprise they work for (e.g. Austria, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom), women returners (e.g. Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Spain), those living in remote areas (e.g. Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Spain), the disabled (e.g. Flemish-speaking Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Romania, Spain), ethnic minorities, immigrants and asylum seekers (e.g. Flemish-speaking Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden), gypsies (Czech Republic, Romania), prisoners and ex-offenders (e.g. Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania), drug abusers (e.g. Finland), and ex-servicemen (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Greece, Lithuania). Indeed, in several countries in Europe, such is the focus on those who are 'at risk' that there is some concern that 'mainstream' groups are not being adequately catered for. Service gaps have thus been noted in relation to young people and adults who are neither job-seekers nor students, to employed workers needing information and advice in relation to job mobility, and to older workers. The next sections will consider some of the targeted services offered to vulnerable categories of European citizens within both the education sector, and the labour market.