The European Commission (2020a) and the Council of the European Union (2021) recommend that promoting quality and inclusive education and combating early school leaving will remain a priority in education and training in the coming years and decades. The new strategic framework calls for reducing the early school leaving rate to below 9% at EU level by 2030. According to Eurostat data (2023), the average rate in the EU in 2022 was 9.6%, compared to 12.4% in Hungary. However, the average rate varies significantly by region and ethnicity, almost doubling in rural areas of the country and with the rate of early school leavers among Roma youth being several times higher than in the majority population. According to research (Bocsi et al.), the early school leaving rate among Roma youth is 65%, which is worse than the European average. In the EU, 44% of Roma pupils are in segregated education.  28% of Roma young people have completed upper secondary education, compared to 83.5% in the majority population (European Commission 2020b). Education, the attainment of at least upper secondary education, has an impact on life chances, with a number of studies showing a link between employment and health and well-being and early school leaving (Gitschthaler & Nairz-Wirth, 2018).

Hungarian research (Paksi et al. 2023) describes the causes of early school leaving in harmony with international studies. In Hungary school factors play only a minor role in preventing early school leaving, with individual characteristics and family background factors being the most important determinants of early school leaving. Hungary is consistently among the countries with the highest explanatory power of the SES index in student performance (OECD 2019). Success in entering and progressing to secondary school, and thus preventing early school leaving, depends on informed career choices, which are often lacking for young people of lower social status and Roma youth (Bereményi, 2022).

Intersectionality is a perpetual situation in which multiple categories of inequality interacting with each other manifest as a new social category, in which the causes of oppression cannot be separated (Asumah-Nagel, 2014). It is characterised by being situated, with factors of social division interacting continuously and their significance strongly dependent on context (place and time) (Yuval-Davis, 2015). According to Howard and Vajda (2017), the most persistent forms of group-based disadvantage are linked to identities of origin (minority), with one form of inequality promoting or deepening another. The devaluation of cultural identity is more likely to be associated with economic and territorial disadvantage, resulting in persistent intergenerational poverty. In Hungary too, social disadvantage and its complexity (school exclusion, settlement disadvantage), as well as belonging to the Roma community and the negative social prejudice associated with it, are the most frequently intertwined categories (Forray-Pálmainé Orsós, 2010).

Our development programme was designed to increase the impact of school factors in preventing early school leaving, for the reasons outlined above. The focus of the four-year programme is to foster an inclusive learning environment (Varga, 2015) through targeted career guidance and close family contact with teachers and peer mentoring. The three main content dimensions of the programme are to develop the student's self-awareness and self-image, to foster parental involvement, and to learn about careers and related further education pathways. The mentoring programme targets one class in each of ten primary schools with a majority of Roma pupils and supports pupils from 6th grade for three years until they enter secondary school. The presentation will report on the first results of a research component accompanying the evaluation of the mentoring programme, the longitudinal student questionnaire.

Four student questionnaires will be carried out during the development. The questionnaires are comprehensive, i.e., they are completed by all students participating in the development. To ensure traceability, the questionnaires are provided with a student ID. The first data collection took place in September 2022 and the second in May 2023. A total of 130 pupils participated in these data collections. The presentation will analyse the results of these two questionnaires. In line with the objectives of the programme, the questionnaire-based student data collection is based on previous data collection (HBSC, ISCWeB, PISA, UNICEF) and measurement tools (Rosenberg Self-Assessment Scale, 10-point Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Cantril Ladder) and examines 6 dimensions and themes: 1. family, family support (family structure, number of siblings, parents' education and labour market status); 2. School well-being, school-classroom environment (climate, teacher support, bullying); 3. Student well-being, self-image, self-awareness, resilience; 4. Academic engagement, academic effort; 5. Vision, career orientation, further education; 6. Individual and family background characteristics (family financial situation, student's nationality, health status). Starting with the second data collection, we also measure satisfaction with development. The ethnicity of the students was measured in two ways, one based on the students' self-report and the other based on the teacher mentor's assessment. The student questionnaire data were combined with the student's semester and end-of-year grades by subject, as well as their grade point average. The research has an institutional research ethics licence, which details the information and rights of participants. All participants are involved in the development and research process with parental consent. The data was collected in a face-to-face format, with the assistance of the university's Roma students. The research questions are the following: How did students' self-concept change as a result of the intervention and how are these related to individual, family and school background factors? How did the intervention change students' goals for further education and how are these related to individual, family and school background factors? How did the intervention change the students' vision of their future and how are these related to individual, family and school background factors? Descriptive and multi-variable (correlation and regression) statistical methods were used to analyse the data.

Among the results, it can be highlighted that the students' goals for further education have changed significantly between the two measurements, and these are fully in line with parents' opinions and expectations. Compared to the first data collection, the proportion of those who were uncertain about their career goals decreased significantly, i.e., the majority of pupils are more aware of their further education. Among the possible learning paths, the proportion of those who chose a training leading to a secondary school leaving certificate has increased significantly. This is an important benefit for the programme, as the target group concerned tends to underestimate themselves and this is also a feature of teachers' attitudes towards them. As regards future work, students' perceptions of what is most important is that they love what they do, and perceptions of this changed significantly between the two study dates. It is important to highlight that students' perceptions of their future success were significantly lower in the second data collection, which needs further explanation. The result is intended to be explored through qualitative research. The hypothesis is that this may be due to a more realistic perception of their situation, which may also help them to set more realistic goals. The results so far have identified several (sub-)areas (teacher support, school climate, bullying, academic engagement, further learning, self-evaluation, resilience) that need improvement and support. Further analysis of the results of the second data collection will provide an opportunity to evaluate the development programme, monitor the development focus and adjust it where necessary.

Asumah, S. N.& Nagel, M. (2014). Preface, In: Asumah, S. N. Nagel, M. (szerk.). Diversity, Social Justice, and Inclusive Excellence – Transdisciplinary and Global Perspectives, New York, USA: State University of New York Press, Albany, 9-13. Bereményi, B. Á. (2022). Between choices and “going with the flow”. Career guidance and Roma young people in Hungary. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-022-09536-0 Bocsi V, Varga A, Fehérvári A. Chances of Early School Leaving—With Special Regard to the Impact of Roma Identity. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(5):483. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050483 Cerna, L., Mezzanotte, C., Rutigliano, A., Brussino, O., Santiago, P., Borgonovi, F., Guthrie., C. (2021). “Promoting inclusive education for diverse societies: A conceptual framework”. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 260, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/94ab68c6-en Council of the European Union (2021). Council Recommendation of 12 March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion and participation 2021/C 93/01 Eurostat (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Early_leavers_from_education_and_training European Commision (2020a). Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf European Commission (2020b). EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020 – 2030 https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/eu_roma_strategic_framework_for_equality_inclusion_and_participation_for_2020_-_2030_0.pdf Forray, R. K., & Pálmainé Orsós, A. (2010). Hátrányos helyzetű vagy kulturális kisebbség–cigány programok. Educatio, 19(1), 75-87. Gitschthaler, M. & Nairz-Wirth, E. (2018). The individual and economic costs of early school leaving. In: Van Praag, L., Nouwen, W., Van Caudenberg, R., Clycq, N. & Timmerman, C. (szerk). Comparative Perspectives on Early School Leaving in the European Union. London: Routledge. 59-73. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170404-5 Howard, J. – Vajda, V. (2017). Navigating Power and Intersectionality to Address Inequality. IDS Working Paper, 504. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, Paris: OECD Paksi B, Széll K, Fehérvári A. (2023). Empirical Testing of a Multidimensional Model of School Dropout Risk. Social Sciences, 12(2): 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12020050 Varga, A. (2015). The theory and practice of inclusion. Pécs, Magyarország : Pécsi Tudományegyetem Bölcsészet- és Társadalomtudományi Kar Neveléstudományi Intézet (2015) , 209 p. Yuval-Davis, N. (2015). Situated Intersectionality and Social Inequality. Raisons politiques, 58, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.058.0091