Conference Agenda

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.