Conference Agenda

Given their promising equalising effects, strengthening the link between the different settings and modalities of formal, non-formal and informal education has become the central goal of inequality-related education policy, research and professional practice (Hadjar et al., 2022). The corresponding efforts to address the complex vulnerabilities of children and young people show a broad spectrum: from the recognition of different ways of acquiring competences to the networking of different institutions and a stronger inclusion of out-of-school activities in formal education to a corresponding interplay of diverse teaching and learning modalities in complex learning ecologies (e.g. Russell et al., 2013). However, given the diversity of educational landscapes in Europe, a variety of concrete patterns in the interlinking of educational settings and learning activities is also evident, which have emerged at the intersections of national welfare/education systems and In particular (in)equity structures (West & Nikolai, 2013), institutional pathways and supranational/global forces (Hoppers, 2006, Roosma & Saar 2010). The variance of these policies and initiatives to combat inequalities precisely by means of diversity of education relates both to a) what is understood by formal, non-formal and informal education/learning, b) which patterns of relationships between these three (exemplary) types of education are sought (complementary, alternative, supportive, combating, transformative, etc.) and c) from which institutional structures and modes of separation, connecting and blurring of formal, non-formal and informal education these attempts gain their legitimacy and their actually realised or just hoped-for effectiveness (e.g. Schmachtel, 2015). Even if this discoursive differentiation of formal, non-formal and informal education is mainly found in governance-related perspectives, the aim of diversifying education also leads professionals everyday striving for more equity as well. Against this backdrop, the panel focus at the discursive yet idiosyncratic expert knowledge of professionals and other experts and stakeholders on actively combating educational inequalities through a ‚diversification of education/learning‘ in three different national education/welfare systems – Germany, Spain and Norway.

Each contribution will present a qualitative case study on pioneering educational practices in combating educational inequalities in their specific national, regional and/or local contexts, selected along the MILC approach of the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation project PIONEERED (Seiler et al., 2021), which inquiries into pioneering policies and practices in tackling educational inequalities across nine countries along an intersectional understanding of inequalities. The case studies provide a comprehensive approach to understanding how practices and policies of interlinking formal, non-formal, and informal education/learning in tackling inequalities are embedded in a dynamic context of change (Simons, 2009). By that, it allows for a balanced comparative analysis of the similarities and differences within and across the educational fields and national contexts. Each presentation will specifically address the following questions:

• How does each intervention capture the complexity of educational inequalities? How do practitioners relate inequalities and their respective interventions to the diversity of educational sectors, settings, modalities and activities?
• What patterns of linking and interweaving formal/non-formal/informal education are visible in practitioners' practice and how are these patterns linked to complex inequalities in education at the levels of access, treatment and impact?
• In which (sub)national political contexts, pathways and discourses are these patterns embedded? How are the common institutional contexts contested and changed by these pioneering practices?

The presented (sub)national case studies will be discussed comparatively with a view to the question of how this perspective on the link between formal/non-formal/informal education, can help to identify instruments to combat inequalities across Europe based on the knowledge of experts and professionals in the respective contexts. The discussant's commentary will lead to this comparative perspective.

The Spanish Second Chance Schools are alternative educational organisations to the formal system, managed by third sector entities. They are aimed at unemployed young people (aged 15-29) who have dropped out of compulsory education. Their offer is based on an innovative pedagogical model, which combines: flexible itineraries, personalised teaching, vocational guidance and training, work experience in collaboration with companies and attention to the educational and employment needs of vulnerable groups (Meo and Tarabini, 2020). These institutions distinguish themselves from other similar initiatives (especially within formal education) by their "non-compensatory" approach to the educational problems of vulnerable groups (Mills et al., 2017). In contrast to the disciplinary and content simplification approach, these institutions are committed to connecting with young people's interests and dignifying non-academic knowledge. Second Chance Schools seek to redefine the very concept of 'success' and pay special attention to the subjective dimensions of learning: recognition, sense of belonging to the institution and emotional attachment to the program (Tarabini, Jacovkis and Montes, 2021). One element that highlights the relevance of Second Chance Schools as a practice of interest is its prominent role in the fight against Early School Leaving (ESL). ESL was identified by experts and stakeholders as one of the main challenges of the Spanish education system, both because of its high prevalence (well above the European average) and because of its concentration among the most vulnerable students. The inflexibility of the formal curriculum and the lack of alternatives to the single, academic-centred pathway were pointed out on several occasions as one of the factors explaining the high ESL in Spain. In this sense, Second Chance Schools offer enormous potential to overcome the problem, as they are filling a gap that the formal system has been unwilling or unable to address -without losing the connections and guaranteeing permeability-. From this scenario, the main objective of this contribution is to explore the role of Second Chance Schools as a mechanism for educational reconnection, identifying both the 'good practices' that characterise their organisational-pedagogical model and the main limitations or barriers that must be overcome. Likewise, although this contribution focuses on the role of Second Chance Schools in the Spanish context, the comparative dimension with other European initiatives that highlight the need to articulate formal and non-formal education serves as a central element to better understand how to address the increasingly complex socio-educational inequalities.

Meo, A., & Tarabini, A. (2020). Teachers’ identities in second chance schools: A comparative analysis of Buenos Aires and Barcelona. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102963. Mills, M., te Riele, K., McGregor, G., & Baroutsis, A. (2017). Teaching in alternative and flexible education settings. Teaching Education, 28(1), 8-11. Tarabini, A., Jacovkis, J. y Montes, A. (2021). El model d’escoles de noves oportunitats: una peça clau del sistema educatiu per a garantir l’èxit escolar. Red española de escuelas de segunda oportunidad

Along with the other Scandinavian countries, the Norwegian education system is widely recognized as one that promotes educational equality and equity. Secured by the social-democratic welfare system, efforts to achieve education for all have a longstanding tradition within educational policy and practice (e.g. Volckmar, 2016). The goal of maintaining and even strengthening educational equity is supported by numerous educational policy measures, such as a low-stratification structure of the education system, the gradual expansion of comprehensive schools to thirteen years, and the introduction of the principle "adapted education". The latter emphasizes that children have the right to an education adapted to their needs, abilities and requirements. This means that the educational institutions are obliged to establish appropriate practices that address the growing diversity of the student body by recognizing and including non-formal and informal educational settings (NOU 2009: 18). With these developments, Norway is in line with the perspective that it is not enough to legally secure access to educational institutions to ensure equality in education, but that specific resources and measures within the education system are needed. In this context research points to the insensitivity of educational institutions regarding the wider socio-cultural embedding of educational practices also including non-formal and informal education (e.g. Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Grundmann et al., 2003). This often leads to a gap between the intended egalitarian educational policy and the reality of educational practice. Based on stakeholders’ (such as government officials, teachers' union experts, education practitioners) perspectives from Norway which explicitly indicate that an egalitarian educational process for everyone requires a balanced relationship between the formal, non-formal and informal educational arenas (Jobst et al., 2022) the presentation examines two different approaches on how to interlink formal, non-formal or informal educational settings within the Norwegian egalitarian education system. The declared goal of the two practice cases is to reduce educational inequality and thus motivate at-risk young people to complete school. Both cases differ in their character – while one practice is part of a top-down program the other practice can be described as bottom-up. Against this background, we compare both cases in terms of their mediation between formal, non-formal and informal educational settings. Further, we show the extent to which non-formal educational practices can influence formal educational contexts and how this can lead in stakeholders’ perspectives to equal participation in education.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage. Grundmann, M., Groh-Samberg, O., Bittlingmayer, U. & Bauer, U. (2003): Milieuspezifische Bildungsstrategien in Familie und Gleichaltrigengruppe. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 6, 1, S. 25-45. NOU 2009: 10. (2009). Fordelingsutvalget. Finansdepartementet. Jobst, S., Jensen, J, Skrobanek, J. & Strand, D. (2022). Working paper: Existing programme- and non-programme-related pioneering practices tackling/reducing educational inequalities from a comparative perspective. edited by PIONEERED. Bergen. Volckmar, N. (2016). Utdanningshistorie: grunnskolen som samfunnsintegrerende institusjon. Gyldendal akademisk.

Given the highly stratified and segregated German education system and its complex federal governance the last two decades has been characterised by strong forces to networking the diverse sectors, settings and modalities of formal, informal and non-formal education socio-spatially into so-called "local education landscapes" (Olk, 2017). Even if the inequality-reducing effects have not yet proven (Duveneck, 2023), the will to counter the high correlation between educational success and social origin in Germany by systemic and social space related networked offers is unbroken (Coelen et al., 2022). Strengthening cooperation between schools and child and youth welfare services plays a key role here, which has developed into particularly complex cooperative relationships in elementary and primary education. Not only that the services of early childhood education and care (ECEC), which are administratively assigned to child and youth welfare, work more closely with primary schools in a transition-related perspective. The relatively newly developed services of school social work, inclusive school support and all-day care at schools are also predominantly provided by services of non-formal education. Against this background, the case study presented here highlights a local initiative in which an ECEC centre and a primary school in a highly stressed urban location have joined forces to create educational provision in a most inclusive and inequality-sensitive way. The presentation highlights the complex linkage of actors, concepts and practices of formal, informal and non-formal education/learning resulting from this alliance, which goes beyond the usual cross-sectoral cooperation based on trust and common goal formulation (Kolleck et al., 2020). Rather, what can be observed in this ‘education house’ is a complex "boundary work" (Langley et al., 2019) between the diverse organisational units of this alliance, which has enabled them to use the three policy megatrends after the German "PISA shock" - massive expansion of early education and all-day schooling, as well as the gradual dismantling of the special school system - to develop a highly comprehensive 'neighbourhood hub' (Clark et al., 2022) which intersects informal, nonformal and formal education in a localized integration of ECEC, school and social services and area based relations as well. In particular, the presentation will discuss how this cross-sectoral alliance makes it possible to combine a place-based approach with the network-based approach driven by education/social policy in a way that could help to further develop the understanding of "locality" in "local education landscapes" with a view to inequality-sensitive education in early years.

Clark, K., Cahill, R. & Ansell, D. (2022), Early Childhood Development and the Role of Neighbourhood Hubs for Supporting Children’s Development and Wellbeing in Disadvantaged Communities: A Review of the Literature Life Course Centre Working Paper No. 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4118008 Coelen, T., Hemmerich, S, Jestädt, H., Klepp, S., Million, A., Zinke, C. (2022). Bildungslandschaften in Campus-Form aus schulischer Perspektive. Die deutsche Schule 114 (1): 46-60. doi:10.25656/01:24322 Kolleck, N.; Rieck, A.; Yemini, M. (2020). Goals aligned: Predictors of common goal identification in educational cross-sectoral collaboration initiatives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2020. Volume 48 (Issue 5). S. 916-934 DOI: 10.1177/1741143219846906 Olk, T. (2017). Educational Landscapes and the Reduction of Socio-spatial Educational Inequality in the City. In Million, A., Heinrich, A., Coelen, T. (eds) Education, Space and Urban Planning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38999-8_22 Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E., & Walter, L. (2019). Boundary Work among Groups, Occupations, and Organizations: From Cartography to Process. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 704–736.