Conference Agenda

ISSPP Internal Working Meeting

In Portugal, inclusive education is considered fundamental as recommended by the current legislation of the country. Despite this, in Artistic Education Programmes, most teachers do not have adequate training to work with children with Special Needs. For this reason, and in order to promote inclusion in Arts Education Programmes of Music, in the year 2018 we started an action-research project, entitled: Inclusion of Children with Special Needs in Arts Education Programmes: From Research to Action.

Through this research, we intend to find solutions so that children with motor disabilities arising from Cerebral Palsy can attend the Art Education Programmes in Primary Education, to develop their potential and musical skills, with possible use of Digital Technologies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Work financed by FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, within the scope of the PhD scholarship with reference 2020.07331.BD, and by National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, IP, within the scope of the UIDB/00194/2020 project, referring to CIDTFF - Research Center in Didactics and Technology in the Training of Trainers.

In 2020 when Covid19 struck, about 89% of the world's students were affected by the school shutdown and 24 million of these students are likely to drop out of school (UNESCO, 2020). Further report by UNESCO (2020) expounded the migration of teaching and learning to online has disproportionately affected Student with Disability(SWDs), therefore they are least likely to benefit from online learning.

The challenge with the use of digital technologies is that students with disabilities, face several barriers accessing digital learning platforms. According to Fichten, Olenik-Shemesh, Asuncion, Jorgensen & Colwell (2020) there is a stark incompatibility between software used by universities and the students as a result, most websites for learning are inaccessible with student not knowing the use of these technologies. Even though much has improved in recent decades, there are still technological, structural and attitudinal characteristics that make it difficult for this SWDs to fully participate in society (Dirks, Bühler. Edler, Miesenberger& Heumader,2020)

In Ghana, few studies conducted in higher education have focused on identifying physical barriers (Akoto et al., 2022; Odame et al., 2020; ) and socio-cultural barriers (Adom-Opare, 2022; Ocran, 2022) as the major contributors of barriers to education with no specific mention of the barriers to the use of classroom technology initiatives by student with hearing and visual impairment . In light of this, there is a need to investigate these barriers to inform policy and practice. This study, therefore, fills the gap in research by exploring the widely used classroom technology by students with hearing and visual impairment at the University of Ghana. The study focused on the following to achieve its goal.

What are the widely used digital technologies for visually impairment?

How are these technologies a barrier to students with visual impairment?

What support services are available to visually impaired for use

This study was guided by transformative learning and life course theory. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) define transformative learning as “dramatic fundamental change in the way we see ourselves and the world in which we live”. It describes one’s learning transformation occurring as a result of a 10-stage process that begins with a “disorienting dilemma” which leads to self-examination, planning and some experimentation with new roles and ultimately reintegration. By this, learning is achieved through critical self-reflection on one’s experiencesThis is useful in explaining the changes coping strategies to the use of technology. The study thus draws on the concepts of Transition, Meaning Making and Critical Discourse to explain the changes students face and how they cope

Speech-to-text (STT) technology enables pupils to write using their voice and has been presented as an alternative to handwriting and typing for pupils who struggle with writing as it reduces the constraints of transcription (Arcon et al., 2017). Baker, Gersten and Graham (2003) posit that dictation allows pupils to spend less effort on lower-order skills, such as spelling, punctuation and grammar, and enables them to devote more attention to higher-order skills, such as planning content, creating a good structure, and text coherence.

Research indicates that students with learning difficulties are able to produce higher quality compositions when dictating texts to a scribe compared to writing by hand or typing (De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Gillespie & Graham, 2014). Similar outcomes have been observed among children without writing difficulties. For example, Hayes and Berninger, (2009) found that primary school students in grades 2, 4, and 6 showed an increase in the number of ideas generated, as well as both the quantity and quality of texts produced when dictating to a scribe compared to writing texts by hand or on a keyboard. However, the approach was not as effective for older students who have already developed solid handwriting and transcription skills (Hayes & Berninger, 2009).

Given the sensitive emotional development and attitudes of pupils in lower secondary school, the social implications of using STT technology among this age group is an important consideration with respect to creating inclusive classroom environments. Inclusive education has been described as a response to diversity, aiming to empower all learners, celebrate differences in dignified ways and improve participation of all students (Barton, 1997). Access to speech technology may provide several advantages to segregated one-to-one instruction or writing with a scribe. For example, the technology may enable pupils to take part in a greater range of writing activities than would otherwise be available to them (Quinlan 2004). Though, there is a risk that these instructional adaptations may create new forms of exclusion when only provided to individual students. As a student may experience feelings of inferiority or low self-esteem when they are permitted to use resources that are not accessible to their classmates (Polgar, 2011).

To address this issue, researchers in the Speech Technology for Improved Literacy (STIL) project have explored how teachers and school leaders at a Norwegian lower secondary school introduce STT technology as an option for all students during writing activities. Schools are now in a position where they must decide whether STT technology should be accepted as an assistive tool available only to a certain group of students, in certain contexts, or as a tool for all learners. Very little research has been conducted on STT as an inclusive approach.

The STIL project comprises three studies, a scoping review study (study 1), a qualitative interview study (study 2) and a stimulated recall study (study 3). The aim of the scoping review is to assess the size and scope of available empirical research on the use of STT in a lower secondary context and identify the nature and extent of evidence. The second study explores teachers’ experiences with introducing STT as an inclusive approach in a full class environment. While the third study aims to explore how pupils with low writing achievement experience writing a reflective text with STT technology and keyboard.

Alternative provision is employed when school-based education is considered unsuitable for a young person; it can offer more individualised care that is therapeutic in nature, including small group teaching, and high staff ratios; aiming to reduce the long-lasting impact of exclusion from school including criminal activities, low educational attainment, unemployment and physical and mental ill health (Owen et al., 2021). There are disproportionate numbers of children in alternative provision with one or more of the following characteristics:

• Special Educational Need or Disability;

• at risk of or have been permanently excluded from school;

• school refusal, school phobia and poor attendance and record of truancy.

Research that discusses the children's voice in relation to their experiences of alternative provision cites its importance in enabling them to tackle their feelings of low self-worth and build an understanding of the world (Owen et al., 2021).

‘Engage' offers an innovative approach in alternative education provision from the Northampton Saints Foundation (NSF), working with students aged 10-18 to increase confidence and self-esteem and support them in the next steps of their journey. NSF evaluates their students’ journeys via a ‘paper passport’ which measures the success of the delivery outputs of the programme. It provides key statistical data to enhance the progressions of young people. Within the 2019/20 academic year NSF had a 93% progression rate, this refers to the progression to employment, education or training, or an improvement in soft skills.

We present the outcomes of a consultation and pilot with the young people and NSF staff, using the online platform Padlet, to explore how they would like to record their reflections, the look and feel of a digital passport platform (e-Passport), and how it could address the issue of disliking committing their feelings and emotions to paper. Initially, the Student e-Passport was piloted with one ‘Hub’ group from the Foundation’s programme, using participatory action research (PAR) involving the NSF staff and researchers at the University of Northampton (UON). The pilot aimed to consult with staff and students to evaluate its effectiveness and scalability. Version 2 is co-designed with NSF staff and based upon the theoretical premises of the Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018) that values multi-modal engagement, representation and expression in learning design. Version 2 will see the evaluation of the digital artefacts produced by the students on their e-Passport and their learning behaviours and engagement.

This session will take the form of an oral presentation, sharing the findings of our research project, looking at how we are using Padlet to shape the future of inclusive teaching. UON uses Padlet as part of its active digital education pedagogical approach (ADE). This concept has been developed at UON to complement their pedagogical approach of Active Blended Learning (ABL). The ADE approach recognises that digital tools can be harnessed to facilitate the co-construction of knowledge through technology-enabled exchanges of ideas. Such active co-creation has the potential to build employability skills consistent with the transformative ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals, most notably number 4, Quality Education. It engages individuals in knowledge construction, reflection and critique, the development of learner autonomy and the achievement of learning outcomes using digital tools.

Padlet offers a range of opportunities for expressing learning, co-creation between students and staff and the building of shared digital artefacts that can be used synchronously and asynchronously. This session would benefit individuals who are looking at ways of engaging with learners that are across time zones and locations as well as those with a diverse set of learners, for example students with diagnosed learning needs, neurodiversity and students identified as needing support with access and participation.

Across global, national and local contexts, education policymakers increasingly architect and implement policies aimed at the development of “whole system” approaches to inclusive education (Ainscow, 2020; Banks, 2022). A key dimension of this policy approach according to Ainscow (2020) is administration, involving policy and school leadership (and policy and practice pertaining to school leadership), including both principals and middle leaders.

While research has been conducted focused on conceptualising inclusive school leadership/ inclusive school leaders (Óskarsdóttir et al., 2020) and the inextricable links between school leadership and the realisation of inclusive education, there are few studies that specifically highlight this as a priority in achieving inclusive education systems. The aim of this paper is to make this direct link and, by reviewing the literature, highlighting common factors in school leadership that influence inclusive schools. Óskarsdóttir et al. (2020) draw on instructional, transformational and, most relevant to this paper, distributed leadership theory. Distributed school leadership, the most commonly adopted leadership theory in educational policy making and research today (Wang, 2018), involves sharing leadership responsibilities among members of a school community, to create a more collaborative and inclusive school culture (Diamond & Spillane, 2016). This approach can help make schools more responsive to diversity and inclusion by empowering a wider range of voices and perspectives to contribute to decision-making (Harris et al., 2022). With distributed leadership, the focus shifts from a solo to a collective and shared leadership team that can more effectively address and respond to the increasingly diverse needs and experiences of school leaders, teachers and students. Theoretically, this approach can also lead to a more equitable distribution of resources and support, which can contribute to a more inclusive and diversity-responsive school environment. However, this is not without its problems given, for example, challenges to diversifying the school leadership and teacher workforce, and a lack of attention to provide effective and differentiated developmental opportunities for all on implementing distributed leadership in practice (Murphy & Brennan, 2022).

Research literature to date has focused far more on school principals and inclusive leadership practice (e.g. DeMatthews & Mueller, 2021) and it remains that far less is known about how this achieved particularly for middle leaders in schools, particularly in education systems who have adopted the aforementioned whole system approaches to inclusive education as well as distributed leadership models (e.g. the Republic of Ireland). This is despite calls from critics of the distributed leadership who cite challenges including how adoption of this theory or policy in practice (a) lack of clarity about distributed leadership (b) do not experience school leadership preparation for inclusion, (in)equity, diversity (Young et al., 2021) (c) results in unequitable (re)distribution of power (Lumby, 2013, 2019) and/ or (d) can create potential for conflict should there be failure to redress power asymmetries that emerge (Diamond & Spillane, 2016). We elaborate on these issues further in this paper.

School leaders, as a result of their authoritative position, can have a significant impact on students’ academic and social development as well as the achievement of inclusive education. However, within the educational assemblage, school leaders’ work interacts with a wide range of discourses, technologies, instruments and actors, which span the boundaries of school, local and national policy spaces and can augment or diminish their latitude – their capacity to act (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987) – in students’ interests. For example, national and municipal policy documents can both restrict and extend their range of potential at the school level (Ydesen et al., 2022). Thus, in their mediatory role between the state and the school, “sensemaking” (Weick, 1995) becomes extremely significant to the nature of their policy enactment. Indeed, policy texts must be “re-made” at the school level through processes interpretation and recontextualisation (Ball et al., 2012). These mechanisms and tensions between school practices and policy makers’ political framings are very much brought to light in terms of inclusive education.

Inclusive education is broadly about finding good – and rarely entirely standardized – solutions on the ground. It is about finding spaces for the most appropriate pedagogical solutions for children and young people (Noddings, 2015; Slee, 2010; Walton, 2023; Ydesen et al. 2022). At the same time, policymakers and civil servants in the administrative echelons of education systems – both at local and national levels – are often pursuing a focus on assessment data and accountability - to guarantee efficiency and progress while also providing evidence for local and national authorities on how schools within their jurisdiction are faring (Ydesen 2023). In a wider perspective, the building of education systems has even been closely wedded to constructions of nation-states through the fabrication of the national citizen (Tröhler, 2020). In this sense, education in general and schooling in particular have always been a vehicle for transmitting and exercising power but also a vehicle for projects about moulding, changing and evolving society through the creation of the “right” kind of citizen.

In this sense, there is a field of tension between agendas of standardization – in which assessments often plays a pivotal role - and the recognition that all children and young people are valuable contributors to the pedagogical context. In other words, this is where concerns about data, standardization, and assessment may conflict with the achievement of inclusive education. The pinnacle of this dilemma emerges in the interactions between schooling, school leadership, and policymaking. It is therefore important to understand not only the policy intentions behind the development of national and municipal policy documents but also how their enactments implicate practice – i.e. school leadership and pedagogical practices – in general and inclusive education in particular.

In this paper, we compare national and local policymaker intentions with school leader experiences and perspectives of their enactment of the assessment and inclusion agendas in their school contexts. The aim is to explore how school leader enactments support or conflict with the policymakers’ interpretations of their goals and tease out the implications in terms of inclusive education. The paper springs from a larger international comparative project on educational assessment and inclusive education entitled ‘Education Access under the Reign of Testing and Inclusion’. The paper draws on data collected in that project and features a comparative analysis between contexts in Argentina, Denmark, and England. These countries have been chosen for their distinctive, and even contrasting, education policies, socio-cultural and economic circumstances, and variations in performance across supranational and national standardised student assessments. Notably, the selected countries have all introduced large-scale national assessment and inclusion reforms in the past decade.

A growing number of countries are positioning the role of learning support coordinator as an increasingly strategic one for inclusive education (Lindqvist 2013). This is often a middle leader role that requires the translation of principles of school improvement for inclusion for the purposes of classroom practice, and encompasses identifying learners who require extra support, applying resources and services, offering advice to teachers, liaising with external agencies and keeping records (Lin et al. 2022). Research into the work of learning support coordinators points to a range of challenges in the role, perhaps most notably, the balancing of accountability with developing a culture of inclusive values and responsibility (King and Stevenson 2017; Smith 2022). A particular challenge is identified in relation to the blurred boundaries of the role, specifically that coordinators seek to facilitate the pedagogical practices and relationships of others, whilst also having to intervene directly in teacher instruction and classroom activity (Struyve et al. 2018). Most essentially, current conceptualisations of inclusion mean that the role is a collaborative one (Ainscow and Sandhill 2010; Ní Bhroin and King 2020), the coordinator seen as a ‘change agent’ but one who always acts as part of a collective made up of multiple agencies (van de Putte et al. 2018).

Recent ecological perspectives on teacher agency focus on the ways in which teachers achieve agency through an interaction of their own resources with the affordances and constraints of the socio-material environment in which they work (Priestley et al. 2015). Inclusion requires a complex view of agency to reflect multiple performative agents, individual but also collective activity, discursive and material practices, and reciprocal influences within systems and subsystems (Naraian 2021). Embodiment and emotion also play an important part in the production of teaching for inclusion, since often strong feelings are associated with support for learners who experience difficulties with learning and who are at risk of school failure (Naraian and Schlessinger 2021). Research into inclusive education therefore needs to be able to provide sufficient account of interrelated discourses, affects, spaces and materialities in or connected to school environments.

The research presented here took place in schools in Wales where widespread reform of the education system is currently taking place. Included in the reform programme is change to the system for learners who require additional support for their learning, who are now designated as having ‘additional learning needs’ (ALN). Central to reform is the role of the Additional Learning Needs Coordinator (ALNCo) who has become a ‘teacher leader’ under new guidance (Welsh Government 2021). The role of the ALNCo is given prominence in policy documents, which describe it as one of overarching responsibility for the coordination of support for learners with ALN. However, guidance states it is the wider workforce, that is all staff working with children and young people with ALN, who also have responsibility for ‘ensuring that learners’ needs are identified and provided for’ (Welsh Government 2021, p. 71).

The focus of this small study is on the role of the ALNCo and how it has been shaped by recent reform. The aim it to investigate ALNCo experiences of working with others as a way of exploring the complexities of collaborative working in the context of ALN. To this end, we have developed the following research question for the study: How have school practices in relation to additional learning needs developed in response to educational reform?

With the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people were re-conceptualized as competent social actors and citizens, whose voices should be listened to. This global endorsement of children’s right to be included in decision-making in matters affecting their lives has since also been widely adopted by researchers and is reflected in the plethora of literature and theorizing on the topic as well as in the practice of doing research with children. A group that until recently has been invisible here are children with disabilities. Driven by a deficit discourse, having a disability has been implicitly assumed to imply impairment and, thus, incompetency and incapacity as regards participating in research (Curran and Runswick-Cole 2014), rendering children with disabilities unvalued research participants (Cocks 2008). Parents’ and teachers’ perspectives were taken as a proxy for disabled children’s perspectives, leaving children with disabilities unheard in the research (Stafford 2017).

The past decade, however, has seen an extension of this autonomy to the disabled child – a development that recognises the potential of the child with disabilities to make valid and valuable contributions in all aspects of life (e.g., Twomey and Carroll 2018). Spurring this change is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). While disabled children’s voices are gaining visibility in the research (Rannveig 2015), we know little about whose voices are being included.

The focus of this presentation is on two disabilities: autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Diagnostic rates for both these groups have seen a rapid increase in the last decades (Russell et al. 2022; Rydell et al. 2018). They have also both been central in school debates focussing on the challenges to inclusion and participation, particularly in the Global North (Pellicano, Bölte, and Stahmer 2018). Students with these diagnoses have been shown to perform worse academically, have higher rates of school dropout and lower levels of education than their non-disabled peers (Kent et al. 2011). Despite the fact that the number of children diagnosed with autism and ADHD is increasing and that research has highlighted the difficulties encountered by this group in school, many argue that they have been given limited opportunities to express their views about their own experiences of school (Humphrey and Parkinson 2006; Taneja Johansson 2021).

The purpose of the present scoping review is to critically examine empirical research that draws on the first-person school experiences of students with autism and ADHD as well as to map whose voices are being heard and where the current knowledge gaps are. More specifically, it aims to analyse the key characteristics of this body of research in relation to the publication context and research methodology. The following research questions are examined: 1) What type of journal is the article published in?; 2) Where is the research situated geographically?; 3) What sampling routes are used?; 4) What are the characteristics of participants are included in the research, specifically regarding disability type, school year, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background?; 5) Which qualitative research designs and methods are used in the studies?

The intention of the present scoping review is not to provide a description of the summative research findings or to assess the quality of the studies in the field, but instead to identify which voices are being foregrounded in the research, the goal being to try to understand the sources of the current knowledge base and determine directions for future research (Pham et al., 2014).

Society is increasingly acknowledging diversity as a common aspect of humanity, in all its forms. This has been reflected in educational research too, where the interest in diversity has grown over time. However, the trend in researching diversity is still very much focused on doing research on certain groups, i.e. people with intellectual disabilities, rather than embracing such diversity in the research design itself (Walmsley, 2001). Over the past few decades, researchers in the field of inclusive education have started reshaping the research landscape by developing diverse forms of inclusive research approaches to increase the active engagement of certain groups in the research process (Walmsley et al., 2018).

This paper presents a participatory action research project on intellectually disabled students’ college experience. Sitting within the framework of inclusive research (Nind, 2020) and adopting a social model of disability, the project supports the empowerment of students as co-researchers around themes that they feel are relevant to their life as university students. The participants are students with intellectual disabilities attending a 2-year course at a major university in Ireland. Designed as part of a module on human rights, this project is based on principles of research-based teaching (Brew, 2012) and aims to bridge the applied learning of the UDHR article 26 ‘right to education’ with the experience of inclusive research using the photovoice method. The main aim of this project is to promote inclusivity at the institution level by responding to the continuous need for development or change (Mertler, 2019), creating knowledge for a further step in establishing a diversity-sensitive approach. Another aim is to explore how the combination of teaching and research can create a safe space for upcoming accounting student experiences and have a high awareness of unbalanced power relations in teaching/learning situations. This perspective should help to set up the project as a sustainable tool in inclusive postsecondary education.

The research objectives are:

• to strengthen students’ self-advocacy and promote self-determination, with an impact on their current education and other life areas.

• To voice students’ experiences with a wider impact on the wider college community and society

The research questions are as follows:

• How do students with intellectual disabilities experience university?

• What elements of photovoice are helpful to students in voicing their experience?

• Is inclusive research-based teaching effective in promoting applied learning of human rights?

The project uses a visual participatory method called photovoice to express and document students’ experiences in college. Based on eight weekly sessions (2h) held within a human rights module between January and April 2023, participants work with two lecturers/facilitators to explore what the right to education looks like in their college experience. During the sessions, participants agree on what themes they want to focus on and take photographs to help document, reflect upon, and communicate issues of concern while stimulating social change. The sessions provide guidance and support in developing some basic visual literacy and photography knowledge while leaving decision-making around the subjects of the photographs to each participant. Following the session, a photography exhibition is co-organised with participants to engage with the wider college community and create a space for understanding and dialogue around inclusion in the university. Full ethical approval has been obtained from the institution prior to the start of the project.

In this paper, the authors will discuss the different phases and highlights of the project and will present the main findings of the project contributing to the wider conference debates on diversity in educational research.

The global commitment to an inclusive school and consequent efforts by countries to implement inclusive policies has been followed by task forces investigating the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of this educational model, namely at the policies, schools and teachers’ levels (Connor & Cavendish, 2020). In this regard, the study of teachers' attitudes towards students with additional support needs, their self-efficacy and the variables that underlie the inclusive teacher profile has received increasing attention in the last two decades (e.g., Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). In addition, the social participation of students with support needs has also been under the focus of researchers, especially in the last decade (Koster et al., 2009; Bossaert et al., 2013; Avramidis et al., 2018), with several studies focusing mainly on the way they are accepted and the interactions they establish with their peers (Garrote et al., 2017; Hassani et al., 2022).

However, there are few studies that privilege the perspective of students with additional support needs (Connor & Cavendish, 2020). Listening to what students have to say about their school experience and inclusion is an essential source of information to increase the understanding of other educational actors about inclusive education (Keefe et al., 2006). Several studies refer to the power of the student's voice, not only to: 1) "enter" into their experience of inclusion and a sense of belonging within the school, but also to, 2) increase their involvement in their educational process, by promoting self-determination. Not involving students in decision-making about their learning can contribute to reducing their involvement (Dunleavy, 2008). However, little attention is paid to what these students have to say about their education, which seems to be an omission in the research (Schwab et al., 2018), considering the dominant discourse on the importance of student-centred education to value your voice.

This study aims to listen to the opinion of 3rd to 9th-grade students about their process of inclusion in the educational context. For this, we will study: a) the extent to which students participate in school activities, inside and outside the classroom; b) how they describe their social participation; c) how involved they feel in educational activities; c) the extent to which they feel that they are considered in decision-making about their educational process.

The foundation of inclusive education is a belief that all students belong and are valued members of their neighbourhood school communities (Porter & Towell, 2017). Inclusive education promotes equity through respect for diversity. Since the issuance of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), governments globally have focused on the development of inclusive education systems. Educational settings that promote inclusion are more successful in achieving learning for all (Krämer et al., 2021), the ultimate goal of education. Teachers who have adopted inclusive teaching approaches are able to improve academic standards for all students (Jordan, 2018).

Even when placed in inclusive classrooms, many students with disabilities do not participate optimally in the academic or social life of the classroom. Significant concerns remain about the capacity for schools to effectively support the diversity of learners present in schools and the capacity for traditional educational approaches to support inclusion (Graham, 2020). As a result, many students with disabilities are still segregated; they still experience negative classroom climates and peer interactions; they are still alienated and bullied; and they still fail to reach their academic potential (Reid et al., 2018). The challenge is to equip and empower teachers with the competence and confidence required to effectively teach all students in inclusive classrooms. Pre-service teacher education programs and in-service professional development are key in teachers’ development of effective instructional practices for inclusive classrooms.

It is known that for successful school inclusion teachers must possess the belief that all children belong in the neighbourhood school and the belief that they are responsible and have the competence to teach them (Jordan, 2018). Teacher self-efficacy, the belief that one is a capable educator, is known to influence teacher professional commitment, resilience, teacher performance, and student achievement (Holzberger, Philipp, Kunter, 2013). Teacher self-efficacy is a key competency for teachers in inclusive classrooms. Teachers with high self-efficacy work harder and persist longer to assist students who experience learning challenges (Woolfolk, Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). Teachers need to gain theoretical and practical knowledge that prepares them for their teaching practice; and also possess the belief that they are responsible for the education of all of their students within diverse classrooms (Jordan et al., 2009). Specht and Metsala (2018) found that for Canadian pre-service teachers preparing to teach secondary grades, significant predictors were gender, the amount of diverse teaching experience, their beliefs regarding the stability of academic ability, and their beliefs toward the use of extrinsic rewards to motivate learning. Miesera and Gebhardt (2018) noted that Canadian preservice teachers had higher self-efficacious beliefs than German preservice teachers and more experience with people with disabilities. Differing educational contexts between countries may lead to varying teacher experiences that contribute to these effects. In fact, Specht et al., (2022) determined that Canadian preservice teachers more often discussed mentoring experiences as contributing to their inclusive practice when compared to German preservice teachers. It was suggested that the difference could be in the way in which each country views themselves in the preservice program. To date, the factors that influence the efficacy of early career teachers have not been compared amongst the two countries. As a result, the current paper will investigate issues as they relate to early career teachers (those within their first 3 years) to determine if differences exist with respect to the predictors of efficacy for inclusive practice with a particular focus on country of teaching.

The following questions were addressed

Do beginning teachers from Germany and Canada differ in their efficacy for inclusive practice?

How do beginning teachers’ country, gender, experience with individuals with diverse educational needs, and beliefs about inclusion influence their self-efficacy?

The purpose of the study was to reveal the commonalities and differences between two groups of teachers with disabilities: Teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers and to explore the components of self-efficacy among these teachers.

Rationale: Diversity and inclusion in education often refer to students in schools. However, when diversity and inclusion refer to the teaching workforce, it usually discusses aspects of ethnicity and culture. While in recent years the number of teachers with disabilities in the teaching force has increased around the world, discussions about the inclusion of teachers with disabilities are scarce (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Despite their underrepresentation in the teaching force (Neca et al., 2020), they can help diversify the teaching workforce, solve challenging school issues and serve as role models for students with and without disabilities (Dvir, 2015; Jeffress, 2018; Wood & Happé, 2021).

Teachers’ self-efficacy refers to teachers’ belief in their ability to cope successfully with tasks, obligations, and challenges related to their professional role (e.g., pedagogical tasks, classroom management, resource usage, support for parents’ efforts to help their children learn, etc.). Teachers’ self-efficacy is an important component of their professional and personal success and has implications for teaching effectiveness, instructional techniques, and student performance (Graham et al., 2021; Klassen & Tze, 2014), as well as job satisfaction and levels of job-related stress arising from coping with students’ misbehaviors. According to Friedman and Kass (2002), teachers' self-efficacy refers to performing various teaching-related tasks in the classroom, and to performing organizational tasks and becoming part of the school's professional community. Both spheres require teachers to perform professional duties and maintain interpersonal relationships. Thus, teachers’ self-efficacy is an important component of their success (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007).

A recent review of the international literature on teachers with disabilities found that these teachers have the potential to be fully capable of both teaching effectiveness and better understanding the special needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Still, this review underlines the complexity of planning and navigating their teaching careers, which are still affected by ableist and discriminatory practices (Bellacicco et al., 2022).

While there are numerous studies on the professional efficacy of teachers (e.g., Gordon et al., 2022; Wray, Sharma & Subban, 2022), only a few studies have examined the self-efficacy of TWD, and a recent book on TWD (Bellacicco & Ianes, 2022) did not specifically address their professional efficacy.

Our research questions were:

1. What are the differences and similarities between the self-efficacy of teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers?

2. What are some of the challenges teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers face in schools?

Using a qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological approach, we used semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers with disabilities. The data were analyzed using content analysis.

As more schools around the globe become inclusive, the student body in many classes is getting more diverse with regard to various dimensions. In order to make the shift to inclusive education a success, a variety of conditions summarised in “the 4 As” of Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Adaptability have to be in place (UN-CRPD, 2016). To meet the heterogeneous needs of all learners, teachers of course are crucial with regard to both their individual competences as well as their collective performance as part of a multi-professional team (Sharma et al., submitted; Subban et al., 2022). Searching for factors of success, many studies emphasize teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their self-efficacy as well as their collective efficacy as being essential (e.g. Wray et al., 2022; Zee & Koomen, 2016).

Collective efficacy is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Individualized teaching adapted to students’ diversity requires well-functioning teams of teachers characterized by high solidarity, mutual appreciation and respect, and shared responsibility which are closely connected to their collective efficacy. Accordingly, school teams achieving a high degree of collective efficacy appear to set themselves higher goals and to pursue them with an elevated persistence. According to Goddard et al. (2000), shared goals can be regarded as normative expectations for the individual teacher, influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their performance in the classroom. Accordingly, collective efficacy and individual self-efficacy are interconnected (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and teachers’ collective efficacy is known for being linked to students’ achievements (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Zee & Koomen 2016). While teachers’ individual as well as collective efficacy have been extensively studied with regard to promoting students’ academic success, teachers’ collective efficacy with respect to inclusive practices has been largely neglected thus far, especially from an international perspective (e.g. Sharma et al., submitted). The scarcity of questionnaire scales having been successfully proved of their international validity employing criteria such as measurement invariance could be a reason for the sparse research in the respective field. International comparisons are of particular interest for each country or school system, respectively, as they can help to identify alternative approaches and possibilities for inclusive school development. Canada, for example, is of particular interest, especially from a European perspective, since it has long been seen as a best practice example with respect to inclusive teaching but has recently been regarded more critically (e.g. Merz-Atalik 2022). Against this background, the paper to be presented is examining a newly developed scale assessing teachers’ collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices in a global context (Sharma et al., submitted). It covers the characterisation of the scale by evaluating its dimensionality and factorial structure. In addition, it provides data and discussion on the measurement invariance across Canada, Germany and Switzerland as a well as selected comparisons regarding the relevance of individual background variables such as gender and teaching experience.

In 2009, Germany signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and thus committed to implement and to ensure (among others) an inclusive education system as well as an inclusive labour market. Whereas the vocational training sector, adult education and the labour market still fail to meet the criteria for inclusivity (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales 2021, p. 197). Contrary, Germany belongs to the countries with a “traditionally highly segregated education system” (Schreiber-Barsch & Rule 2021, p. 252) in which people are divided into “normal” and “special” learning institutions. Who is assigned to which institution depends on the binary attributions “able” or “not-able”. The same applies to the labour market (Kranert et al. 2021). Beyond Germany, there is a persistent gap between employment rates of the so-called non-disabled and disabled people in all European and OECD countries (Sainsbury 2018, p. 135).

In adult education, especially persons with cognitive disabilities are usually not considered at all, because they are attributed, among other things, with having no interest in education or not being able to learn (Pongratz 2022). As ableism is considered a powerful mechanism of exclusion, individuals at the intersection of racism and ableism face potentially magnifying effects of exclusion, especially under capitalist conditions (Aferworki Abay 2022, p. 103).

The paper explores possibilities for inclusion and participatory language education in the context of German adult education classes. Addressees of the programme are employees of sheltered workshops in Bremen, Germany. The project is one of the first attempts to offer adult education at the intersection of second language acquisition and disability. The target group in question consists of highly heterogeneous groups of learners, especially regarding language proficiency, first language(s) and disability, but also in terms of other categories such as age or gender. At the same time, the learners are part of the segregated labour market specifically reserved for disabled people, bearing characteristics of total institutions, as Karim (2021) argues. While the German classes are accessible only to employees of the institutions, and thereby subject to exclusive conditions (Kranert et al. 2021), the aim of the programme is nonetheless to foster inclusion and promote participants’ communicative agency in the workplace and beyond. In this context, approaches of „inclusive exclusion“ i.e. exclusive environments leading to a higher level of inclusion in the future (Kollender 2020), seem worthy of consideration.

With these perspectives in mind, the paper is looking into how and to what extent, inclusive and participative approaches can be implemented in adult education at the intersection of ableism and racism within todays excluding and segregating social structures. Thus, we are focusing on the professionalization for inclusive adult education by following an intersectional approach on inclusion, critical on power-relations and on (re-)producing differences (e.g. More & Ratković 2022). In order to implement the values of inclusivity which we argue for, the study follows a qualitative research design with participatory components, empowering all research participants and lending a voice to their perspectives. We conclude by discussing “Critical Diversity Literacy” (Steyn 2015) as a meta-competence in order to reduce excluding attitudinal barriers.

The results of this study are highly relevant beyond the specific German context, as they provide valuable insights into possibilities of creating a participative and inclusive learning environment for learners positioned at the intersection of racism and ableism.

In this paper, the relevance of biographical reflections in educational transitions of people with disabilities and their families is presented. Discussing and reflecting on biographical experiences, especially around the context of education, is considered significant by people with disabilities and their families because of mostly predefined life trajectories (Felbermayr, Fasching, Hubmayer, 2019; Love, Zagona, Kurth, Miller, 2017; Singh, 2019; Weiler, Keyzers, Scafe, Anderson, Cavell, 2020). Experiences of exclusion and discrimination, lack of choice, special education, lack of preparation for employment, missing participation in decision-making and standardised transitions are not uncommon in educational pathways of people with disabilities (Fasching, Felbermayr, 2022). Narratives, due to such experiences, emerge under more difficult conditions and are often not recognised as such, which is why they are less often considered in research studies. However, it is precisely these experiences, as they were also collected from parents int the FWF project “Cooperation for Inclusion in Educational Transitions”, that are insightful and represent broadening perspectives of dominant social conditions.

The presented outline of the problem leads to the question of individual experience and subjective description of biographical experiences in the context of disability. Which biographical experiences do parents of children with disability address in Reflecting Teams? The reflections in this article refer to parents’ experiences of disability in relation to their adolescent children in the educational transitions after compulsory schooling, which invites retrospection and reflection on their self-experienced transition and thus establishes a generational perspective on educational transitions in the context of disability (Siegert, 2021).

This study presents an advance of the results of the research project titled “What is inclusive education missing? Participatory research looking for responses to exclusion and inequity in education in Western Andalusia”, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. For two years, two research teams from the University of Cádiz and the University of Seville have worked together to develop a community diagnosis of the situation in Andalusia with the aim of building projects with their local educational communities for the advancement of schools that value diversity through their policies and practices.

This specific work is focused on the voices of school counselors, i.e., key agents for the mobilization of inclusion (Goodman, 2005) who are often largely forgotten in schools (Calvo, Haya & Susinos, 2012). Analyses around an inclusive education point in two directions regarding these fundamental educational agents. On the one hand, they need to be and feel included in the ecology of the school (Clark & Crandall, 2009), and on the other hand, they have to transform their advanced role towards collaborative models (Bemak, 2000).

Andalusia is a region in Southern Spain, where the poverty rate reached 32.8% in 2021, compared to the 21.7% national average (National Institute of Statistics, 2021), which makes it the second region in Spain with the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion, with a rate of 38.7% compared to 27.8% in Spain. The unemployment rate is currently 19% of the active population, positioning itself as the second Spanish region with the highest percentage of unemployed people and with a GINI coefficient of 34.8. It is the third region in Spain with the highest early school leaving rate (21.8%) (European Anti-poverty Network, 2022). This indicates that Andalusia continues to maintain notable differences (5.8 percentage points) compared to the Spanish average of 16%, and almost doubles the European Union average (10.1%). Early school leaving continues to reflect differences between men and women, with almost 10 percentage points (9.9) (men 26.7% and women 16.8%). These data are reflected in the population under 18 years of age. In fact, the report "Poverty and inequality" of the Children's Observatory in Andalusia (Rodríguez, 2021) states that 22.8% of boys and girls are in a situation of relative poverty (this figure is increasing in girls), 10.1% are in severe poverty, 9.3% have severe deprivation of access to basic materials, and 8.7% live in homes with low labor intensity. This reality, together with other descriptive data of the Andalusian context, such as the significant percentage of foreign population or people residing in rural areas, translates into factors of inequality and social exclusion (Escarbajal, Izquierdo & Abenza, 2019), which increases the risk of situations of school dropout and educational exclusion (Escudero, 2005), whose inequalities can only be reversed from the development of more inclusive school contexts (Fernández-Menor & Parrilla, 2021).
This research is aimed at attaining the following objectives:
1. Explore, identify and analyze the policies of exclusion and social inequality developed in Andalusia, using primary and secondary sources from a multi-agent and multi-vocal point of view.
2. Prepare and develop a Map of action priorities against exclusion that serves as a roadmap to develop changes and improvements in the Andalusian context.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: What are the issues that concern educational counselors in relation to exclusion/inclusion in Andalusia? How can they help to understand exclusion/inclusion? What is the role they play regarding inclusion? What obstacles and levers do they find for the development of inclusive education? What proposals do they have for improvement?

Research has illustrated that a positive diversity climate at school can improve students’ wellbeing and life-satisfaction (Aldridge et al., 2018). It has also been shown to reduce minoritized youths’ personal experiences of discrimination (Heikamp et al., 2020), which makes it important to create. Specifically, research shows that perceptions of a positive diversity climate buffer against personal experiences of discrimination and thus predict better belonging among minoritized students (Baysu et al, 2016; Heikamp et al., 2020; Lee, 2017). Further, a positive climate including contact and cooperation among students, multicultural values, and emphasizing a common humanity, has been shown to be positively associated with the intercultural competence of both immigrant and non‐immigrant background students (Schwarzenthal et al., 2020).

Despite such clear benefits for embracing diversity and creating a positive climate for it in classrooms, many teachers, students, and school communities struggle to create the opportunity for diversity to be positive and productive. In schools there is often a dominant cultural narrative that difference is deficit (Mitchell, 2013) as identified through research on varying issues around race, language, social class, ability levels, religious backgrounds, culture, gender, sexuality, and other identity markers that can minoritize and “otherize” students, teachers, and other members of school communities (Spencer et al., 2020). These issues impact students’ perceptions of belonging (Lee, 2017) and can play a role in violent and deeply troubling bullying issues (Siperstein et al., 2022) as well as impacting academic achievement. Further, the pandemic has exacerbated many of these issues for students and teachers from minoritized groups (Meinck et al., 2022); poor mental health issues are dramatically on the rise (Theberath et al., 2022) and there is an increasing call for attention to social and emotional learning and wellbeing in schools (Heineke & Vera).

In the context of inclusive education, these challenges to create a positive climate for diversity are important to grapple with. Therefore, this study explores the perceptions of teachers, students, and administrators from schools in four European countries: Finland, Norway, Germany, and England regarding diversity and how to make it positive and productive in schools.

The aim of this study is to reveal the keys with regard to obstacles or barriers and facilitators or levers, that curricula represent on the path to designing an inclusive education system in Spain. Specifically, our research geographical area is Andalusia, which is a region in the south of the country that is characterised by rather depressed socioeconomic circumstances that result in high levels of educational failure and early school dropout.

International bodies have already pointed out that "the curriculum is the central means through which the principle of inclusion is put into action within an education system" (UNESCO, 2017, p.22). Recent research studies on equity and equal opportunities within education (Stainback and Stainback, 2007; Azorín and Sandoval, 2019; De Haro et al., 2019; Gortázar, 2019; Muntaner-Guasp et al., 2022), have revealed the profound injustice that a single, homogeneous and standardised response to diversity represents from an educational perspective. Nevertheless, the Spanish education system continues to be beholden to a logic whereby all the students must learn the same things, in the same way and at the same time. Even though some progress has been made regarding certain aspects, the reflection made years ago by Arnáiz (1999) on the need to question the merely instructional design and the conception of the curriculum if attention to diversity is to be promoted is still valid.

This idea has been already reflected in the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the development of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2015 a,b). This implies a shift in the paradigm as it considers that education will only be quality education as long as it embraces an inclusive approach (Alba, 2019). This premise is at the heart of this proposal, and is embodied in three core ideas (Bolívar, 2019; Muntaner-Guasp et al., 2022) as follows:

1. Education is a right for everyone without exception, and diversity is a reality that is naturally present in every person because of the multitude of traits that make us unique, valuable and unrepeatable.
2. Uniformity in the face of diversity is an unfair approach in itself; fair education entails the provision of equitable learning opportunities for all learners, i.e. offering each student what is best suited to his or her circumstances, needs, interests and talents.
3. Curricula must be viewed as a mediator between students and their learning process, thereby maximising their capacity to make progress consistent with the following main conception: we intend to educate citizens within a community and for the society.

Each of these core ideas connects respectively with three fundamental principles that have been identified by Ainscow and Booth (2006, 2015) as the basis for the development of more inclusive educational systems: presence, participation and progress of all the students. It is on these basis that Muntaner-Guasp et al. (2022) find the necessary resources for the evaluation of curricular proposals, by identifying and removing the barriers that compromise any of these principles and, consequently, inclusiveness. This implies a change of perspective from the problem-student to the problem-context (Benítez-Gaviray Aguilar-Gavira, 2022) in order to promote the implementation of facilitators or levers that modify the environment to ensure and augment student success (Azorín and Sandoval, 2019).

Our research seeks to provide answers to the following questions:

• Does the formal, government-prescribed curricula ensure equal opportunities and any progression towards more inclusive school?
• Does the implementation of the curricula in the classroom ensure the presence, participation and progress of all the students?
• What should be taught, how should it be taught and how should it be evaluated?

Neurodiversity means that we are all different in how we think, feel, and learn, because our brains process information differently. This paradigm provides a positive framework for talking about diagnosed conditions and other differences that impact learning, and for celebrating differences while still recognising needs [1]. It rejects categorisation of some needs as being “extra” or “special”, instead drawing attention to all people having cognitive, social, sensory, and support needs, which may be met to different degrees in a given environment--such as a classroom.

While neurodiversity is receiving increased attention in educational research and practice, it is starting from a low baseline of awareness. Training and classroom activities related to individual diagnoses or learning needs are still more common. It is extremely rare for neurodiversity to explicitly feature in curricula or policy, or to be included within broader conceptualisations of diversity or disability. Even where teachers or educational leaders wish to teach about this paradigm, there is an almost total lack of positive, age-appropriate educational materials.

The LEANS project (2020-2022) developed the first English-language programme to introduce neurodiversity and neurodivergence to children aged 8-11, focusing on UK and Irish mainstream primary school contexts (i.e. school provision not specialised for children with disabilities). It aims to increase pupil and teacher understanding of how differences in cognition, interaction, and sensory processing impact everyone’s school experiences, and to promote inclusive actions and attitudes. Unlike psychoeducation programmes focusing on neurodivergent children only [2] or teacher training about specific diagnoses, LEANS is not an intervention for perceived problems or deficits, but upskills all pupils and staff members through whole-class work focused on understanding and acceptance. It stresses that every classroom will be neurodiverse.

The LEANS programme was iteratively developed by a neurodiverse team of researchers (n=7) and a participatory design team of experienced educators with professional and lived experience of neurodiversity (n=8). LEANS was explicitly funded as a participatory project, and did not pre-commit to key definitions, factual content, or resource format/structure of the resources. The group developed these over multiple design and reflection cycles, in addition to completing more detailed planning around specific activities and delivery guidance for teachers [publication in preparation]. The final LEANS resource consists of 7 topics: introducing neurodiversity, classroom experiences, communication, needs and wants, fairness, friendship, and reflecting on our actions. It uses a mixture of hands-on activities, discussions, and storytelling about a neurodiverse class.

LEANS was evaluated in primary schools using mixed methods, as detailed in the methodology and conclusions/findings sections below.

An updated LEANS, incorporating pupil and teacher evaluation feedback, was publicly released June 2022 [3], with 4,300+ downloads worldwide across the following 11 months. Follow-up data collection is ongoing to systematically measure LEANS adoption and delivery during the 2022-23 school year, though educators have been anecdotally reporting adoption via social media and e-mail.

Given the practical relevance of the neurodiversity paradigm and general lack of resources (across languages), we propose that the methodologies of the LEANS project are a valuable proof-of-concept and template for other neurodiverse groups who wish to collaboratively develop teaching materials for their local contexts. In addition to a forthcoming design publication, we plan to release our design process materials as a free OSF project, to better enable use of LEANS-as-template. Alternately, the existing LEANS content could be licensed, translated and adapted into other languages. A Flemish-language translation is already in progress (projected release 2023).

Abstract

We report research findings from a unique tri-national project whose focus is the experiences, needs and strengths of autistic teachers in Poland, the UK and the US, with important implications for understanding how to facilitate inclusive school environments for both pupils and staff.

While it has long been established that school can be a difficult environment for autistic children and young people, and that their participation, overall inclusion and outcomes can be poor (Speaker 1, 2019), minimal attention has been paid to the perspectives of autistic educators. This is despite the existent research into autistic academics in the UK (Martin, 2020) and internationally (Jones, 2022), teachers with dyslexia in further and higher education settings in Finland and England (Burns and Bell, 2010), and schoolteachers with range of disabilities in the US (Valle et al., 2004), Israel (Tal-Alon and Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2019), Ireland (Keane et al., 2018), Poland (Bogusz, 2019) and countries beyond the global north (Singal and Ware, 2021). Indeed, while the focus of education research in the autism context has been almost uniquely on pupils, studies into autism and employment pay little attention to the school sector and the insights that could be derived from autistic teachers (Speaker 1 et al., 2022).

In this joint presentation with the Polish and UK study leads, we share research findings from in-depth semi-structured interviews with autistic teachers in Poland (n = 10) and the UK (n = 21). We also provide additional insights from the US context in relation to teacher education, and draw out some parallels with the experiences of autistic children and young people in schools.

In summary, we found that in both Poland and the UK, autistic teachers can experience a) severe sensory impacts in the school environment b) communication and social differences and difficulties with colleagues, senior leaders and parents c) a lack of support and understanding from managers d) anxiety about revealing an autism diagnosis at work, particularly if autistic pupils are discussed in a derogatory manner e) difficulties with the training and recruitment processes in the school sector and e) difficulties with change (which intersects with agency). In Poland, particular issues are experienced with a heavy administrative burden, that can constitute a further professional barrier for autistic teachers.

More positively, we found that in Poland, autistic teachers consider they a) have a unique method of working which is more structured than approaches used by their non-autistic colleagues and b) have particular skills in creative activities. We also found that in the UK, autistic teachers consider they can a) communicate well with pupils, especially those who are autistic or otherwise neurodivergent b) sometimes have positive experiences of sharing their autism diagnosis with colleagues, pupils and parents c) be a role-model for autistic pupils and d) facilitate inclusion in school.

We set out some of the unique differences between the national contexts in order to underscore the need for culturally specific understandings in this area. This applies in particular to teacher education, for which there are different systems in Poland, the UK and the US. In addition, we discuss the implications of our findings for autistic children and autistic teachers from Ukraine, given the particular role Poland plays in relation to the current conflict and the direct experiences of Speaker 2 in this area.

We argue that understanding better how to value and support autistic teachers will enable progress to be made in the inclusion of autistic children and young people in schools. We will therefore make specific recommendations for future improvements in this area, drawn from our research.

The development of an inclusive environment in schools depends in its core on the identification and reduction of learning barriers . This results in ‘reasonable accomodation’ as UN-CRPD (Art. 24) demands.
According to recent findings in the field of autism research educational success and social participation of autistic students relies on the removal of barriers.

Our presentation will show the development of a diagnostic tool that is capable to highlight the subjective perception and potential individual affectedness by sensory and social barriers of students at school. We will also present statistical findings on the overall perception of barriers in inclusive education for autistic and non-autistic students. (We use the term ‘autistic’ with respect to its self chosen character in accordance to Walker (2015))

We follow a research approach that is based in the neurodiversity concept (Walker 2014). Autisic persons are recognized as a neuro-minority in a society that is adjusted to meet the needs of the neuro-majority (Singer 2022). For this matter we will not regard autism from clinical or pathological perspective. We much rather apply a social model of disability according to UN-CRPD. Consequently, we focus on diagnostics of barriers in the environment rather than of differences in individuals.

Furthermore, it is emphasized that the project originated as a participatory research project (Farin-Glattacker et al. 2014; Unger 2014). The project team consists of autistic and non-autistic researchers with different backgrounds. Thus the project is able to use the self-expertise of autistic scientists for a better understanding of barriers. Because of this collaboration we can benefit from a deeper understanding of the research topic, as barriers affect the everyday lives of the researchers involved in the project. Autistic expertise is used in all phases of the project, from planning, impelentation, up to publication.

For autistic persons around the world various barriers impair everyday participation. These barriers can be validly identified as will be shown in our presentation. For the project we develop questionnaires adjusted to students understanding to be used in inclusive education. To this point we were able to show differences in the individual perception between autistic and non-autistic students. More importantly we could see that all students are disturbed by barriers. However, the extent to which an individual was affected was higher for autistic, than for non-autistic students. We can derive, that autistic students have to cope with more individual barriers at school and as a result experience a higher cognitive workload for just being at school. This reduces their capabilities to participate in learning and social activities. The projects aim is to enable schools to identify and understand individual barriers. The questionnaire is intended to be a low-threshold and practical help.

This presentation will feature the development of this questionnaire from its original form of general barriers for autistic persons in society through multiple pre-tests until the validation in two phases with 19 schools and 1024 students from grades 1, 5 and 7. We will also highlight statistical findings on the overall experience of barriers in inclusive education especially for autistic students. Finally, we will reflect on our experiences with participatory research especially the benefits for a mixed methods approach like the one we conduct.

William Shakespeare wrote, in one of his most popular monologues “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. "

Inclusion is imperative for the quality of life of people – nevertheless, they have or do have not a disability condition – and it is strongly related to their opportunities to participate in society (Nijkamp & Cardol, 2020). The UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD; United Nations, 2006) can be seen as a cornerstone for implementing the indisputable principle of inclusion in all areas of society. In particular, Article 30.º committed the States Parties to adopt appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit but also for the enrichment of society. However, it is known that this right is not universally guaranteed (Hall, 2010), although inclusive cultural policies try to counteract this reality through formal statements on the right to artistic creation as a way to correct the asymmetries in access to enjoyment and cultural participation (Hall, 2005; Vlachou, 2020).

Thus, as a result of inclusive cultural policies, implemented by cultural institutions, significant activities in the community promoted by social service institutions, others by pure self-determination of individuals with disabilities/incapacity, or even in various forms of partnership, this problem has become more evident (Vlachou, 2020). This places the artistic milieu and culture professionals in general in a position where they need to respond to a population with functional diversity, often not being prepared to do so (Baltà & Floch, 2021). Based on international research in 42 countries, the Time to Act report demonstrates that cultural professionals in the performing arts lack the knowledge and experience to support equal access to the cultural sector for disabled artists, practitioners and audiences (Baltà & Floch, 2021). Perhaps this explains, in part, why art that has people with disabilities as protagonists, still does not have the due recognition, with the expectation about the artistic potential of this population being far below reality (Gjaerum & Rasmussen, 2010).

Art is a powerful tool for social transformation, as the sharing provided by the presentation of any form of art has the potential to trigger a change in each individual who absorbs the content of the work and also to intervene in the collective mentality, essential to the creation of an inclusive society predisposed to listen to functional diversity through its representatives in the world of art (Allan, 2014).

This study is part of an inclusive theatre project, which organizes several public events, integrating the cultural program of the city. In particular, this study aimed at understanding the multiple dimensions of the impact of this specific artistic project by describing the experience of the audience, the main actors – people with intellectual disability and the professionals who are involved in this event.

There is limited research relating to the extent to which student teachers are prepared to teach in culturally diverse learning environments. To fill the lacuna of research in this area, the Irish Government’s Shared Island Standing Conference on Teacher Education, North and South (SCoTENS) initiative funded the project being reported on here is to highlight the extent to which Cultural Responsivity (CR) is embedded in the curricula of primary and secondary Initial Teacher Education(ITE) programmes on the island of Ireland. The project saw

• the production of a review of the literature on Cultural Responsivity in Initial Teacher Education programmes;
• an overview of the policy instruments and regulations that are used to enhance Cultural Responsivity in educational settings on the island of Ireland;
• a synopsis of eligibility criteria and regulatory requirements to become a teacher in Ireland and Northern Ireland;
• an analysis of the place of Cultural Responsivity in Initial Teacher Education programmes concluded with a discussion of the findings and recommendations to align existing programmes with the professional development needs of newly qualified teachers in order to help them acquire the skills and dispositions to teach in culturally diverse learning environments.

It is proposed to provide briefly mention each of these sections in the presentation, focusing on the findings relating to the alignment and professional development of NQT’s on the island of Ireland.

European Dimension

The project is designed to examine different ITE policies in the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland – Northern Ireland and Ireland. Despite close historic links in the 19^th century education systems in general and ITE systems in particular have diverged since the division of the island in 1922. This creates a rich comparative policy space to explore how different European ITE systems address issues relating to culture and cultural responsivity.

The place of CR in ITE

Gay (2002) defines culturally responsive teaching ‘as using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively’ (p.106). Heineke and Ryan (2019) also present a teacher education model grounded in sociocultural theory to develop an enduring understanding for prospective teachers about the diverse population of students through building their knowledge base, skill set and dispositions.

The policy and practice imperative for CR education in IE and NI

Though migration is a relatively new phenomenon in IE, the diversity of cultures, languages and faiths is recognised in several regulations. The Education Act 1998 (Government of Ireland1998a) legally obliges the education system ‘to make provision in the interests of the common good for the education of every person in the state..’ At the ITE level, initiatives such The Development and Intercultural Education (DICE) programme also attempt to integrate elements of CR In programmes.

With growing diversity in NI schools, the government presented the Integrated Education Bill 2021 as an amendment to the Shared Education Act 2016. The 2016 Act describes diversity and integrated education in terms of mainly Protestant and Catholic learners, whereas the new bill provides a more comprehensive definition of integrated education as a form of education that embraces learners of all religions and no religion and respects cultural, ability and socioeconomic differences. The focus on increasing diversity in curriculum structures and practices is one of the routes that ITE students in NI engage with these issues. For example, the Education and Training Inspectorate (2022), as part of their Safeguarding Proforma requires schools to demonstrate an ethos and culture of inclusion for students. Finally, cultural awareness is also one of the key elements of the curriculum aiming to develop children and young people as contributors to society.

People with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities are a marginalised and excluded population, their exclusion from the research arena is one of many underlying causes to their vulnerability within society (Mietola et al., 2017). Within educational research, and indeed research at large, there has been a drive to hear directly from those effected by the research and a recognition of the value of inclusive research strategies. Heralding the cry of ‘Nothing about us without us’ (Charlton, 1998) the inclusive research community has moved from research done on people with learning disabilities to research done for, done with, and even done by people with learning disabilities (Bigby et al., 2014). However as the field of inclusive research advances people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities have been left behind (de Haas et al., 2022; Mietola et al., 2017), and as moves are made to better define what counts as inclusive research there is a risk that a door will be closed upon them as definitions are given which specify criteria people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities are unable to meet (Bigby et al., 2014).

This conference paper will provide an introduction to research into identity conducted with people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Within education, as with elsewhere in their lives, people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities battle against the presence of what Goffman (1970), termed a ‘spoiled master identity’. Depending on how one conceptualises identity the presence of a master identity can mean a person’s core essential identity is not seen, or that a person does not have the opportunity to present, construct or perform their true identity or their other possible identities.

People with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities have been considered too complex to include in research (Kellett & Nind, 2001; Maes et al., 2021), and have been ‘necessarily excluded’ from it (Hill et al., 2016, p. 28), contributing to their marginalised and vulnerable status. By considering identity as embodied, and through the use of creative research methodologies, this work seeks to locate people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in the philosophical landscape of identity and state their belonging within research as a whole.

Since global migrations are on the rise, this social phenomenon requires evidence-based solutions to respond to the changing situation in education and broader society. According to Eurostat (2022), of the 447 million people living in the European Union, 8.4% (37.5 million) people were born in another Member State, and the number of immigrants is continuously increasing. For example, in 2020, despite the decreased number of immigrants due to the global coronavirus pandemic, almost two million immigrants entered the EU from non-EU countries. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund (Engler et al., 2020) found that almost 300 million people worldwide are immigrants and that the number of immigrants has rapidly increased during the past decade. The same study also found that countries with advanced economies receive a disproportionally larger proportion of immigrants than developing countries and that immigrants, regardless of their education and skills, provide valuable contributions to the host countries. Most economically developed countries require immigrants' participation in their labour force for their economies to grow (OECD, 2014; Engler, et al., 2020; Hunt, 2010; Liebig & Mo, 2013). Notwithstanding, research often uncovers regular ethnic and cultural prejudice, intolerance and discrimination towards immigrants. For example, the Eurobarometer surveys consistently find that the most frequent forms of discrimination are based on ethnic origin and cultural and religious beliefs (Eurobarometer, 2015, 2019). A recent study confirmed sustained levels of discrimination overall, and in some work domains, it found even higher levels of discrimination (AGE Platform Europe, 2022). Similarly, a recent large-scale study conducted in Germany found that an overwhelming number of citizens believe that there is widespread individual and institutional discrimination towards members of ethnic minority groups (Center for Integration and Migration Research, 2021).

The large and continuously increasing number of immigrants in the European Union is likely to continue due to the global economic crisis (Pugliese & Ray, 2023). This phenomenon requires host countries to develop different levels of social intervention and adaptation of their educational systems to integrate immigrants into the host society and provide receptive environments in educational institutions and workplaces (Bucher, 2015; Gollnick & Chinn, 2013). There is also evidence of an existing knowledge gap about multicultural attitudes in society and education (Bista, 2022; Molgat & Larose-Hébert, 2010), and one of the objectives of this study is to contribute to this insufficiently explored domain of intergroup relations. Our ongoing study aims to explore university students' attitudes towards life in a multicultural society. The study is expected to provide evidence relevant to educational practice and evidence-based educational and cultural policies and interventions.

The World Health Organization - WHO (2021) considers deafness as a disabling hearing loss and estimates that approximately 466 million people have this disability. However, for the deaf themselves, the idea of deafness cannot remain just a hearing loss and authors like Tabery (2014) also reinforce this and combat the abnormalizing characteristics of deafness as ‘hearing loss’. By 2050, the estimated number of deaf will be higher than 900 million. The deaf understand the world mainly through visual experiences (Quadros, 2004) and have a particular language and culture. Sign Language is the natural language of the deaf community, their native language (Freitas, 2018). If they can use their own language, their cognitive development will equal that of listeners (Gomes, 2010). In Portugal, deaf people use Portuguese Sign Language (LGP) and in Brazil, Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS).

In this regard, bilingualism arises, which means considering Sign Language as the deaf's mother language and Portuguese, in the written form, as a second language also called L2 in Brazil. Bilingualism allows deaf people to access their native language from childhood, providing better cognitive, social, academic and linguistic development (Freitas, 2018, 2019). As the deaf are integrated into two different cultures - the deaf and the hearing - bilingualism must also include the notion of biculturalism, thus providing the deaf children with the same psycholinguistic possibilities offered to the hearing children, facilitating a bicultural identity (Freitas, 2018). Skliar (1998) states that bilingualism reflects an increase in the metacognitive and metalinguistic abilities of deaf people, facilitating learning and leading to better school performance. However, the principles of bilingualism in daily practice must not become just the inclusion of LGP/LIBRAS in the classroom where an interpreter translates Portuguese for the deaf, nor an ordinary translation of the pedagogical content into sign language, without this content even being designed to fulfill the deaf student specificities (Fernandes, 2003). The exchange of experiences is an elementary step in the teaching and learning process; consequently, the lack of interaction compromises this process, thus socialization (Vygotsky, 1991).

Through their respective legislation, Portugal and Brazil instituted Bilingual Education for Deaf Students. In Portugal, the Decree Law nº 3/2008 of January 7th presented guidelines for bilingual education and established Reference Schools for the Bilingual Education of Deaf Students (EREBAS). In Brazil, the guarantee of deaf people's access to bilingual education is made by Decree nº 5.626 of December 22nd, 2005 (BRASIL, 2005), which also refers to LIBRAS and makes federal educational institutions responsible for bilingual education in Brazil. Two Brazilian federal institutions currently offer this education model, one in the north and the other in the south of Brazil.

This research reflects on the model of bilingual education implemented in Brazil and Portugal at bilingual schools. Hence, this work sought to contribute to the discussion regarding the education of the deaf, addressing how it happens, the differences between legislation and daily school practices, and which of these are better for putting forward the teaching and learning process of deaf students. Understanding the differences between sign languages, such as Brazilian and Portuguese sign language, is crucial to bridge the communication gap between deaf and hearing individuals, promoting greater understanding and inclusion, thus promoting effective communication and inclusivity (Woll et al., 2001). The comparison between Brazilian and Portuguese bilingual schools allows an overview of their differences and similarities, thus making it possible to identify practices that can be implemented or improved regarding bilingual education in both countries. By recognizing and valuing the importance of sign language, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and accessible society for all.

Icelandic education policy has a strong focus on inclusive education (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2012) and the Icelandic education system is regarded as highly inclusive with few segregated resources for students. In the project presented here, inclusive education is understood as a democratic approach to equity in education for all children where active participation of diverse students is at the forefront (Allan, 2012). In inclusive schools, each student should feel as if they belong, take part in learning and social interaction and develop their knowledge, skills and competence (Skoglund, 2019).

Inclusive education builds on the vision of, and the hope for, better schooling for all. The goal is to reduce segregation that excludes minorities or that groups people by gender, sexuality, social class, disability, nationality, family background or learning abilities (Ainscow, 2021). Participation, community, equity and equality are important and serve as a guiding light for teaching and learning (Artiles et al., 2011).

Embedded in this understanding of inclusion is a shift from emphasising the source of learning difficulties or difficulties pupils encounter in school as coming from within the pupil or stemming from his/her social circumstances, to viewing the influence of the system of education or the environment as influential (UNESCO, 2017). According to this perspective, schools must be active in identifying hindrances to participation and use available resources to remove them (Loreman, 2017). The practice of teaching diverse groups of pupils integrates professional knowledge about teaching, learning and child development, and involves an ethical and social commitment to children (Guðjónsdóttir & Óskarsdóttir, 2016).

Transforming practice for inclusive pedagogy and practice is therefore a continuous task of school leaders and teachers to meet the diversity present in every school. Teachers are the key in this task as they are the ones who, based on their beliefs and knowledge, decide and develop the learning environment where pupils are meant to learn and work within the structures of the school system (Ainscow, 2021; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016).

Peder Haug (2017) maintains that all countries seem to have a gap between formulations and realizations of inclusive education. Referring to Julie Allan (2008), Haug states: “There appears […] to be deep uncertainty about how to create inclusive environments within schools and about how to teach inclusively” (Haug, 2017 p. 10).

An Audit of the system of inclusive education in Iceland and several recent in-depth studies have shown that there is a gap between policy and practice; a lack of consensus on what inclusion means in practice; an overreliance on clinical diagnosis of students’ impairments as a precondition for the allocation of school resources, and (d) teachers are insecure about how to develop their practices towards inclusion. However, the Audit highlighted number of innovative and successful school-based examples of inclusive practices (European Agency, 2017).

As teachers are insecure in how to implement the policy of inclusion and call for support (Gunnþórsdóttir, 2021) it is important to identify the practices that are inclusive and serve to accommodate for diverse groups of pupils for others to learn from. An important question is how these schools and teachers work, how they are supported and what is needed to transform the knowledge, beliefs and practices for inclusion. Gary Thomas (2013) emphasizes that there is a need to move outside the modes of thinking that still construct and define failure at school and in line with this Kristine Black-Hawkins (2017) has stated that there is a reason to stress the value of a shared vison and the creation of a learning community at school for the development of inclusive teaching practices.

An inclusive educational system provides equal opportunities for education to all students. While inclusion has in general positive effects for students with special education needs, it remains unclear whether they benefit from the specific integrative school measures (ISM) they are provided. This study focuses on two mutually exclusive measures: reduced individual learning objectives (RILO, comparable to the US term curriculum modifications; Harrison et al., 2013) and accommodations (ACC). RILO and ACC are used in Swiss mainstream schools for students with mild learning or behavioral disabilities. While the target group of RILO are students with generally low cognitive abilities who are not able to achieve the regular learning objectives, the target group of ACC are students with an at least average cognitive ability but with a specific disadvantage (e.g., Dyslexia or ADHD) which is compensated by special aids (e.g., spell checker program, extra time at exams) to enable them to achieve the regular learning objectives.

While ISM aims to support SEN-students, they carry the risk of reproducing or exacerbating educational inequalities (Sahli Lozano & Wüthrich, 2019). RILO, in particular, may have negative side-effects due to a less stimulating learning environment (Neumann et al., 2007) and a negative labeling bias (Fox and Stinnett, 1996). It has been shown that students with RILO felt less socially integrated in their school class and had a lower academic self-concept than comparable classmates, and that RILO negatively affected their academic performance (Sahli Lozano et al., 2017; Wicki et al., 2022). Meanwhile, no negative side effect of ACC is expected, as this ISM supports students to demonstrate their full cognitive potential (Sahli Lozano et al., 2020) and ACC has been shown to have a positive effect on academic performance (Wicki et al., 2022).

Vocational aspirations at the end of compulsory school (i.e., 8^th/9^th grade or lower secondary school) play a decisive role in determining which educational pathways a person chooses and pursues. They significantly influence the professional position in adulthood as they hardly change after the transition to upper secondary education/VET (Blossfeld, 1988). In Switzerland, by the age of about 15, young people generally have adjusted their vocational aspirations to the opportunities open to them based on their school track attended (Hirschi, 2010). Previous research showed that vocational aspirations are generally influenced by background variables (e.g. parents’ education, socioeconomic status, migration background), individual capacities (e.g. intelligence, academic performance) and gender (e.g. Hirschi, 2010; Kriesi & Basler, 2020).

To date, there has been little research on vocational aspirations of students with special educational needs (SEN). Rojewski et al. (2012) showed that the vocational aspirations of SEN-students with ISM were, on average, significantly lower than the average of learners without SEN. However, for their analyses, they didn’t differentiate between various types of integrative school measures, even though they have been shown to have different effects on academic performance (Wicki et al., 2022).

This study aims to examine the following questions: 1) Do RILO and ACC influence whether students can state a vocational aspiration immediately before entering upper secondary education/VET? 2) Do RILO and ACC influence the socioeconomic status of their vocational aspirations? In line with previous findings we expect that compared to similar students without RILO, those with RILO are less likely to have decided on their vocational aspiration and if they mention a vocational aspiration, it corresponds to an aspiration with lower socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, no negative effects for ACC are expected.

Equality of opportunity in education requires the equal provision of educational services to all segments of society. In this respect, countries legally guarantee equality of opportunity in education. However, not all individuals can benefit equally from the right to education, which is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual. Disadvantaged students need help with access to education and attendance at school. Especially, Romani students have significant educational problems (Alvarez, et al., 2016; Çiftçi, 2019; Díaz-Vicario, Asparó, & Ceacero, 2019; Kumcagiz et al., 2018; Okutan & Turgut, 2018; Sarıtaş & Çoban, 2022).

The main problem of Romani students is school absenteeism and dropout (Kumcağız et al., 2018; Mercan-Uzun & Tüm, 2015; Tor, 2017). Economic conditions and the perception of exclusion constitute an obstacle to education for Romani children (Ministry of Family and Social Policies, 2016; Çiftçi, 2019; Kumcagiz et al., 2018; Okutan & Turgut, 2018). Another obstacle is families who care less about their children and children's education (Çiftçi, 2019; Sarıtaş & Çoban, 2022). The inability to access qualified schools, the inadequacy of study environments, and the lack of people who can get support in their classes cause them to stay away from school (Genç, et al., 2015). For these reasons, these children prefer to start working early to help their families or marry at a young age. In other words, Romani children are both isolated from social life, and their poverty in the family continues in a cycle (Okutan & Turgut, 2018).

In order to prevent these problems, the factors that will bind them to the school should be investigated. This study focuses on the tendency to drop out of school, which is one of the most critical problems of Romani students. The research aims to reveal the relationship between the tendency to drop out of school and the social support students perceive from their families, teachers, and friends and their school happiness. This study will contribute to the literature as it focuses on the relationship between the variables that affect the school dropout of Romani children. Thus, scientific suggestions for Romani students will be presented regarding school-based practices and general education policies.

In this regard, the aims of the study are stated below:

1. What is the level of school dropout tendencies, perceived social support, and school happiness of Romani students?

2. Is there a significant relationship between the perceived social support and school happiness of Romani students and their tendency to drop out?

3. Are the perceived social support, school happiness, and demographic characteristics of Romani students a significant predictor of their tendency to drop out?

This paper focuses on knowledge and practices that can emerge through research that actively involves school students, and the potentials that this can have for transforming learning contexts and valuing diversity. Using illustrative examples from two international studies that involved both primary and secondary schools in five countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Portugal, Spain), the paper will argue that collaborative action research can be a way for fostering student diversity in school contexts.

Research involving schools is usually dominated by perspectives explored and brought to the surface by either university researchers, or those that are co-constructed between researchers and teachers. What is less common is having students in schools being part of such processes (Hadfield and Haw, 2001). This paper focuses on knowledge and practices that can emerge through research that actively involves primary and secondary school students, and the potentials that this can have for transforming contexts. In line with this Network’s Call, the paper will illustrate how involving school students in research can promote valuing student diversity within schools. Drawing examples from two interconnected international collaborative action research studies, the paper will address the following questions:

• How can students be actively involved in research in schools?
• How can such approaches promote valuing of diversity?
• What kinds of knowledge and practices emerge through such research?

Students’ voices, have been given a prominent role in research and in education, especially since the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989). However, Thiessen (2007) points out that a range of earlier educators and scholars had set the foundations for such a focus on students’ experiences, such as Pestalozzi in 1912, Dewey in 1916 and Montessori in 1966.

Nowadays, the term student voice is mostly associated with expressions of views, either through verbal or non-verbal means (Thomson, 2008). Mazzei (2009) argues that it is impossible to have voice fully captured in research, whilst St Pierre (2009) points out that participants’ voices in qualitative research may have been burdened with too much weight. At the same time, student voice has been linked to active and meaningful participation, and having an active role in decision-making processes (Cook-Sather, 2006).

Such involvement can be the result of initiatives where students have taken the role of student researchers, which in practice closely link to Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) principles: “(1) the collective investigation of a problem that directly addresses the needs of youth involved, (2) the reliance on marginalized youth knowledge that validates and incorporates their lived experiences, and (3) the desire to take collective action to improve the lives of oppressed youth.” (Desai, 2019, p.127).

Within such collective actions, the notion of dialogue can be a strong feature, between children and young people and their classmates, but also between adults (teachers) and students, which is the position adopted in this paper. In using the term dialogue, the definition of Lodge (2005) is adopted, who argues that this “…is more than conversation, it is the building of shared narrative. Dialogue is about engagement with others through talk to arrive at a point one would not get to alone” (p. 134). In other words, both teachers and students can arrive at decisions together, through engagement with different views and collaborative ways of working.

Collaborative action research was the methodology employed in the two interconnected studies (Author & another Author, 2015; Author et al, 2016; Author and another author, 2020), from which the examples of this paper are drawn. The discussion will focus on how collaborative action research involving researchers, teachers and school students can facilitate the development of inclusive thinking and practices.

One of the greatest challenges for teacher education is to prepare teachers for the complex task of teaching for excellence while at the same time pursuing equity and inclusion (Cochran-Smith, Ell, Grudnoff, Haigh, Hill and Ludlow, 2016). 

The challenges are not new. There have always been pupils who are marginalized by the education system and these systemic inequities have continually shaped the context in which teachers have to do their work (e.g. Gadsden, Davis & Artiles, 2009). However, today the dimensions of diversity and inequality have increased due to recent migration patterns (OECD, 2019) and social justice, equity and inclusion movements that gained importance during the last decades (Biesta, 2012). 

Many studies have been performed on how to prepare teachers to teach for equity and inclusion, growing at hundreds per year. Researchers have appraised, summarized and brought together existing studies in reviews and meta-analyses. A review of 26 review studies was performed by the chair (Van Peteghem & Consuegra, 2021) and summarizes the recurrent recommendations for teacher education in a grid containing ten principles: 1) inclusion and diversity should not be isolated in one course but integrated throughout the curriculum, 2) guidance  is needed during recruitment and study progress 3) critical inquiry and self-reflection should be key learning goals, 4)  mentoring and coaching should be offered before, during and after training practice, 5) community-based learning should be included to learn in and with local contexts and partners, 6) collaboration with schools is necessary to facilitate transition into practice to reduce the practice shock, 7) collaboration within and outside of school is a key learning goal, 8) student-teachers should have safe spaces to share thoughts without fear for negative consequences, 9) student-teachers should not only learn about inclusion and diversity in general but also about special needs of specific target groups, 10) the use of technology can  be exploited to support multiperspectivism. 

The grid has been discussed in depth during a physical two-day visit to Paris in November 2022 by the members of the Connected Research Community (CRC) ‘Research for inclusive education’ which is part of the EUTOPIA European University alliance. This alliance brings together ten European universities aiming to become, by 2030, an open, multicultural, confederated operation of connected campuses. The CRC aims to connect research initiatives across EUTOPIA partners and beyond in order to improve teacher education for inclusion.  

In this symposium four studies from teacher education institutions in Brussels (Belgium), Paris (France) and Gothenburg (Sweden) are presented with each study addressing one or more of the principles in the grid for teacher education for inclusion. The first paper shows how collaboration between regular and special education teachers can change practices and discourse about ‘students in difficulties’. The second paper describes under which conditions constructive disruption experienced by pre- and in-service teachers during collaborative inquiry in urban schools can lead to changes in beliefs and practices. The third paper uses the grid to analyse program documents and interviews with leadership and teacher educators to assess the curriculum of a teacher education program.  The fourth paper investigates how hybridization of the teacher education curriculum can contribute to teacher education for inclusion for example by creating online safe spaces.

Mixed methods are used in the studies such as document analyses, semi-structured interviews, observations and surveying. The discussant is not a member of the CRC and will discuss how inclusion might be defined and operationalised differently in the four studies and how the grid could be further developed to be used as an analytical framework for teacher education institutions to self-assess their programs. 

In France, specialized teachers of the RASED (Réseau d'Aide aux Elèves En Difficulté) are in charge of primary school students labelled by “regular” teachers as being "in difficulty". These specialized teachers are resource persons as indicated in the reference framework of competences (Official journal of 12-2-2017). As such, they can engage in a partnership with their “regular classroom” colleagues as co-teachers. Co-teaching is defined as the joint pedagogical work, in the same group, time and space, of two teachers who share educational responsibilities to achieve specific objectives (Tremblay, 2015). Co-teaching allows caring for these students reported as "in difficulty" within the classroom.  This research begun in 2022 and deals with the item "Collaboration" (item 7 of the grid). This study is based on the observation of 10 pairs of regular teacher-specialized teacher working collaboratively.  The methodology consists of a longitudinal collection of different types of data: forms filled in by the class teachers, a questionnaire filled in by these teachers, observations of videos of co-teaching sessions, semi-directive interviews (Imbert, 2010), conducted by the specialised teacher, which will question the regular teacher on his or her practice after the experience of co-teaching, particularly with pupils identified at the outset as being in difficulty. Finally, a seminar gathered together the specialized teachers and allowed them to discuss the collaborative modes of each of them and to share the evolution of this partnership with their “regular classroom” colleagues.  Preliminary results indicate a twofold evolution among the regular teachers. On the one hand, their professional gestures (Bucheton and Soulé, 2009) are more anticipated and allow better support to "students in difficulty". The joint identification of the pedagogical and didactic parameters that affect the construction of learning makes it possible to remove the disagreements (Champain 2019, 2023) that prevented the progress of students reported as "in difficulty". All regular teachers broaden their representations to a class system that encompasses their own practice.  On the other hand, the discourse of the classroom teachers shifts, with regard to the stated objective, the forms of student engagement, and their productions. The teachers' statements about the "lack of concentration of the students", their "inattention", their "laziness", evolve and are transformed into needs. From a discourse centered on the pupil as the sole bearer of the difficulty, we thus observe the displacement of the "difficulty", this term opens to more systemic considerations.

BAUTIER, E. & RAYOU,P. (2009). Les inégalités d'apprentissage. Programmes, pratiques et malentendus scolaires, PUF, coll. « Education et société ».  BERZIN, C & BRISSET, C, (2008). « Le statut de la difficulté dans les apprentissages : les représentations des enseignants spécialisés et non spécialisés », Armand Colin. Carrefours de l'éducation, n° 25. 91 – 101  BUCHETON, D. et SOULÉ, Y, (2009). « Les gestes professionnels et le jeu des postures de l’enseignant dans la classe : un multi-agenda de préoccupations enchâssées », Éducation et didactique, vol 3 - n°3.  CHAMPAIN, P., (2019). « Les difficultés de compréhension des attentes de l’école : du malentendu au mal attendu. Point de vue des enseignants et mise en perspective avec les productions d’élèves, étude exploratoire. », in « La lettre de l’AIRDF, N°66, pp.10-15.  JANIN, M., MOREAU, G., et TOULLEC-THERY, M. , (2021) « Le coenseignement dans une classe hétérogène promeut-il une différenciation pédagogique ? » Éducation et socialisation.   MONTFROY, B. (2002) «La définition des élèves en difficulté en ZEP : le discours des enseignants de l’école primaire ». Revue Française de Pédagogie, n° 140. 33 – 40. 

Collaborative inquiry (principle 3 and 7 of the grid) is conceived as a systematic process of inquiry-based learning about school-related issues among different actors inside and outside schools, i.e., in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, secondary school students and teacher educators. In the last decade, the authors each conducted a long-term research project in Belgium on various aspects of collaborative inquiry. Willegems (2020) examined how it can contribute to pre-service and in-service teachers' professional learning (professionalization). Strijbos (2022) probed how and under what conditions it might enhance student participation in their schools. Both research projects were situated in the context of urban secondary schools since evidence suggests major challenges in terms of both sustainable teacher engagement and student participation (Milner & Lomotey, 2017; Nasir et al., 2011; Sampermans et al., 2017).   Regardless of their disparate research foci, both authors found that when actors share their divergent perspectives and voices with each other it causes a disruption of the familiar practice. Moreover, they both observed in real-life settings that such disruption can be constructive in nature when the right level of turbulence is achieved, stimulating actors to adjust their daily practice and beliefs (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Collaborative inquiry, in other words, through constructive disruption, has the potential to change school practice.   Drawing on research findings from both PhD projects (Strijbos, 2022; Willegems, 2020), we will summarize how constructive disruption, provoked by voicing professionals and youth in the context of collaborative inquiry, can contribute to more inclusive urban school practices. For three focus areas, we infer how teacher education can prepare pre-service teachers to do so.  First, it proves critical to balance the prevailing multiple voices. To this end, an adequate learning and working environment characterized by an overall positive approach should be created, allowing ample opportunities to make the different perspectives explicit. Second, it requires specific expertise among teachers to establish inclusive school practice: (1) expertise in emotional interaction, recognizing and adequately dealing with emotions between participants, and (2) expertise in conflict, provoking and channeling disagreement and controversy for depth in relationship and communication to be obtained. Finally, unambiguous assignment and interpretation of the roles and responsibilities of all actors appears of paramount importance. Without this, participants prove to fulfill their roles in accordance with their own judgments, causing frustration when unspoken expectations are not put into practice. 

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.   Milner IV, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (2017). Handbook of Urban Education. Routledge.  Nasir, N. S., Jones, A., & Mclaughlin, M. (2011). School Connectedness for Students in Low-Income Urban High Schools, 39(8), 1755–1793. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16173  Sampermans, D., Maurissen, L., Louw, G., Hooghe, M., & Claes, E. (2017). ICCS 2016 Rapport Vlaanderen. KU Leuven, Centrum voor Politicologie.  Strijbos, J. (2022). Student Participation in Urban Schools: Investigating the Democratic Potential of Student-Teacher Partnerships.  Willegems, V. (2020). Inside Stories of Collaborative Teacher Research Teams: Spaces for Developing Extended Professionalism in School-university Partnerships. 

This paper aims at identifying how principle 1 (integration) is implemented in Sweden for teacher education. Most teacher education programs in Sweden incorporate a short module (ca 7.5 ECTS) that incorporate aspects of special education, conflict management and social relations. However, we know little about if and how inclusive education content permeates the core curriculum (Miškolci, et al. 2021).  The Swedish context is characterized by collective action spearheaded by a social democratic welfare state. This political and cultural background has been instrumental in creating an early and fertile base from which to criticize the traditional special educational and exclusionary approach and to formulate concepts such as normalization, integration and inclusion (Beach & Dyson, 2016).   However, a number of findings reveal a large gap between policy intentions and practice with regards to inclusion. There are general agreement both among researchers and practitioners that an indispensable element of inclusive education involves ensuring that all teachers are prepared to teach all students (Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2020). This study explores how integration of inclusion towards teacher education is implemented in Sweden. We are exploring the degree to which the ten principles of effective teacher education for inclusion (Van Peteghem & Consuegra, 2021) are present in the curriculum of general teacher education program for primary and secondary schools at a Swedish university and how it is perceived to be present. The analytical framework for data-analysis is guided by the ten principles for effective teacher education for inclusion To analyze prescription and reality, a mixed method design is adopted combining document analysis (reviewing program goals, curriculum, syllabus etc.) and semi-structured interviews with five program leaders in our faculty and ten teachers educators. We are studying how integration is done considering the text and how it is put into practice for teacher educators.   Analyses are still being finalized at the moment of submitting this symposium. Preliminary results shows how the concept of inclusive education is very little infused in different subjects and content matters and in which cases inclusive education is translated (or not)  into learning and teaching practices.  The presentation will conclude by highlighting challenges, opportunities and dilemmas to competently prepare teachers to be able to create an inclusive learning environment in their teaching practices. 

Beach, D., & Dyson, A. (Eds.). (2016). Equity and Education in cold climates, in Sweden and England. London: Tufnell Press.  Miškolci, J., Magnússon, G., & Nilholm, C. (2021). Complexities of preparing teachers for inclusive education: case-study of a university in Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(4), 562-576.  Paulsrud, D., & Nilholm, C. (2020). Teaching for inclusion–a review of research on the cooperation between regular teachers and special educators in the work with students in need of special support. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-15. 

The communication proposed aims at understanding the consequences of the use of technology (point 10 of the grid  of Van Peteghem & Consuegra, 2021) on teacher education for inclusion.  We approach this question by considering the situation in our own teaching academy, in France, and we further focus on teacher training for vocational and technological schools. This academy is in the biggest administrative area of France. This area contains socially disadvantaged families, which goes with younger teams of teachers, turnover, and recruiting difficulties that are higher than the national average. So we have to consider inclusive education in an intersectional approach (Artiles & Kozleski 2007).  The Covid19 pandemic has profoundly added to this context, taking teacher training away from its face-to-face roots into a system that was almost exclusively distance-learning, and that now is becoming increasingly hybridized between the two approaches. This has resulted in, among other things, large-scale changes in the use of technology for teacher training.  We consider a broad approach to inclusion looking for universal pedagogy (Bergeron et al 2011) : As teachers develop their ability to teach children with special needs, this also improves their ability to teach all children generally. We also care that as an innovation (Cros, 2001), digital environment facilitates transformations in teaching (Barrette, 2009) but is also a generator of inequalities (Plantard, 2021). Using the grid as an analysis of change, we are studying the consequences of the hybridization of the teacher education. Regarding our methodology, we reconducted a survey we already had in the general population of teachers in 2016 (n=260) on our trainee teachers in december 2021 (n=102) and completed by four focus groups of 15 trainees in February 2022 and seven long interviews in the summer of 2022.   Our results show that the hybridization of face-to-face and online distance-learning tends to lead to more collaborative work, as well as fostering online communities that further aid teacher education. These correspond to points 5 and 7 of the grid. This socialization tends to cross disciplines, which further helps integrate inclusion (point 1 of the grid) into the full experience of teaching. Trainees further testified during the interviews how they are reusing their online training to provide online "safe space" (point 8 of the grid), where their pupils felt more comfortable asking questions. This too fosters a universal pedagogy. We will thus discuss the issues of digital technology for teacher education. 

Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education. Language Arts, 84, 357-364.  Barrette C. (2009). « Méta-recherche sur les  effets de l’intégration des TIC en pédagogie collégiale».  Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, vol.6, n°2-3, p.18-25  http://www.ritpu.org/IMG/pdf/RITPU_v06_n02-03_18.pdf  Bergeron L., Rousseau N. & Leclerc M. (2011). La pédagogie universelle : au cœur de la planification de l’inclusion scolaire. Éducation et francophonie, n°39(2), pp.87–104. https://doi.org/10.7202/1007729ar  Cros F. (2001), L’innovation scolaire. Paris, Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.  Perez-Roux T. (2020). Le rapport au numérique des enseignants: controverses au sein d'un lycée et enjeux identitaires. B. Marin et D. Berger (dir.). Recherche en éducation : des enjeux partagés, Le réseau des INSPE, 2020.  Tricot, A. (2017). L’innovation pédagogique. Retz.  Van Peteghem, H., & Consuegra, E. (2021). Aandacht voor culturele diversiteit in de (leraren)opleiding. In Diversiteit in het hoger onderwijs: van theoretisch kader naar praktijkgerichte verandering (pp. 129-145). ASP. 

In December 2021, the Guardian newspaper ran an article about the huge costs national governments were spending on ‘the rising numbers of high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers’ across ‘Fortress Europe’. Such hostile uses of technology have been accompanied by equally hostile discourses in political and mass media responses to the plight of those arriving at the borders of so-called places of ‘sanctuary’, after being forcibly displaced from their homes. The historian Andreas Kossert writes that movement has been a feature of human existence throughout time but that recent forced migration is ‘seen in apocalyptic terms and metaphors’ (2022), echoing Arendt’s (1951) depiction of refugees from World War 2 as ‘pariahs’. According to Bauman’s (2004) analysis, these uprooted humans are dispensable ‘human waste’, in the border politics of securitization and globalisation. What is the role of state education provision in such hostile public environments? Can sites of education provide sanctuary for those who have been forcibly uprooted?

In this symposia we bring together an exploration of the ways in which refugees navigate obstacles and barriers to resuming or starting education in their new context. We explore how the human experiences of education impact those supporting forced migrants in their new contexts as they endeavour to create educational sites of inclusion and diversity in their hopes to foster a sense of sanctuary for newcomers in societies far distant from original homelands. These educational acts of welcome and inclusion are a counter to the dominant political narratives that shape public life in many European contexts. The symposia unearths tensions and paradoxes as uncomfortable realities of ‘preferred’ and ‘unwelcome’ sanctuary seekers are navigated and experienced.

The presenters are all part of the newly formed Hub for European Education (HERE) Network (www.hubhere.org). HERE was established as a base for knowledge transfer about children and adult learners’ post migration experiences in Europe, focusing on their right to an ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ in their resettlement context (UNESCO, 2015). The Hub collates research, advisory and advocacy activity across Europe. It brings together academic and stakeholder expertise of policies and practices for integrating children and young people with refugee backgrounds through education in order to help them to be able to live lives of dignity and value in their new societies.

Drawing upon cases from several international contexts, each presentation focuses on the tensions and dilemmas of refugee education in current times where the right to education (SDG4) for refugees and asylum seekers is not a given. Part one of the symposium has a focus on the construction of refugees, refugee education and implications of explicit and implicit framing, labelling, and repercussions of epistemic justice in practice in shifting political times. The papers are drawn from Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, England and Australia. Part two moves the emphasis to educators’ responses and the ways in which they respond to diversity in these times of mass migration, closing with an exploration of differences in education provision in Europe which questions the ‘exceptionality’ of Refugee Education. The second part features papers from Finland and England and Austria.

Each part of the symposia will close with reflections from a discussant who will provide a commentary foregrounding the tensions and convergences within the educational research presented here. The audience will be invited to reflect on the presentations and to consider Kossert’s (2002) provocation that we should not be complacent, ‘Because there is a refugee in all of us’, and therefore finding ways to create places of diversity and sanctuary through education should be an imperative for us all, especially those of us living within ‘Fortress Europe’.

Critiques of “good” and “bad” refugees and immigrants are well established in the literature (Etzel, 2022; Andrews, 2018) and explore phenomena such as (un)documentation, legal compliance, acting white, learning dominant languages and economic contributions. Conditional inclusion and belonging is available to particular immigrant minorities, contingent on certain competences, characteristics and efforts (Hackl, 2022). This issue has brought into sharp relief in recent times following the mass forced migration of people from Ukraine. Governments throughout Europe and beyond have responded to this human tragedy in ways that contrast pointedly with their previous responses to immigration (Esposito, 2022). This paper interrogates the educational consequences of the construction of worthy and unworthy refugees. It starts with an exploration of the enduring double standard that sees some displaced people conceived as tragic victims and others as unworthy of compassion and inclusion. Drawing on an analysis of sixteen oral contributions to series of online workshops held in late 2022 and early 2023, the paper proceeds to elucidate the ways in which displaced Ukrainian citizens have been rendered as worthy of social support and educational provision in ways that are denied to refugees across many European and wider circumstances. This, is evident, for example, in relation to a relaxation of regulations on compulsory attendance at school or the freedom for Ukrainian mothers to excuse their children from mandatory education in Austria, or the accelerated registration of Ukrainian teachers with the Irish Teaching Council. The paper argues that such differentiation is rooted, in the first instance, in racist ideology of successful access to performance of white, European identities. Furthermore, however, it is argued that there is a temporality to some of these exceptions, rooted in a deeper racialized understanding that war in Europe is time bound, while war and instability is inherent in non-European sites of refugee origin. In taking this viewpoint, we argue that the double standard viewed with a geographic lens seems stark but from a temporal perspective, the treatment of Ukrainian refugees, is the same old conditionality but paused, founded on a conditional hospitality, which will be eroded over time. The paper concludes that the current situation demonstrates possibilities towards more appropriate support for all refugees and asylum seekers but promises little by way of sustaining these approaches.

Andrews, A.L. (2018) Moralizing regulation: The implications of policing “good” versus “bad” immigrants, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(14), 2485-2503, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2017.137513 Esposito, A. (2022) The limitations of humanity: Differential refugee treatment in the EU, Harvard International Review online at https://hir.harvard.edu/the-limitations-of-humanity-differential-refugee-treatment-in-the-eu/ Etzel, M. (2022) New models of the “good refugee” – bureaucratic expectations of Syrian refugees in Germany, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(6), 1115-1134, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2021.1954679 Hackl, A. (2022) Good immigrants, permitted outsiders: conditional inclusion and citizenship in comparison, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(6), 989-1010, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2021.2011938

Refugee education refers to educational practices that take into consideration the needs of students who come from areas of crisis and conflict with different types of refugee- and asylum-seeking backgrounds. The term is mostly used in a holistic manner that is sensitive to the diversity of experiences connected to forced migration, encompassing the academic, social and emotional needs of the student. Researching refugee education requires terms that are as specific and clear as possible. Yet no labelling, including that of refugees, is without contention. Roger Zetter (2007) argues that labels are discourse markers which underpin bureaucratic practices and convey a set of values and judgements. The danger of labelling is one of the reasons why the term refugee is avoided in much research. In Finland and in Sweden the term refugee can rarely be found in educational research or policy. However, formal legal terminology is central to an individual’s access to educational provision. What is important is that any categories, such as ‘refugee’, ‘migrant’ or ‘asylum seeker’ are not used as ‘empty vessels’ but instead, to illuminate the conditions that are needed to support the persons in question. This presentation conceptualises refugee education and provides short examples of its development in Finland and Sweden. We argue refugee education is honouring the rights of individuals as well as ensuring the best interest of society. This has been especially timely since 2015 when Europe saw 1.3 million individuals, including children, requesting asylum. As Essomba (2017, 207) argued, the events of 2015 made it clear that the right to education of refugee children is “currently being threatened and even violated in Europe”, in part due to disjuncture between rhetoric and policies on the one hand and practice on the other. Since 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced millions more individuals to move within European borders. Some European countries believe that the crisis is temporary and thus, have organised temporary education provision for Ukrainian refugees, even as segregated schools in Ukrainian language. Others have made efforts to fully integrate Ukrainian children and youth into their national school systems. The practices of refugee education differ even in neighbouring countries, such as Finland and Sweden. We argue that high-quality education would allow refugees to be part of building sustainable futures globally, regardless of if the building takes place in countries of origin (when possible) or in transit or host countries.

Essomba, M. À. (2017). The right to education of children and youngsters from refugee families in Europe. Intercultural Education, 28 (2), 206-218. DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2017.1308659 Zetter, R. (2007). More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in an Era of Globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem011

This paper presents the findings of a three-year longitudinal study exploring the experiences of asylum-seeking higher education students in Australia. Universities serve an important role in promoting the socio-economic and political prosperity of individuals and nations. They are also sites that – ideally – promote democracy, equity, inclusion, and belonging (Brink, 2018). However, globally only six percent of refugees attend university compared to 37% of the population in general. Such figures are striking when considered in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 to ‘‘ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning’’ (UNHCR, 2015, p. 6). Much work is needed to realise the global philosophy of education for all, including supporting access to higher education for refugee and asylum-seeking students. A growing body of literature in Europe and internationally explores refugee and asylum-seeking students’ experiences of accessing and attending higher education, as well as their life beyond higher education (Marcu, 2018; Naidoo et al., 2019; Sontag, 2019; Webb et al., 2021). This study contributes to this body of literature by highlighting how universities can contribute to epistemic justice for all (Walker, 2020). Unlike in most European countries, asylum seekers in Australia are considered international students in higher education (Dunwoodie, et al., 2020). Therefore, access to higher education is usually dependent on two options: (1) to pay international student fees or (2) to receive a highly competitive scholarship – where available. For many, it is the latter which is the only option. Although these conditions differ in Europe, challenges discussed by our participants (e.g., money, language, cultural dissonance), apply in European universities, too (Marcu, 2018; Sontag, 2019). Findings from this study demonstrate that when students’ unique challenges are acknowledged and when their strengths are nurtured, these students can thrive. The analysis of the student experiences is framed through the concept of epistemic justice which explores how university practices can create spaces for different forms of knowledge and knowing and foster the conditions in which students can grow in confidence. Practices supporting epistemic justice enabled a sense of belonging so that our participants, who were underrepresented in higher education and had previously been underserved by many universities, were more able to share their knowings with others and succeed. These findings were drawn from interviews with 22 asylum-seeking students from seven Australian universities, conducted approximately once a year throughout the participants’ university studies from 2018-2020.

Brink, C. (2018). The soul of a university: Why excellence is not enough. Bristol University Press. Dunwoodie, K., Kaukko, M., Wilkinson, J., Reimer, K., & Webb, S. (2020). Widening university access for students of asylum-seeking backgrounds: (Mis)recognition in an Australian context. Higher Education Policy, 33(2), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00176-8 Marcu, S. (2018). Refugee students in Spain: The role of universities as sustainable actors in institutional integration. Sustainability, 10(6), 2082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062082 Naidoo, L., Wilkinson, J., Adoniou, M., & Langat, K. (2019). Navigating Complex Spaces: Refugee Background Students Transitioning into Higher Education. Springer. Sontag, K. (2019). Refugee students' access to three European universities: An ethnographic study. Social Inclusion, 7(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i1.1622 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2015). Missing out: Refugee education in crisis. https://www.unhcr.org/missing-out-state-of-education-for-the-worlds-refugees.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2019). Refugee education 2030: A strategy for refugee inclusion. https://www.unhcr.org/5d651da88d7.pdf Walker, M. Failures and possibilities of epistemic justice, with some implications for higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 61(3), 263-278 Webb, S., Dunwoodie, K., Wilkinson, J., Macaulay, L., Reimer, K., & Kaukko, M. (2021). Recognition and precarious mobilities: The experiences of university students from a refugee background. International Review of Education, 67(6), 871-894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-021-09919-5

In December 2021, the Guardian newspaper ran an article about the huge costs national governments were spending on ‘the rising numbers of high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers’ across ‘Fortress Europe’. Such hostile uses of technology have been accompanied by equally hostile discourses in political and mass media responses to the plight of those arriving at the borders of so-called places of ‘sanctuary’, after being forcibly displaced from their homes. The historian Andreas Kossert writes that movement has been a feature of human existence throughout time but that recent forced migration is ‘seen in apocalyptic terms and metaphors’ (2022), echoing Arendt’s (1951) depiction of refugees from World War 2 as ‘pariahs’. According to Bauman’s (2004) analysis, these uprooted humans are dispensable ‘human waste’, in the border politics of securitization and globalisation. What is the role of state education provision in such hostile public environments? Can sites of education provide sanctuary for those who have been forcibly uprooted?

In this symposia we bring together an exploration of the ways in which refugees navigate obstacles and barriers to resuming or starting education in their new context. We explore how the human experiences of education impact those supporting forced migrants in their new contexts as they endeavour to create educational sites of inclusion and diversity in their hopes to foster a sense of sanctuary for newcomers in societies far distant from original homelands. These educational acts of welcome and inclusion are a counter to the dominant political narratives that shape public life in many European contexts. The symposia unearths tensions and paradoxes as uncomfortable realities of ‘preferred’ and ‘unwelcome’ sanctuary seekers are navigated and experienced.

The presenters are all part of the newly formed Hub for European Education (HERE) Network (www.hubhere.org). HERE was established as a base for knowledge transfer about children and adult learners’ post migration experiences in Europe, focusing on their right to an ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ in their resettlement context (UNESCO, 2015). The Hub collates research, advisory and advocacy activity across Europe. It brings together academic and stakeholder expertise of policies and practices for integrating children and young people with refugee backgrounds through education in order to help them to be able to live lives of dignity and value in their new societies.

Drawing upon cases from several international contexts, each presentation focuses on the tensions and dilemmas of refugee education in current times where the right to education (SDG4) for refugees and asylum seekers is not a given. Part one of the symposium has a focus on the construction of refugees, refugee education and implications of explicit and implicit framing, labelling, and repercussions of epistemic justice in practice in shifting political times. The papers are drawn from Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, England and Australia. Part two moves the emphasis to educators’ responses and the ways in which they respond to diversity in these times of mass migration, closing with an exploration of differences in education provision in Europe which questions the ‘exceptionality’ of Refugee Education. The second part features papers from Finland and England and Austria.

Each part of the symposia will close with reflections from a discussant who will provide a commentary foregrounding the tensions and convergences within the educational research presented here. The audience will be invited to reflect on the presentations and to consider Kossert’s (2002) provocation that we should not be complacent, ‘Because there is a refugee in all of us’, and therefore finding ways to create places of diversity and sanctuary through education should be an imperative for us all, especially those of us living within ‘Fortress Europe’.

In Finland, the teaching force is rather uniformly gendered, raced, and classed. Like other highly educated professionals, most teachers come from white, middle-class communities, sometimes with little or no experience in working with diversity. Furthermore, learning in Finnish schools is generally discussed as a neutral activity without a socially, historically, culturally or institutionally defined context (Simola, 2021), although many challenges in school are inevitably intertwined with wider societal challenges, such as racism, sexual inequality, gender inequality harassment, heteronormativity, economic or geographical inequalities (Väisänen & Lanas, 2021). Problems tend to be framed as individual deficiencies, thus psychologizing education (Ecclestone & Brunila, 2015). This paper discusses how Finnish educators talk about teaching refugee students, focusing on the issues they identify as problematic and the solutions they propose. The article draws on a questionnaire answered by 267 teachers, principals and teaching assistants in Finland, as well as thematic group interviews with 15 teachers. Critical discourse analysis of the data shows that educators draw from individualizing discourses as they talk about refugee students’ education. Many of the teachers perceived refugee students as subjects lacking skills. For instance, although Ukrainian refugees are often portrayed as “worthy” refugees in public discourse, many teachers discussed them as unmotivated, illiterate, and unwilling to learn the Finnish language, and were often unmotivated to teach them. Teachers framed racism as bullying and disturbing behavior, thus attaching a structural problem to the individual. As a solution, they proposed practices of positive pedagogy, stemming from individualistic positive psychology. This paper argues that supporting the educational paths of refugee students requires attention on the condition of possibility. Teachers do not create these conditions alone, but their role is crucial. Societal factors also matter, as sanctuary cannot be offered by a society that keeps portraying refugees as a disturbance, a problem, and keeps speaking and enacting refugees into existence through othering discourses. Living a safe life is not a trade, but a human right. The “worth” of the people arriving cannot be measured by how “fast integrators”, active learners of the Finnish language, or skilled in whatever is beneficial for Finnish society, they are. This paper calls for a continuous systematic effort of antiracist education as well as curricular structures that support teachers in understanding and challenging contexts, such as white normativity.

Ecclestone, K. & Brunila, K. (2015). Governing emotionally vulnerable subjects and ‘therapisation’ of social justice, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(4), 485-506, https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2015.1015152 Simola, H. (2022). Dekontekstualisaation lyhyt historia. Kasvatus, 52(4), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.112371 Väisänen, A.-M., & Lanas, M. (2022). Dekontekstualisaatio kiusaamiskirjallisuudessa. Kasvatus, 52(4), 438–449. https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.112377

Individual teachers, teaching assistants, and other school staff have been identified as key players who are able to positively influence the educational experiences of young refugees and asylum seekers, creating places of sanctuary within often hostile wider environments. More generally, it is widely recognised that educators’ affective states – such as their beliefs and attitudes – play a critical role in the actions they take, their expectations for pupils, and the experiences and outcomes of these pupils. Little is known, however, about educators’ attitudes specifically towards refugee pupils. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring the following questions: 1) What are educators’ attitudes towards refugee pupils, and 2) How are these attitudes formed? The study is part of a larger project that explored educators’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices with refugee pupils in one local authority in England. It employed a mixed-methods approach, including a survey (n=295) of educators across the county and case studies of 17 educators at two schools. Results of the study show that participant educators had relatively positive attitudes towards refugee pupils. Survey educators scored higher on measures of positive attitudes than participants in previous studies and case study educators tended to emphasise the strengths of refugee pupils and the benefits that they conferred on their schools. Positive attitudes towards refugee pupils were associated with previous experience teaching refugee pupils. While the direction of causality could not be established, intergroup contact theory – the proposition that contact between different groups reduces prejudice between them – provides a theoretical and empirical basis for experience contributing to positive attitudes. Furthermore, school-level factors – events, ethos, leadership – were found to be important in forming educators’ positive attitudes. Such factors were, in turn, the work of individual educators – creating a ‘virtuous circle’ effect that developed positivity towards refugee pupils at both the school and individual levels. These findings have important implications for policy and practice. The case study schools in this study had extensive experience with refugee pupils and pupils with similar characteristics, but many schools in England do not. In order to ensure that all refugee pupils encounter positive, welcoming school environments, coordinated training and support for educators should be made available. Given the ‘virtuous circle’ effect between individual attitudes and school-level ethos and actions, there should be multiple levels and formats in which to provide support.

Aleghfeli, Y. K., & Hunt, L. (2022). Education of unaccompanied refugee minors in high-income countries: Risk and resilience factors. Educational Research Review, 35, 100433. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2022.100433 Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Baak, M. (2019). Schooling Displaced Syrian Students in Glasgow: Agents of Inclusion. In J. L. McBrien (Ed.), Educational Policies and Practices of English-Speaking Refugee Resettlement Countries. Brill Sense. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380104 Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 9(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3 Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

In Finland, practices related to refugee education have been developed for decades in the biggest cities, but the smaller municipalities have started to receive refugee students only recently. Thus, in order to develop refugee education, it is important to analyse the existing good practices and the needs of further development. For this article, we interviewed of four experts working in school offices in municipalities with a long tradition of organising refugee education. The data were analysed with a thematic content analysis, and the categories that arose from the data were: 1) linguistically responsive practices in supporting refugee students, 2) practices that support teachers’ pedagogy and wellbeing at work, and 3) the needs to develop refugee education in Finland. The results show that in all four municipalities, school offices have practices acknowledging linguistic diversity and students’ backgrounds, as well as identifying learning challenges and needs for special support. The principles of second language learning and the methods that support learning were also reflected in the interviews. The practices related to supporting teachers' work with refugee students included written guidelines and mentoring given by the school office, and collegial peer support. The interviewees also reflected on the expertise that teachers developed over time when working with the refugee students, and how this expertise supported teachers’ pedagogical practice and wellbeing. The need to develop refugee education included concerns related to insufficient socio-emotional or linguistic support for refugee students, especially regarding the transition from preparatory classes to basic education. Additionally, there was a need to get better resources, guidelines and professional development trainings for teachers, as well as the need to develop school communities to better support the refugee students and respond to their needs. There was also a concern regarding the lack of national guidelines for organising refugee education in Finland, putting refugee students in an unequal position in different municipalities. The results indicate that in the bigger Finnish municipalities, there are well-established practices in organising refugee education that should be spread to other municipalities. However, concerns related to the lack of national guidelines should be taken seriously when further developing refugee education in Finland. This study is also significant outside of Finland: good practices could be implemented and further developed in many countries that are organising education for refugee students in order to support educational equality for refugee students.

Dovigo, F. (2021). Beyond the vulnerability paradigm: fostering inter-professional and multi-agency cooperation in refugee education in Italy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(2), 166-181. McIntyre, J., & Abrams, F. (2020). Refugee Education: Theorising Practice in Schools. Taylor & Francis.

The 2022 UNHCR Refugee Education Report tells us that children forcefully displaced from their homes are significantly more likely than their non-refugee peers to be excluded from schooling. Indeed, 48 per cent of refugee children at school-age are excluded from education (UNHCR, 2022). Something of the consequence of this exclusion is captured by Dina Nayeri (2022), in her account of the lives of children in Katsikas, a refugee camp outside Ioannina, Greece, entitled The Waiting Place. Nayeri (2022) – herself a former refugee from Iran forced to endure months of her childhood in a refugee camp in Italy - characterises this place as ‘a beasty limbo’, that ‘wants children to … forget the hours, the days’, and ‘doesn’t want them to go to school’. This paper advances the argument that, living in this limbo, endlessly waiting to be educated, children are excluded not simply from meaningful educational activities but from opportunities to become the creators of their own narratives about what their lives mean now and what they might come to mean to the future. Ultimately, this exclusion constitutes a twofold failure of welcoming – it is to fail to welcome young people into meaning educational experiences and a failure to welcome refugee children to become creators of their own, unique, and meaningful lives. Using the case of contrasting educational measures taken to accommodate children and youth arriving between around 2015 and now, this paper will explore differences in education provision. The xenophobic and anti-migrant rhetoric used by country leaders and media in Europe, the violent acts against refugees, under-served reception centres or unlawful detentions at the European borders are only some of the challenges, refugees from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan or Somalia have been experiencing in Europe (Esposito, 2022). The flexibility to access schools, the possibility of bilingual education, and the recruitment of Ukrainian teachers were some of the regulations put into practice at a remarkable speed for the students arriving from Ukraine. Contrasting these two approaches, the authors aim to question the exceptionality of Refugee Education from an inclusive perspective.

Esposito, A. (2022). The limitations of humanity: differential refugee treatment in the EU. Retrieved from https://hir.harvard.edu/the-limitations-of-humanity-differential-refugee-treatment-in-the-eu/ Nayeri, D. (2022) The Waiting Place. Somerville, Massachusetts: Candlewick Press. UNHCR (2022) All Inclusive: The Campaign for Refugee Education. Available: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/education.html#:~:text=Close%20to%20half%20of%20all,countries%20was%2068%20per%20cent. UNHCR 2022 UNHCR Refugee Education Report. Available at https://www.unhcr.org/uk/publications/education/631ef5a84/unhcr-education-report-2022-inclusive-campaign-refugee-education.html