Conference Agenda

Through the ratification of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), diversity, inclusion, and inclusivity have been elevated to one of education’s central ideals (cf. Neuhaus & Vogt, 2022); as a central agent of the educational system as well as contemporary societies (cf. Powell, 2015), schools have tremendously been addressed by the inclusivity and diversity agenda.

Simultaneously, inclusion and inclusivity have oftentimes been considered fuzzy concepts as they appear to be - depending on the organizational, geographical, cultural, and temporal context - ambiguous and thereby underdefined. However, inclusion and diversity can be considered part of a larger development or framework which aligns itself with central normative demands articulated, primarily, by Western present-day societies (cf. Reckwitz, 2019). As such, inclusion is the latest cipher for a struggle that has prior been negotiated under the label of freedom, democracy, or participation (cf. Boger et al., 2021, p. 9).

Following this reasoning, the specific realization of a given school setting, which - due to normative pressure - represents a central part of modern-day (Western) society, will always fall short of the ideal. This is particularly true for the ideal of diversity and inclusivity. Yet, failure cannot be confessed in public as this would shatter the trust not just in the educational system but, by association, also in central societal claims. Taking this as a starting point, this panel wants to address the issue by presenting a philosophical concept labeled as ‘Verdeckung’ (engl. cloaking, masking, concealment) (cf. Vogt & Neuhaus, 2021) which can be read as a response to the aforementioned tensions. The dynamic(s) of ‘Verdeckung’ will be outlined by three studies as presented in the symposium - the first will outline core ideas related to ‘Verdeckung’ and connect these to further theories, the second presentation investigates (with a historical focus) the unarticulated processes in the identification of deviant children, and the third talk focuses on current-day occurrences in the field of physical education. After having approximated a tentative concept of ‘Verdeckung’ and having enriched it with tentative research outputs, it will be attempted to synchronize these dynamics with ethnographic research results (presentation 4) which have described similar dynamics in classroom interactions as “masking” (cf. Ludwig, 2022) or “cloaking” (Schäffer-Trencsényi, 2023, forthcoming). The papers will look at this topic from an international comparative perspective with material and data from Germany, the UK, Italy, and Canada. By approaching the tensions stemming from inclusivity’s demands and the limitation of the actual world as well as the suspected responses from different perspectives and with diverging national backgrounds, this panel hopes to develop an innovative figure of thought which could be transferred to further settings, dynamics, occurrences, and disciplines as - and this is the key thesis of the panel – ‘Verdeckung’ is a constitutive mechanism of a plethora of processes. Yet, before being made fruitful for different discourses, ‘Verdeckung’ needs to be further specified regarding its workings, employed mechanisms, aims, and actors. This panel hopes to provide such a first mapping (cf. Deleuze & Guattari, 1974) of ‘Verdeckung’ as well as related concepts. This makes ‘Verdeckung’ highly compatible with ECER’s general theme as processes of ‘Verdeckung’ might thus undermine and prevent a targeted and overarching reflection on diversity in the context of inclusion and hinder its implementation.

This paper develops fundamental theoretical and empirical perspectives on the ‘Verdeckung’ concept concerning Diversity in Education and Educational Research. It prepares an insight which deepens ‘Verdeckung’ regarding diversity-sensitive didactic and diagnostic contexts. Particularly concerning the interplay between education, educational research, diversity, and modern-day (Western) society. Following the results of a research initiative (Bender et al., 2023a), a contingency-theoretical perspective on contemporary democratic societies is developed as a first step. Meaning that modern democratic societies cannot and do not want to claim any final justication for themselves that legitimizes certain structures of social orders (Flügel-Martinsen, 2021). Instead, it is assumed that these orders are fundamentally contingent. Therefore, especially in the context of education and diversity, contemporary democratic societies are confronted with extensive demands for participation and inclusion. For example, the UN CRPD stands for the assumption that social orders, as well as educational practices and systems, are fundamentally changeable and diversity-sensitive and thus adaptable to individual subjects and population groups (Meseth, 2021). Assuming contingency of democratic contemporary societies, it must also be presupposed that democratic modern-day societies have also emerged from hegemonic conflicts (Laclau & Mouffe, 2020; Nonhoff, 2019). These orders that invoke contingency, equality, and participation are expected to be power-based. Consequently, specific relations of inclusion and exclusion accompany them. Structurally, the experience of inclusion is thus always linked to the experience of exclusion (Bender et al., 2023b). Even if ‘Verdeckung’ is not unique to democratic modern-day societies, it seems to play a central role there. When these societies have to legitimize themselves as orders of egalitarianism and multiplicity (Ranciere, 2002) despite inescapable inclusions and exclusions, ‘Verdeckung’ is added as a mechanism for dealing with the resulting tensions. Separate methodological considerations are necessary to understand ‘Verdeckungen’ as a component of Education. After all, the methods established in educational research predominantly aim at the orders' reconstruction itself. It means looking for the outcome of hegemonic clashes and the inclusions and exclusions they produce. In contrast, research on ‘Verdeckung’ in the diversity and inclusion context seems to focus primarily on the relationship between concrete orders of meaning and their promises of inclusion or the relationship between being and ought (Weber, 1988). With this view, it is possible to trace appearances of ‘Verdeckung’ in different contexts. Ultimately, this will be exemplified by an example of cultural education - an educational practice designed to be particularly diversity-sensitive (Kolleck et al., 2022; Keuchel, 2019).

Bender, S., Flügel-Martinsen, O. & Vogt, M. (2023a). Verdeckung. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Einschlüs-se und Ausschlüsse. transcript. Bender, S., Flügel-Martinsen, O. & Vogt, M. (2023b). Über die Verdeckung. Zur Analyse von Ein- und Aus-schlussverhältnissen unter Bedingungen gesellschaftlicher Kontingenz. Flügel-Martinsen, O. (2021). Kritik der Gegenwart - Politische Theorie als kritische Zeitdiagnose. transcript. Keuchel, S. (2019). Kulturelle Bildung und gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt – Kitt oder Korrektiv? KULTUREL-LE BILDUNG ONLINE. Kolleck, N., Büdel, M. & Nolting, J. (Eds.) (2022). Forschung zu kultureller Bildung in ländlichen Räumen. Me-thoden, Theorien und erste Befunde. Beltz Verlag. Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., Hintz, M., Vorwallner, G., & Passagen-Verlag. (2020). Hegemonie und radikale Demo-kratie: Zur Dekonstruktion des Marxismus. Beltz Verlag. Meseth, W. (2021). Inklusion und Normativität – Anmerkungen zu einigen Reflexionsproblemen erzie-hungswissenschaftlicher (Inklusions-)Forschung. In B. Fritzsche, A. Köpfer, M. Wagener-Willi, A. Böhmer, H. Nitschmann, C. Leitzmann & F. Weitkämper (Eds.), Inklusionsforschung zwischen Normativität und Em-pirie. Abgrenzungen und Brückenschläge (pp. 19–36). Barbara Budrich. Nonhoff, M. (2019). Hegemonie. In D. Comtesse, O. Flügel-Martinsen, F. Martinsen & M. Nonhoff (Eds.), Radikale Demokratietheorie. Ein Handbuch (pp. 542–552). Suhrkamp. Ranciere, J. (2002). Das Unvernehmen. Politik und Philosophie. (Neuauflage.). Suhrkamp. Weber, M. (1904/1988). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (7. ed.). Mohr Siebeck.

Special needs assessment procedures (SNAPs) determine whether a child can regularly be schooled or has to be supported and/or segregated (Sauer et al., 2018). This utterly important decision (cf. Pfahl & Powell, 2016) is made by experts from different fields, mostly from the pedagogical profession, special needs realm, medical area, as well as (in some SNAPs) the psychological domain (cf. Vogt & Neuhaus, 2023). As such, SNAPs can be read as manifestations regarding the definition, understanding, and subsequently value of inclusivity and diversity (Neuhaus & Vogt, 2022). As these procedures are organized and structured by the state, the specific realization of a SNAP is a direct comment on the value of diversity as some forms of diversity are considered acceptable while others require labeling, treatment/support, or supervision (cf. Kottmann et al., 2018). This study focuses on the historical development of SNAPs in different regions. By comparing specific realizations of SNAPs with later versions in the same geography but also by comparing cross-culturally, this study wants to serve two aims: Firstly, it will be attempted to identify national idiosyncrasies and to tie these to larger patterns. Secondly, this study will attempt to identify commonalities among the different kinds of SNAPs. It will be tried to identify a grammar of special needs assessment. This grammar will then be interrogated from a standpoint of 'Verdeckung' to identify mechanisms and workings of SNAPs which contribute to the 'Verdeckung' of incoherencies as well as internal contradictions. To serve these goals, this study works with SNAP forms from different localities, namely from Görlitz (GDR), Frankfurt a.M. (FRG), Canada/Ontario, as well as Milano (Italy). These documents cover the time from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. Further, additional documents, such as the archetypes of specific SNAPs (i.e. Magdeburger Verfahren, 1942, Germany), school administrational guidelines, scientific reports etc. The documents have been analyzed with qualitative methodology, mostly by document analysis (cf. Schmidt, 2017), qualitative content analysis (cf. Mayering, 1994), as well as critical historical as well as reconstructive/contextualizing (Vogt, 2015) approaches. As part of the overall results, this study could identify the mechanism of de- and recontextualization of knowledge as a key driver of interdisciplinary communication but also as a constitutive moment of (complexity) reduction, the latter could be read as an instance of 'Verdeckung' in which disciplinary borders, expert’s insecurity, and incoherencies in the child’s assessment are made invisible.

Kottmann, B., Miller, S. & Zimmer, M. (2018). Significances of diagnostics and assessments in inclusive edu-cation. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 11, 23–38. Mayring, P. (1994). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 14, 159–175. Neuhaus, T. & Vogt, M. (2022). Historical and International-Comparative Perspectives on Special Needs Assessment Procedures–Current Findings and Potentials for Future Research. Reading Inclusion Divergently, 19, 35–48). Emerald Publishing. Pfahl, L. & Powell, J. J.W. (2016). "Ich hoffe sehr, sehr stark, dass meine Kinder mal eine normale Schule be-suchen können". Pädagogische Klassifikationen und ihre Folgen für die (Selbst-) Positionierung von Schü-ler/innen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 62, 58–74. Sauer, L., Floth, A. & Vogt, M. (2018). Die Normierung des Primarschulkindes im Hilfsschulaufnahmeverfah-ren–Eine historisch-vergleichende Untersuchung von Schülerpersonalbögen aus der BRD und der DDR. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 11(1), 67–83. Schmidt, W. (2017). Dokumentenanalyse in der Organisationsforschung. In S. Liebig, W. Matiaske & S. Ro-senbohm (Eds.), Handbuch Empirische Organisationsforschung (pp. 443–466). Springer Reference Wirt-schaft. Vogt, M. & Neuhaus, T. (2023). Der Wandel sonderpädagogischer Wissensordnungen in Überprüfungsver-fahren – Ein Vergleich zwischen DDR und BRD (1959 – 1975). Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 69(2),186–199. Vogt, M. (2015). Professionswissen über Unterstufenschüler in der DDR: Untersuchung der Lehrerzeitschrift" Die Unterstufe" im Zeitraum 1954 bis 1964.Klinkhardt.

The normative pedagogical demand for equal participation formulated as a result of the implementation of the CRPD (2009) proves to be a significant challenge for physical education. Because physical education focuses on the body, physical-motor differences in performance and opportunities for participation become directly visible. Especially in competitive games, when a team’s success depends on the ability of all team members, there is a danger that higher-performing students make the different physical conditions of the students an issue (cf. Hovdal et al., 2021). In phases of P.E. in which the principle of competition dominates, the claim to equal participation and acceptance of all students is endangered. Different studies from Germany show the excluding character of P.E. (Braksiek, 2022). Furthermore, from the student's perspective, it is not enough to be part of a team; they need to feel that they are legitimate participants who contribute to the game (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). P.E. teachers can use various didactic-methodical measures to enable students with different (physical) conditions to participate in competitive activities on an equal footing (Tiemann, 2013). This paper argues that such measures represent efforts to unify the opposing claims of inclusion and competition, in which moments of ‘Verdeckung’ are not infrequently revealed (Kastrup & Fast, 2022). This paper asks whether and how P.E. teachers communicate their didactic decisions to students or leave them uncommented upon, thereby (unconsciously) creating ‘Verdeckung’. This question is examined using the communication model of Cachay et al. (2022) because it can demonstrate that events involving ‘Verdeckung’ can be located in the communication process between P.E. teachers and students and in the course of enabling equal participation. Communicative practices and events involving ‘Verdeckung’ are analyzed by combining video and audio recordings with interviews based on them Stimulated Recall (Messmer, 2015). By matching the problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 2000) with the P.E. teacher and the students, any events involving ‘Verdeckung’ can be identified, described, and analyzed. The first analysis results of recordings of inclusive physical education with students aged 12-15 years and the conducted interviews show that P.E. teachers use forms of ‘Verdeckung’ intentional-ly, e.g., to either mask performance weaknesses in students or to use ‘Verdeckung’ strategies to enable joint participation. It also shows that ‘Verdeckung’ can have (unintended) consequences. For example, it can increase stigmatization.

Braksiek, M., Meier, C. & Gröben, B. (2022). „Das ist doch nich‘ schwer!?“ Inklusion im Sportunterricht. In M. Braksiek, K. Golus, B. Gröben, M. Heinrich, P. Schildhauer, & L. Streblow (Eds.), Schulische Inklusion als Phänomen – Phänomene schulischer Inklusion (pp. 19–41). Springer VS. Cachay, K., Borggrefe, C. & Hofmann, A. (2022). Integration in und durch den organisierten Sport. Kommuni-kations- und netzwerktheoretische Überlegungen. Sport und Gesellschaft. Hovdal, D. O. G., Haugen, T., Larsen, I. B. & Johansen, B. T. (2021). Students’ experiences and learning of social inclusion in learn activities in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 27(4), 889–907. Kastrup, V. & Fast, N. (2022). Verdeckung – Eine Strategie zur Verwirklichung inklusiver Ansprüche im Sportun-terricht? In J. Schwier & M. Seyda (Eds.), Bewegung, Spiel und Sport im Kindesalter (pp. 169–179). transcript. Messmer, R. (2015). Stimulated Recall as a Focused Approach to Action and Thought Processes of Teachers. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1). Spencer-Cavaliere, N. & Watkinson, J. (2010). Inclusion understood from the perspectives of children with disability. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 27(4), 275–93. Tiemann, H. (2013). Inklusiver Sportunterricht. Ansätze und Modelle. Sportpädagogik, 37(6), 47–50. Witzel, A. (2000). The Problem-centered Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1(1).

Drawing on ethnographic research observations from Germany and the UK, this paper takes up the theoretical concept of 'Verdeckung' (or ‘cloaking’) to explore the way exclusionary practices get hidden in officially inclusive schools. While the implementation of an inclusive school system has undisputedly become a global norm (cf. Biermann & Powell, 2014), findings from both countries show that educational inequalities have not disappeared even in inclusive and diversity-oriented teaching (cf. Fritzsche, 2014). The findings irritate the 'loud' claims of inclusive and diversity-oriented approaches and point out the need to consider inclusion in relation to everyday schooling practices. Existing research suggests that marginalizing practices and asymmetric power relations continue to exist in ‘inclusive’ classroom settings (cf. Fritzsche, 2018; Raey, 2017; Rißler, 2015; Youdell, 2012). There has been a lack of research to date. Therefore, we offer a transnational perspective on this phenomenon and explore what this gap between official inclusion discourses and exclusionary classroom practice means for how schools might engage differently with these issues. Our findings are inspired by an emerging debate on the masking of potentially exclusionary effects in inclusive settings (e.g. Ludwig, 2022). Data from a secondary school in Germany focuses on a music lesson where teachers and students get to know each other. In the process, markers of origin that relate to both teacher and students are addressed by the students but their observations are systematically prevented by the teacher who does not want to discuss this. We compare this with data from a UK primary school which records a conversation between students about which countries they come from which is stopped by a teacher who insists there is no time for the discussion. We understand the teachers’ practices in our data as exclusionary in the sense that they foreclose and delegitimize students’ articulation and exploration of difference. Simultaneously, these exclusionary practices are masked by reference to the rules of the school. In other words, the social order in school seems to be more important than the recognition of diversity. We argue that student practices that should be celebrated according to the official inclusion and diversity policies of schools are in fact excluded and undermined. We also raise the question of whether official inclusion policies and practices can, in fact, make addressing issues of diversity and difference as they arise in classrooms, more difficult.

Biermann, J./Powell, J.J.W. (2014): Institutionelle Dimensionen inklusiver Schulbildung - Herausfor-derungen der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention für Deutschland, Island und Schweden im Ver-gleich. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 14 (7), 679-700. Rißler, G. (2015): (Un-)Ordnung und Umordnung – Theoretische und empirische Suchbewegungen zum Verhältnis von Differenz(en), Materialität(en) und Raum. In: Budde, J./Blasse, N./Bossen, A./Rißler, G. (eds.): Heterogenitätsforschung. Empirische und theoretische Perspektiven. Wein-heim: Beltz Juventa, 211-238. Fritzsche, B. (2014): Inklusion als Exklusion. Differenzproduktionen im Rahmen des schulischen Anerkennungsgeschehens. In: Tervooren, A./Engel, N./Göhlich, M./ Miethe, I./Reh, S. (eds.): Ethnographie und Differenz in pädagogischen Feldern. Internationale Entwicklungen erzie-hungswissenschaftlicher Forschung. Bielefeld: transcript, 329-345. Fritzsche, B. (2018): “Doing equality” als “doing inclusion”. Kulturvergleichende Rekonstruktionen schulischer Normen der Anerkennung. In: Behrmann, L./Eckert, F./ Gefken, A./Berger, P. A. (eds.): ‚Doing Inequality‘. Prozesse sozialer Ungleichheit im Blick qualitativer Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 61-82. Ludwig, L. (2022): „Genau, er ist Deko“ – De-Thematisierungs- und Maskierungspraktiken im Unter-richt eines inklusiven Gymnasiums. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 827-845. Reay, D. (2017): Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes. Bristol: Policy Press. Youdell, D. (2012): ‘Fabricating 'Pacific Islander': Pedagogies of Expropriation, Return and Resistance and Other Lessons from a 'Multicultural Day'’. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(2), 141–55.