Conference Agenda

This workshop is aimed at all members of the academy so they may gain confidence in developing more accessible practices in carrying out and disseminating research.

Over the past few years, academia has become more consciously aware of the need for fairer approaches to delivering research and conferences (e.g. Irish, 2020; Walters, 2019; Brown et al., 2018) and its own role in fostering equality, diversity, and inclusion, with EDI strategies and initiatives springing up continually. However, academics, researchers, as well as conference and events organisers often feel overwhelmed when it comes to implementing such strategies (Brown, 2021) and putting into practice activist demands.

This hands-on, interactive workshop offers delegates the opportunity to practically engage with ways and measures to make their own research practices more inclusive and accessible for all.

Considering all phases of the research, and drawing on our own experiences in and with research, we will examine what it means to foster Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in data collection, analysis and dissemination. Delegates will experiment with alternative forms of data collection and analysis, whilst also considering their own circumstances as researchers needing to guarantee their own safety and wellbeing. When exploring accessible research dissemination, delegates will have the opportunity to put their learning into practice immediately during the ECER Nicosia conference by considering good microphone etiquette, and/or colour schemes for slides, for example.

In line with the pedagogical principles of social constructivism the course is delivered as a mixture of interactive group tasks, discussions and mini-lectures to enable active and experiential learning.

The Preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities underlines the importance of equal access to education for all. To this end, according to Articles 8b and 24, states should encourage respect for the rights of children with disabilities, because of their right to equal opportunities in education without discrimination (United Nations, 2008). The education systems in Europe then should be inclusive at all levels and all the time. This means that children with learning difficulties should not be excluded because of having difficulties to learn in the same way or at the same pace as children without learning difficulties (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). In contrast, they should be supported to learn on an equal basis together with their peers. To this end, there should be provision of reasonable accommodation and individualized support, which should be ensured by the state (Damianidou & Phtiaka, 2018). The promotion of inclusive education is also one of the priority areas set up by the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which is supported by the Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED) (European Commission, 2020).
However, despite the growing interest of European countries regarding the promotion of inclusive education as the hope for a better future in the era of uncertainty, the implementation of international conventions and national legislation at the school level does not always guarantee inclusion (Symeonidou & Mavrou, 2020). For example, the support classes that function in many European schools (e.g. in Greece and Cyprus) and the assessment process with which children are classified as students needing special provision in such classes may actually reproduce discrimination and raise barriers to inclusion (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). According to Bourdieu (1984), social action takes place in a field, which represents the dominating system of power relations. Social positions in the field are not randomly allocated; in contrast their availability depends on constraints and rules imposed by the most powerful. To this end, the displacement of students with learning difficulties, as not fitting the prevalent ‘normality’ may be easily achieved through the misinterpretations, delays and malpractices that are often observed in the function of support classes (Lindner & Schwab, 2020).
In Greece, for example, the apparent aim of support classes is to promote inclusion by offering personalized support to students that deviate from the norm, such as children with learning difficulties (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). Since, though, support classes actually represent the two-tier system, by taking students out of their original class, sometimes for the whole day, significant challenges and barriers remain, which may result to the children’s exclusion from social networks of peers and participation in the same learning opportunities as children without learning difficulties (Pappas, Papoutsi & Drigas, 2018). Based on the above, the aim of this study was to explore the system of assessment of children with learning difficulties, the implementation of the support class and the consequences on equal learning opportunities and inclusion of children with learning difficulties. Moreover, the study aimed to formulate recommendations to overcome the barriers to inclusion, offering a useful guide for practitioners and parents.
The main research questions were the following: a) What is the apparent and the underlying purposes of the assessment process regarding children with learning difficulties? b) What is the impact of support classes on learning and inclusion of children with learning difficulties? c) How the displacement of children with learning difficulties that are enrolled in support classes may be prevented?

As has already been discussed in various publications (e.g., Gasterstädt, 2021, Artiles & Dyson 2005) and in the context of panels at ECER 2023 (e.g., 04 SES 02 D), the fuzzy nature of terms sometimes is an obstacle to the discourse about inclusive education as well as their realisation. On the one hand, the adaptation of inclusion-related concepts, as those set out in international conventions, across different levels of national/ regional education systems leads to (re)contextualisations such as the creation of specific terms in school practice. On the other hand, we experience the same phenomenon in scientific contexts in the form of separate strands of development linked to language-specific terms.

With the so-called meta-projects, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany has introduced a so far internationally little-known organisation type between project sponsors and funded third-party projects, which is intended to promote the networking of the projects assigned to them in a non-hierarchical manner as well as promoting the utilisation of their results. One of the aims of the ‘Meta-project inclusive education’ (MInkBi), based at Goethe University Frankfurt from 2017-2026, is to analyse the state of research in the academic discourse on an international level in order to situate the results of the 66 funded projects within it. In the form of a systematic review, the meta-project is working on relating the concept of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics), which is specific to the German-speaking community, to the English-speaking dominating debates internationally. By trying to (re)connect terminology and concepts behind it we aim to open up research efforts from all over Germany to the global community. The difficulty here is that these terms cannot simply be translated literally into English, nor can they be understood detached from their specific local and language-bound context.

In the DACH countries of the 1960s, originally medical diagnostic procedures were linked to learning processes, and the term "pädagogische Diagnostik” (pedagogical diagnostics) was coined by Ingenkamp (Ingenkamp & Lissmann, 2008). Over the course of time, a large number of different categorisations and subcategories emerged, for example, the distinction between educational diagnostics in the narrow vs. broad sense, assignment, learning process, status, and support diagnostics (Beck 2023). The currently evolving review is an attempt to place the phenomenon of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics) in an international context and to identify what is known about comparable issues. To this end, an endeavour is made to answer the following questions:

• What empirical research results and conceptual or theoretical approaches are available internationally as an equivalent to the subject of ‘support-related diagnostics’ in the German-speaking discourse?
• How are comparable approaches researched and defined internationally?

It can be assumed that similar challenges arise anywhere when it comes to developing more inclusive education systems and practices as well as when conducting research on this topic, which is why the discourse about international parallels and differences promises valuable synergies. With this paper, we would like to provide an insight into the method and conceptual design of the systematic review. We hope that our contribution will lead to an exchange on potentials and limitations of the approach presented and that we will receive valuable feedback by opening up the discussion within network four.

In Austria, children with disabilities are assigned with the label “special educational needs (SEN)” in order to provide appropriate educational support for them. The guidelines for the organization and implementation of SEN in Austria are summarized in Circular No. 7/2019 of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBF [Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung]) and are valid nationwide. Students should be assigned with SEN if they are unable to follow lessons without special educational support due to a disability. The application for the assignment of SEN is usually submitted by the parents/guardians. During the SEN assessment process the parents/guardians have several rights. Among others they have the right to select the school for their child which means they should be able to choose between a general and a special school (BMBWF, 2019). Although this right exists, the decision between different schools often is very difficult for parents/guardians. On the one hand, families usually prefer a general school for their child. But they often have to fight for it (Hausmanns & Wingerter, 2013; Lalvani & Hale, 2015; Pinetz, 2019).

Many families opt for a special school because they are better adapted and offer more flexibility and more possibilities for their child (Kalcher & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2021; Kobelt Neuhaus, 2017). Some families have no other choice (Thoms, 2023). However, rather privileged parents/guardians with academic qualifications and a higher-class affiliation (Lalvani & Hale, 2015; Sasse, 2004) or parents/guardians who are more assertive (Klicpera, 2005) can be credited with getting through this "fight" (Lalvani & Hale, 2015). This results in significant disadvantages for families with social disadvantages and/or a migration background. In addition, existing language barriers makes it difficult to obtain the necessary information. However, this is essential to be able to assert the rights of parents/guardians and children (Pinetz, 2019).

In order to support all parents/guardians in their decision, adequate counseling is required (Kalcher & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2021; Klicpera, 2005, 2007). However, Kalcher and Wohlhart (2021) found that the majority of respondents had no or only limited professional counseling. Furthermore, the decision for a particular school was often not based on a choice from several options (Gasteiger-Klicpera, Klicpera, Gebhardt & Schwab, 2013; Klicpera, 2005, 2007; Pinetz, 2019; Thoms, 2023). The advice was often focused on the existing resources (Hausmanns & Wingerter, 2013) or interests of the counseling persons (Klicpera, 2005). Although this problem is well known and the legal regulations prescribe the obligation to offer counselling for parents/guadians, this still is not sufficiently implemented. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the counselling processes and align it more closely to the needs of the parents/guardians.

The aim of this study was to examine the counselling and support of parents/guardians during the SEN assessment process from different perspectives, that of the parents/guardians, teachers, head teachers and diversity managers. The study aimed to identify challenges and critical aspects and to discover opportunities for improvement and consequences for further development of this process of accompanying the parents during this difficult decision process.

The following research question should be answered:

• How are parents/guardians informed and supported from the different involved groups during the SEN assesment process?

The steps in the process consist of (1) justification and application, i.e. informing the parents/guardians about the importance of the SEN, explaining why SEN is necessary and explaining what this means for the child's future career, (2) choosing the right school, deciding on curriculum allocation and support measures and (3) decision and communication about the outcome of the SEN assessment process.

Ethnic or ethnicity-based discrimination is a differential treatment based on ethnicity that disadvantages an ethnic group, thus negatively influencing life experiences and chances of its members (Gillborn, 2003). It appears in all spheres of life, including education, where school staff or peers can be perpetrators of discrimination. In that case ethnic discrimination encompasses intentional or unintentional behavior such as physical altercations (e.g., pushing or stealing from), verbal harassment (e.g., racial/ethnic jokes and making fun of), avoidance or isolation, threats and intimidation, and lack of respect for other cultures (e.g., not attempting to pronounce a name correctly) (Kiang & Kaplan, 1994; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Salamé, 2004; Wing, 2007). Ethnic discrimination can also be institutional, when school policies can actively or passively set ground for interethnic conflicts and unfavorable position of certain groups (e.g. absence of ethnic minority groups from school curriculum or colorblind attitudes or administrations) (Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Salamé, 2004). Certain characteristics of school (e.g., ethnic composition of the student population) can also be associated with higher prevalence of ethnic discrimination and conflicts (Graham, 2018). Henze and associates (2002) offered the three-tier model of ethnic conflicts – The Iceberg Model of Racial or Ethnic Conflict (IMREC). According to IMREC, slurs or physical violence based on ethnicity lay at the top of the iceberg given that they are the most easily detectable forms of conflict. The second tier involves less overt forms of conflicts, such as group avoidance, group exclusion, and unequal treatment across groups. Finally, the foundation of the model encompasses the underlying factors contributing to racial or ethnic conflicts, such as segregation, institutionalized and individual racism, intentional or unintentional transmission of harmful beliefs across generations and inequality in distribution of resources.

The National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. showed that ethnic discrimination and conflicts appear often - for example, 21.5% of students in U.S. public schools reported being the victim of bullying, with ethnicity/race being the most frequent cause of the conflict. The United States Department of Justice further indicated that as much as 64% of school-based hate crimes are motivated by race or ethnicity. Studies conducted in Europe show that between 15 and 25% of students are exposed to bullying (Veenstra et al., 2005). Research in Serbia showed that about two thirds of students experienced some form of school violence, while repeated bullying was reported by 5.1% of primary school students (Popadić & Plut, 2007). There is no data about prevalence of ethnic discrimination, but studies showed that Roma students are at higher risk of being discriminated against by both peers and school staff (Simić & Vranješević, 2022).

Experience of ethnic discrimination in school has a negative impact on both academic and socioemotional outcomes, such as adolescents’ sense of school belonging, self-esteem, depressive symptoms and academic achievement (Benner et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2003). Interethnic conflicts in schools can also negatively affect overall school climate, creating an unsafe environment and legitimizing violence across groups (Kiang & Kaplan, 1994; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Salamé, 2004). They can even destabilize entire communities which already have a history of interethnic tensions. Therefore, it is extremely important, especially in current times of interethnic conflicts escalating worldwide, to explore how youth interpret ethnic discrimination and conflicts and what outcomes they can imagine. This research focused on the ways secondary school students from Serbia interpreted the fictionalized scenarios about ethnic discrimination and bullying perpetrated by peers in schools and consequently what outcomes to this situation they envisaged.

This paper traces the ways in which representations of race and racism have changed or remained the same in English commercial history textbooks from 1991 to the present day. In particular, the paper focuses on how colonised peoples are represented in 20^th century history, and the tensions inherent in textbooks’ efforts to ‘include’ colonised peoples in the British historical canon (or ‘canonise’ them).

Research in the UK on race and history education tends to focus on curriculum policy (Haydn 2012; Faas 2011), the experiences or agency of teachers and/or students (Bracey 2016; Doharty 2019; Woolley 2019; Henry 2020; Huber & Kitson, 2020; Smith 2017, 2020; Hart 2021), or on teachers’ curriculum decision-making (Harris & Reynolds 2018; Harris 2021), leaving educational materials such as textbooks underexamined. When textbooks are the object of research, the approach taken is descriptive (Grindel 2013). Descriptive studies are less likely to consider the overarching ethico-political consequences of race-based representations and thus are limited in their analysis. Although there is a tradition of more critical research into processes of racialization in education (materials and practice) coming from the US (Epstein 2000; Mattias 2013; Chandler & McKnight 2009; Brown & Brown 2010; Brown & Au 2014), Canada (Montgomery 2006; Stanton 2014), Ireland (Bryan 2012), the Netherlands (Weiner 2014, 2016; Sijpenhof 2020), Portugal (Araujo & Maeso 2012), South Africa (Teeger 2015; Wilmot & Naido 2011; Subreenduth 2013), Israel (Nasser & Nasser 2008; Sheps 2019) and Hong Kong (Lin & Jackson 2019), it is considerably less prominent in research on England and its statutory history education.

It is well established that education, and history education in particular, is a core site for maintaining (and challenging) the status-quo (Gramsci 1971; Au & Apple 2009). In the UK, education reproduces and reinforces norms of whiteness and racial superiority (Bhopal 2018). The production of racial hierarchies (racialization) is an enduring modern process, but one that is iterative, fluid and slippery, becoming ever more entrenched, “submerged and hidden” with each iteration (Ladson-Billings 2009: 18). Today, we can understand racialization in terms of ‘postracial’ logics of racelessness, colour evasiveness, individualism, legal regimes of equality, and racial denial (Goldberg 2009, 2015; Lentin & Titley 2011) and, increasingly, the “post-postracial” resurgence of racial science (Lentin 2020: 25), both of which work to maintain and extend oppressive racial structures and hierarchies while shielding them from view.

Different socialization in family and school in multicultural societies and the challenges of interactions between cultures have drawn the social researchers’ attention to the need for more empirical research based on re-conceptualization and operationalization of dual-cultural adaptation (Berry, 1974; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013, Safa, Umaña & Taylor, 2021). The earlier assumption of biculturalism leading to marginalization by being trapped between the two cultures has been refuted by numerous studies revealing that dual-cultural orientation (heritage and host) contributes to a greater individual's adjustment (LaFromboise & Gerton, 1993; Berry, 2005; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Safa, Umaña & Taylor, 2021; Stogianni et al., 2021). Namely, the individual internalized system of values, beliefs, competences and knowledge constructed from the two cultures promote to access, integrate, and switch between cultural frames of reference across multiple domains. Research highlights the significance of enhancing awareness of bicultural competences for psychosocial adjustment and resilience. To change the cognitive-behavioral attitude of belonging to an undervalued minority culture, it is necessary to mobilize community cultural wealth, networking, and navigational capital from the part of the individual (Yosso, 2005, Safa, Umaña & Taylor, 2021). However, that certainly places a significant task on institutions to build a more bicultural learning environment of migrant or minority ethnic learners. A bicultural approach and intervention would be particularly relevant in the education of Roma children and young people, where the rejection of the heritage (or ethnic minority) culture and its replacement by the dominant culture (acculturation or assimilation) seems to be the only strategy proved by the majority. Unlike other nations the Roma, although not homogeneous, are a 'caste-like', 'forced minority' (Ogbu and Simons, 1998; Moldenhawer, 2014) across Europe. Several Roma Strategies implemented at both EU and national levels in recent decades address the structural social inequalities, stigmatizations and discrimination they face with focusing on Roma children's rights and equal access to education, support in academic achievement, and prevention of early school leaving. However, annual surveys by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights find that Member States' efforts result in limited and uneven progress in employment, education, health care and housing for Roma (European Union FRA, 2023). Surveys even confirm that inclusion-oriented education policies resulted an average of 8% more pupils in segregated institutions (European Union FRA, 2023:39). In Hungary, the proportion of Roma pupils successfully completing primary school has increased in recent decades, but one in two Roma young people drop out of secondary school (Kertesi and Kézdi 2016). Although, international research provide a robust evidence for the positive correlation between the existence and awareness of bicultural competences and learning outcomes in case of different dual-cultures, I have not found any literature or research on Roma biculturalism in my preliminary research. Most research focuses on catching-up (assimilation), deprivation, difficulties of integration, Roma culture is rarely given equal value. My research aims to expand the scope of the bicultural approach for the Roma youth by exploring the role of the Gandhi High School in Pécs in positively reinforcing Roma cultural and minority identity and raising awareness of biculturalism. The high school started immediately after the political transition in Hungary in the early 1990s when the recognition of the Roma as an ethnic minority (joining to the other twelve national minorities) in the Minority Act (Act LXXVII/1993) ensured the cultural right to launch the school as an innovative initiative. At the level of educational policy, the new Education Act (Act LXXIX/1993), which guaranteed educational pluralism, cultural identity and freedom of education, gave the chance to an inclusive teachers’ community to organize a bicultural learning environment with a completely new approach.

Context:

Following the international inclusion movement, co-teaching between special and general educators has appeared as one approach to the education of students with and without disabilities in the general education classroom (Strogilos et al., 2017). Co-teaching consists of general and special educators partnering to plan, deliver, and assess instruction in a general education class where, together, they teach students with and without disabilities (Friend et al., 2010). Research on co-teaching has extensively grown in the last decades, due to the increasing number of schools which are educating students with disabilities in co-taught classrooms.

Research on co-teaching has focused on its process and impact and especially the use of co-teaching models by the two educators. Seminal studies on co-teaching noted that during co-teaching both educators should be responsible for ‘instructional planning and delivery, assessment of student achievement, and classroom management’ (Nevin at al., 2008, p. 284), and highlighted that educators’ collaboration is paramount in responding to students’ needs (Thousand et al., 2006). Cook and Friend (1995) proposed a number of co-teaching models that co-teachers can select to group their students and to deliver instruction: one teacher leading while the other assists or observes (one-teach, one-assist/ observe/ circulate); both educators share the planning and delivering of instruction by each leading instruction (team teaching), the two teachers dividing students in half (parallel or alternative teaching); and dividing students in stations (station teaching).

Systematic reviews on co-teaching:

The last 20 years a number of reviews have been published mainly to describe teachers’ views on co-teaching (Iacono et al., 2021; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2020; Scruggs et al., 2007; Solis et al., 2012; Strogilos et al., 2023; Van Garderen et al., 2012) or their students’ academic outcomes (King-Sears et al., 2021; Stefanidis et al., 2023). Only one review describes students’ perception on co-teaching (Wagner et al., 2023), which focuses on the identification of contextual variables surrounding co-teaching and some of its benefits and challenges. In some countries (e.g., England; DfE, 2015), the law requires the involvement of students with disabilities in decisions pertaining their education to empower a historically silenced group. Although the concept of ‘student voice’ has received increased attention, their participation in research studies depends on adult researchers’ perspectives on students’ ability to exercise influence upon their social world (Christensen & Prout, 2005). Students with and without disabilities who are educated in co-taught classes can provide valuable feedback about these experiences, which can be useful for not only researchers but for co-teachers and other school personnel striving to set up effective co-taught classes (e.g., Embury & Kroeger, 2012). Indeed, as more researchers establish lines of research that include students with and without disabilities in their studies (e.g., Leafstedt et al., 2007; Ronn-Lijenfeldt et al., 2023), students are important contributors about what does and does not promote their learning when co-taught.

A systematic review on students’ views on co-teaching to synthesise all the different themes that have appeared in research studies is currently missing. The main aim of the present systematic review is to describe students’ views about a plethora of features that contribute towards students’ academic and social success in co-taught classrooms and to highlight valuable implications for policy, practice and research to improve co-teaching. The review is guided by the following research questions: What are the views of students with and without disabilities about co-teaching? What improvements can be made on co-teaching based on students’ feedback?

This presentation builds on the findings of a critical systematic review that aimed to explore understandings and applications of inclusive pedagogies in the secondary school. We argue that inclusive pedagogies are complex and multifaceted and are also often conflated with other pedagogic approaches and discourses (for example, ‘differentiated learning’ and ‘student voice’), without a clear indication of what makes a particular pedagogy ‘inclusive’.

The fragmentation of inclusion is particularly evident in the different ways it is translated into pedagogic applications and decisions. Inclusive pedagogies are often conceptualised as both a set of strategies that aim to ensure access to learning for all students and as value principles that reflect particular views on inclusion; this is why they tend to be approached in diverse ways (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Lewis & Norwich, 2004). We use ‘pedagogies’ rather than ‘pedagogy’ in this presentation to acknowledge this complexity.

The inherent contradiction of many influential approaches to inclusive pedagogies (with one example being Florian & Spratt, 2013) lies in the desire to respond to individual learner differences while avoiding treating students differently; it is difficult to imagine how both can be achieved at the same time. The basis of this assumption is an association between the recognition of difference and stigmatisation or isolation. This echoes the so-called dilemma of difference perspective on inclusive teaching in that recognising student difference might lead to stigmatisation; however, failing to recognise difference could lead to loss of opportunities and restrictions to participation. This dilemma involves the clashing of values that differentiation and inclusion are seemingly based on—especially if inclusion is seen to be about emphasising commonality and downplaying difference (Norwich, 2013).

Another tension associated with inclusive pedagogies is with regards to the role of student voice in inclusion. Student voice offers unique opportunities for education, but it is also a contested matter and can be reduced to tokenism, the side-effect of a neoliberal drive for increased emphasis on consumer choice (Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Such arguments are also present in debates around educational ‘buzzwords’ such as student-centred learning (SCL). For example, the notion of ‘power-sharing’ between teacher and student has been shown to be the least supported and/or practical aspect of SCL (Bremner, 2021a, 2021b), with many constraints to implementation (Sakata et al., 2022).

These tensions and challenges, however, are not always acknowledged in the literature. Finkelstein et al. (2021), for example, discuss inclusive pedagogies as a set of practices organised across five themes: collaboration and teamwork, determining progress, instructional support, organisational practices, and social, emotional and behavioural support. The assumption is that ‘an inclusive teacher should essentially be competent in [these] five areas’ (p. 755). These five themes were also used by Lindner and Schwab (2020) in their systematic literature review that explored differentiation and individualisation in inclusive teaching.

In this presentation, we are particularly interested in secondary school as the focus on particular curricular areas and subjects, additional pressures for teachers and students derived from assessment and exams, and fewer opportunities for collaboration between teachers as a result of the compartmentalisation of the curriculum can make the implementation of inclusive pedagogies more challenging than at primary level (Hargreaves, 2005; Schwab et al., 2022).

This presentation, therefore, explores the following research questions:

• How are inclusive pedagogies in the context of the secondary school conceptualised in the research literature?
• With what other approaches do they overlap and what is the significance of this?

This review examines the landscape of gifted and talented education (GTE) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by exploring theoretical frameworks, models, assessment tools, and teacher professional development initiatives. Studies published within the last 15 years (2008-2023) addressing various educational systems, including those of Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore, were analyzed. This review highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to GTE in the UAE, including a robust theoretical model, inclusive policies, effective assessment methods, and ongoing stakeholder collaborations. Addressing the identified challenges and implementing effective strategies can help gifted and talented learners in the UAE achieve their full potential and meaningfully contribute to society.

Gifted and Talented Education (GTE) continues to face complex theoretical and practical challenges in the context of international inclusive education policy. These challenges are related to teacher preparation to support gifted learners, the adoption of assessment tools, and contemporary models to identify and support gifted and talented learners in the K-12 system. GTE is related to the education of students who excel in one or more of the following areas: However, scholars in this field have not agreed on a common definition (Al Ghawi, 2017; Elhoweris et al., 2022; Garces-Bacsal et al., 2023; Ismail et al., 2022). For instance, the Ministry of Education of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) defines gifted and talented learners as those who express “outstanding ability, or a great deal of willingness in one or more areas of intelligence, creativity, or academic achievement or special talents and abilities such as oratory, poetry, drawing, handicrafts, sports, drama, or leadership capacity” (UAE Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 20). Particularly in the UAE, students with special education needs were educated in separate schools and centers under the segregation model until the enactment of federal law no. 29 in 2006 (Gaad, 2010). The 2006 law emphasized the right to educate all learners, including those who were gifted. However, in 2009, the 2006 law was amended, reflecting a new philosophical perspective toward educating all learners together in the mainstream classroom (Ministry of Social Affairs, 2006, 2009). This amendment was followed by various policies and initiatives across the UAE, such as the development of gifted and talented students’ skills in 2008 by the Ministry of Education and the School for All initiative in 2010, along with various ministerial resolutions implemented for the same purpose.

Our project consists of two phases. In the first phase, we will conduct a comprehensive literature review to understand the current state of gifted and talented education in the UAE. This will involve reviewing relevant research studies and analyzing documents such as policies and models. The second phase involves conducting interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders, including decision-makers, parents, teachers, and principals who work with gifted and talented students. This proposal specifically focuses on the first phase for conducting a comprehensive literature review. The aim of this study is to thoroughly examine the existing research and literature on GTE in the UAE and globally. By conducting a detailed literature review, we seek to gain a deep understanding of the current state of GTE and identify key trends, gaps, and best practices.

To achieve the objective of this study, we have chosen a semi-systematic literature review methodology, as proposed by Snyder (2019). This approach allows us to examine the existing body of research on Gifted and Talented Education both in the UAE and globally. By doing so, we aim to develop an advanced model for GTE specifically tailored for the UAE context.

In the last decade, there has been a significant focus on the platformisation of education, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic led educational institutions across the globe to utilise a variety of platform-based tools to enable remote learning. The use of virtual learning and other platforms has become a crucial aspect of contemporary education; recognising that digital access is no longer a luxury but a necessity if a student is to have equal opportunity to high-quality education, presents both new opportunities and challenges for schools,

The use of digital platforms, defined as ‘programmable digital architecture designed to organise interactions between users’ (Van Dijck & Poell, 2018, p. 4), has become central to supporting administrative, pedagogical, and communicative functions of schools worldwide (Williamson, 2017). Pandemic-related school closures played a critical role in facilitating remote education (Parkin et al., 2020) and enabling teacher-student and teacher-parent interactions (Cumbo et al., 2021). This led to increased educational inequalities, since pupils from better-off families not only had better digital access but their parents reported feeling more able to support them (Andrew et al., 2020). This highlights that the spectrum of digital inclusion (or exclusion) is neither binary nor static and different levels of inequalities are commonly recognised relating to differentiating degrees of digital access, literacy, and capacity to translate internet access into positive offline outcomes (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015).

Despite the increased use of digital platforms, research that critically explores how they are reshaping school practices and the implications this has for students and families is still surprisingly limited (Pluim & Gard, 2018; Williamson, 2016). This research aims to address the gap by adopting a critical platform gaze (Decuypere et al., 2021), an analytical stance that approaches platforms not as neutral ‘digital tools’ but as connective artefacts informed by the active interactions between individuals and the technology. It explores the opportunities as well as the challenges associated with school platformisation in recognition of UNICEF’s (2021) call for digital inclusion to be seen as the cornerstone to ensuring social justice and equitable life chances for every child. Thus, the research questions are:

1. How have digital platforms become a primary ‘space’ for schools’ post-pandemic operations?

1. What are the short and long-term opportunities and challenges platformisation can create for educators, students and parents/carers.

1. What does digital exclusion look like and what can schools do to address it?

This project provides relevant insights into the complexity of school platformisation and contributes to the theoretical development of critical platforms studies as a research field. Understanding the impact of the recent platformisation of schools on post-pandemic practices and the implications this can have in exacerbating digital inequalities is crucial to informing policy aimed at supporting schools and families. It provides an initial step towards creating a more digitally equitable society, which exemplifies UNESCO’s (2017) mandate that every learner matters and matters equally.

Primary school classrooms in Austrian – as across European and worldwide are characterized by a diverse student body (European Education and Culture Executive Agency (European Commission), 2023; Oberwimmer et al., 2021). As part of various diversity aspects to be taken into consideration in a classroom (Ainscow et al., 2010), studies show that pupils differ regarding their reading skills (Seifert et al., 2022). At the end of primary school 20% the of pupils in Austria leave the fourth grade as low-achieving readers (Schmich et al., 2023). Yet, reading competence is crucial, because it is the basis for acquiring knowledge and hence participation in society (Maitz et al., 2018).

On one hand, teachers have to deal with increasing diversity (Humphrey et al., 2006) and on the other hand, they have to teach fundamental reading skills, which are demanded by the national curriculum (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, 2023). Offering inclusive lessons, based on differentiation is one possible way of meeting this challenge. In differentiated approaches individual skills are recognized as basis for differentiation to foster students according to their needs and hence, expand their individual reading skills (Konrad, 2014). Within an inclusive classroom, differentiated material that allows students to work on the same topic, but on different reading levels is needed (Seifert et al., 2015).

In some cases, textbooks offer such differentiation (Wedenig, 2017). Otherwise, teachers need to use additional differentiated material or even differentiate materials themselves. Embedding differentiation in digital tools can significantly reduce the workload for teachers and also increase student motivation, as student-centered lessons as possible (Redecker & Punie, 2017). Besides, other well accepted elements for enhancing reading skills (e.g., vocabulary work (Schabmann et al., 2012), cooperative learning methods (Remache et al., 2019), reading strategies (Philipp, 2015), reading while listening (RWL) to audio files (Walter, 2018)) can also easily be implemented in digital tools. However, it is still unclear whether, to what extent and by what means (e.g. textbooks, digital tools) differentiation is currently being implanted in Austria classes and what gaps are being present.

The paper aims to close the gap and explores which elements are used and perceived as particularly beneficial in an inclusive setting to promote pupils reading skills and to facilitate knowledge acquisition. It also identifies success factors for reading didactics that focus more on the needs of individual pupils.

By employing a mixed methods approach (questionnaire, interviews and book analyses), this study aims to investigate (a) the extent to which Austria teachers utilize differentiated materials, (b) the factors causing teachers’ reliance on differentiated materials, (c) the methodologies employed by teachers in utilizing differentiated materials, (d) the presence of differentiation measures in the most common Austrian primary school textbooks, (e) the current utilization and purposes of digital tools and technologies in supporting reading didactics and (f) the elements that could facilitate differentiation for teachers, such as the use of digital tools.

In this paper, I examine tactile picture books designed for readers with vision impairments as a site for both developing and conceptualising tactile literacy. Tactile picture books designed for readers with vision impairments are far from new. Yvonne Eriksson takes 1784 as the starting point for her historical analysis - the year Valentin Haüy laid the foundations of what would go on to become the first institute for the education of blind children in Paris - yet she acknowledges that writing for blind readers existed as early as the 9^th century, citing Japanese relief prints conserved in Bucharest (Eriksson, 1998). Tactile picture books remain a global phenomenon to this day, with practitioners coming together to share their work in the now-biennial international ‘Typhlo and Tactus’ competition for tactile picture books, an organisation that also published its own guide, sharing the practices of many international practitioners in the field (Claudet, 2009). Across history and geography, tactile picture books are explicitly made to be felt, touched, and manipulated, relying on their materiality to convey their pictures and illustrations. Rather than being ‘pretty’ to look at, they are first and foremost books to be read with the hands, which calls for an embodied, rather than visual, approach to illustration (Bara, 2018; Claudet, 2019). In present-day Britain, tactile picture books are often a homemade affair, with charities distributing volunteer-made books, and practitioners making their own, often specially for and with specific students. These books are often made with particular aims in mind, such as developing pre-braille skills or working against tactile selectiveness. They also supposedly bolster language and literacy skills, as well as understanding and memory (Bara, 2018), whilst also allowing certain students to develop the tactile diagram skills they will need in future examinations (Norman, 2004). Nevertheless, tactile picture books remain under-researched, with the research that exists often narrowly focused on the ‘correct’ decoding of tactile images, ignoring the fact that these books are also designed to be pleasurable and bring enjoyment to their readers. Students are invited to physically engage with these books as a key part of their learning, and their teachers’ understandings of tactile literacy extend beyond simply the acquisition of braille.

European student populations are becoming increasingly socioculturally diverse due to globalizing processes (Forghani-Arani et al., 2019). These evolving classroom compositions call for the development of practices that cultivate a sense of belonging for all students (Louie et al., 2022). The notion that teachers play an important role in developing these practices caused an influx of policies calling for teachers to develop as ‘agents of change’ (Pantić & Florian, 2015). The question at hand is what is necessary for teachers to (further) develop their sense of agency over practices that intend to foster the sense of belonging of all students within the educational community.

We adopt an ecological perspective of teacher agency that hinges partly on teachers’ ability to intentionally choose a specific course of action within their environmental options and constraints, and partly on their personal belief system driving their actions (Priestley et al., 2015). Agency is thus a condition that is experienced over something that individuals do, and is “a result from the interplay of individual efforts, available resources, and contextual and structural factors as they come together in particular and, in a sense, always unique situations” (Biesta & Tedder, p. 137). However, how teacher beliefs and personal goals of action interact in relation to agency over inclusive practices is sparingly depicted. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the following question:

How do teachers justify their inclusive educational practices, and how do these beliefs relate to their sense of agency in implementing these practices?

Teacher beliefs: teacher’s diversity models

Previous work stresses how teacher’s beliefs on education seem closely related to policy discourses and generation effects, and personal experiences have a significant role in shaping teachers’ views on education(Biesta et al., 2015). Thus, contexts play a crucial role in shaping teacher beliefs. It is important to get more insight into how teachers make sense of the concept of inclusive education and how they consolidate this with their personal notion of a just educational practice, as this is a crucial preliminary process for what happens into practice regarding inclusive education. From previous research we know that variations in teacher beliefs regarding educational equity exist among teacher education institutes (Hosseini, 2021; Jenks et al., 2001), between individual teachers (van Vijfeijken et al., 2021) and among evolving inclusive education policies (Kozleski et al., 2014).

Teacher Diversity Models (TDMs) offer a theoretical framework for examining teacher beliefs on inclusive education. TDM’s represent “implicit and explicit systems of ideas, meanings, and practices that suggests how groups should include and accommodate one another and how to best organize a diverse society” (p. 85, Plaut, 2010). This paper adopts the distinction between a conservative, liberal and critical model towards thinking about student diversity as theorized by Jenks et al. (2001). Conservative multiculturalism is characterized by the belief that cultural differences need not play a significant role in academic achievement within the way that schooling and curriculum is currently organized. The liberal multiculturalism model is characterized by the main idea that equal educational opportunities are attained when differences between learners are accepted and celebrated. Critical multiculturalism asserts that knowledge is culturally, historically, and linguistically shaped, taking a critical stance towards the curriculum and organizational aspects of education and seeks for the transformation of elements that impose standards on children that reinforce power relationships and social stratification.

With the growing heterogeneity of student populations in contemporary classrooms across diverse international contexts, inclusive education has emerged as one of the most visible concepts on both the policy and research agenda (Ainscow, 2020). Recently, a broader political framework has emerged promoting inclusion as providing for the educational needs of all learners (“all means all”; UNESCO, 2020). Some authors point out that although there is an increasing emphasis on meeting the individual educational needs of all students in global political discourse, in academic discussions, most attention is still devoted to the needs of only some groups of students, typically those with SEND and/or sociocultural disadvantage (cf. Messiou, 2017; Nilhom & Göransson, 2017). More specifically, even where the authors adhere to the “inclusion for all” approach within the theoretical sections of their studies, in the methodological and empirical parts, the idea of “inclusion for some” tends to predominate (Kielblock & Woodcock, 2023). Therefore, in line with current conceptual discussions, we adhere to a more “broad” definition of inclusive education (cf. Ainscow et al., 2006), specifically to the “C” category of definitions as identified by Göransson & Nilholm (2014), where inclusive education is understood as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils. We believe that inclusive education can rely on approaches such as differentiated instruction or universal design for learning, which are increasingly recognized as effective pedagogical models in terms of addressing student diversity (Gritful-Freixenet et al., 2020). Such approaches are based on the assumption that diversity among students exists in every group of learners, and students can differ in terms of readiness, interest and/or learning profile ranging from individual learning preferences to diverse family backgrounds (Tomlinson, 2022). Teachers can respond to this complex student diversity by using inclusive practices, i.e. any strategies ensuring that all students who have different individual needs can effectively learn in heterogeneous classrooms (Finkelstein et al., 2019).

Our study is based on several research gaps in international literature. Firstly, emphasis is predominantly placed on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion rather than their practices. Thus there is a lack of observational data (Finkelstein et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2021). Secondly, although students are the primary beneficiaries of the (non-)inclusive practices of their teachers, research capturing students’ perspective on inclusion in a broader sense (cf., Subban et al., 2022) as well as students' views on teachers’ (non-)inclusive practices (Schwab et al., 2022) are lacking. Thirdly, research typically focuses on primary education, with fewer studies conducted at the lower-secondary level, where differentiation could be even more challenging for teachers (Stollman et al., 2019; Schwab et al., 2022). To address these research gaps, the aim of our ethnographic research is to explore how lower-secondary school teachers reflect on and implement inclusive practices to address student diversity and to investigate the perspectives of all students on their teachers' inclusive practices.

Students enrolled in the Swedish Compulsory School for Pupils with severe and multiple Intellectual Disabilities typically exhibit significant care needs stemming from their disabilities. Consequently, the educational approach is marked by a synergy of care and learning, fostering close collaboration among educators, guardians, and external experts, including rehabilitation services.

Historically, the content of education for the students has primarily focused on the development of functional skills and ability training. In recent years, with the implementation of the swedish curriculum in 2011, learning and knowledge development have assumed a central role. Internationally, a similar shift from a focus on care to knowledge is occurring, affecting students with intellectual disabilities among others. Nevertheless, there is insufficient research on this field.

The educational form has been criticized for being too care-oriented, as highlighted in a review by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2010), where knowledge orientation is presented as positive, while care is described as an indicator of low quality. Östlund (2013) argues that it is problematic to polarize care needs and learning, suggesting that these do not need to be opposing forces. Platine Ewe (2021) also points out the risk that educational relational competence may b,e overshadowed when the care relationship is allowed to dominate, consequently affecting students' learning.

The purpose of the research is to contribute to an enhanced approach towards the students where caregiving and learning are closely intertwined. The research inquiries are:

• How are teaching and learning activities practically implemented for students with profound intellectual disabilities and physical impairments?
• What factors influence instructional time for students?

The theoretical foundation of the study is based on a salutogenic approach, centering around the Sense of Coherence (SOC) theory (Antonovsky, 1991), as the theoretical framework to interpret the results regarding teaching and learning activities.

To identify and analyze external and internal factors influencing the instructional time, Berg's theory of school governance (2003), using the free space model as its foundation, is applied.

The study employs an ethnographic approach, as ethnographic methodology is particularly suitable when examining how something operates in its natural environment (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Video observation and participant observation (Fange, 2017) has been used to collect the data. The study participants included school staff and students from grades 1 to 9, divided across five classes.

The analysis of video documentation and field notes involved a thorough examination of collected data. Patterns, behaviors, and themes were identified and thematized to extract meaningful insights.

The results indicate that there are several factors influencing students' instructional time. These factors can be categorized as external or internal influencing factors. The school bus consistently arriving late to school most mornings is an example of an external influencing factor documented in the study. Information exchange among school staff during ongoing lessons is an example of an internal influencing factor within the school's organization, documented on multiple occasions. By providing documentation of various factors that occur and illustrating how these factors reduce students' instructional time, the study aims to raise awareness of the current situation. The insights facilitated by the documentation can set the stage for school staff to enhance the practices. There are also numerous documented instances of teaching sessions characterized by both learning and care for the students. A common feature among these documented teaching sessions was that they were characterized by a high degree of a sense of coherence, where both content and execution were meaningful, comprehensible, and manageable for the students.These documented occurrences can serve as good examples of how caregiving and learning, according to the Sense of Coherence (SOC) theory, can be organized in practice.

Networks hold a meeting during ECER. All interested are welcome.

Schools use a variety of disciplinary practices to manage student behaviour. In some countries, school suspensions and exclusions are promoted as ways of responding to unwanted student behaviours. However, data continually shows that such exclusionary practices are disproportionately used among particular groups, including boys, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, students with a disability and indigenous and ethnic minority students (eg Sullivan, et al., 2020; Timpson 2019). The heavy overrepresentation of vulnerable populations within the exclusionary statistics has raised concerns over their impact on the families of children and young people who are already educationally disadvantaged. Yet, very little research has examined the impact school exclusionary practices have on families.

Exclusionary school practices that impact on families of vulnerable groups of students in disproportionate ways are likely to contribute to ‘deep exclusion’ (Levitas et al., 2007), which refers to ‘exclusion across more than one domain or dimension of disadvantage, resulting in severe negative consequences for quality of life, well-being and future life chances’ (p. 29). In addition, the lens of intersectionality (e.g., age, class, gender, and race) reveals the layering effects produced by patterns of power, discrimination, and inequality, and illuminates how social categories interact to shape one’s experience of the world (Hill Collins & Bilge, 2020) and barriers to schooling (Townsend et al., 2020).

This symposium brings together research from three countries, Australia, England and Scotland, that investigated the impact that school suspensions and exclusions have on families of students who are excluded. A study conducted in England uses the concept of symbiotic harms, drawn from criminology and punishment theory, to examine the effects of school exclusion on families. A second study conducted in Scotland, draws on the Lundy Model of Participation to analyse parents’ views of the extent to which they felt informed about and understood what was happening when their children were excluded, and as to whether they were treated fairly. The third study conducted in Australia, examined families as policy receivers to understand the ways in which school suspension and exclusion policies are enacted and received and with what effects.

A key focus of this symposium is to apply a social justice perspective to school discipline and contribute to the dearth of knowledge on the logics and impact of school exclusionary practices across national jurisdictions. It will consider ways in which systems can provide a fairer education experience for all students, including the least advantaged (Connell, 1993).

Evidence of the negative effects of school exclusion for young people is growing (Madia et al. 2022; Obsuth et al. 2023), yet little research exists around the wider effects of school exclusion on the families of excluded pupils. A small number of studies have highlighted the impact of school exclusion on family dynamics, parental mental health and parental employment (eg Michelmore 2019), as well as parental identity as parents face feelings of shame and stigmatisation and share ‘the burden of exclusion with their child’ (Parker et al. 2016:146). Others have also pointed towards the classed, raced and gendered experiences of the school exclusion process and parent-professional interactions (Demie 2023). However, greater clarity in how we conceptualise and describe what happens to families of excluded pupils is needed. In this paper, we look beyond the boundaries of education to the field of criminology and punishment theory as a way to begin to think about the effects of school exclusion on the families of those who are excluded and illuminate the social and relational ramifications of school punishment (Garland 1990). In particular, we will draw on the concept of symbiotic harms developed by Condry and Minson (2021). The term symbiotic harms was originally devised as a way to explore the effects of imprisonment on families of prisoners and describes ‘negative effects that flow both ways through the interdependencies of intimate associations such as kin relationships’ (Condry & Minson 2021:548). Such harms are characterised as being relational, mutual, non-linear, agentic, and heterogeneous (Condry & Minson 2021). Drawing on data from nine parents and carers in England, collected as part of the Excluded Lives study: The Political Economies of School Exclusion and their Consequences, we will explore whether there is conceptual scope to extend the concept of symbiotic harms to study the effects of school exclusion on parents, carers and the families of those who are excluded.

Condry, R. & Minson, S. (2021). Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), pp.540–558. Demie, F. (2023). Understanding the causes and consequences of school exclusions: Teachers, parents and schools' perspectives. Oxon: Routledge. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Madia, J. E., Obsuth, I., Thompson, I., Daniels, H. & Murray, A. L. (2022). Long-term labour market and economic consequences of school exclusions in England: Evidence from two counterfactual approaches. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), pp.801–816. Michelmore, O. (2019). Unfair results: Pupil and parent views on school exclusion. London: Coram. Obsuth, I., Madia, J. E., Murray, A. L., Thompson, I. & Daniels, H. (2023). The impact of school exclusion in childhood on health and well-being outcomes in adulthood: Estimating causal effects using inverse probability of treatment weighting. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Parker, C., Paget, A., Ford, T. & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2016) ‘.he was excluded for the kind of behaviour that we thought he needed support with...’ A qualitative analysis of the experiences and perspectives of parents whose children have been excluded from school, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(1), pp.133–151.

Very little is known about the views of parents of children excluded from school on the perceived fairness of the processes involved. This paper draws on data from key insights offered by parents in Scotland gathered as part of the larger Excluded Lives study and examines questions of fairness in detail. It borrows from the conceptual framework provided by the Lundy Model of Participation and its concerns about space, voice, audience and influence. It uses these principles to analyse these parents’ views and the extent to which they felt informed about and understood what was happening before, during and after a disciplinary exclusion/suspension; also the extent to which their views were sought and taken seriously in the decisions that were made; how they felt they were treated in terms of bias or discrimination; whether their child or young person’s best interests were considered as a primary consideration; whether they were given appropriate and accessible advice and guidance; and whether and to what extent they considered the outcome to be fair and how, if at all, that was linked to the process they experienced. These findings reveal a striking commonality of experience and raise a series of significant questions about rights, fairness and a sense of being heard but also an equally urgent set of concerns about what happens when children’s needs go unrecognized and/or unmet. Although the sample of parents in the Scottish context was small (N=7) and therefore claims to generalization are necessarily limited, the questions raised and the themes identified coalesce here to reinforce the urgency of a need for policy to invest much more focus and resource on building a new ethos of home-school collaboration overall, but particularly for children at risk of exclusion.

Lundy, L. (2022). The Lundy model of child participation. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed: 19.01.2024].

Little research has examined the ways in which the enactment of school discipline policies impacts families. More specifically, there is a dearth of research on how families experience school suspensions and exclusions as policy receivers (Ball, et al., 2012). This paper argues that the impact of suspension and exclusion policies on families is best understood in the context of wider structural and institutional inequalities that cause social exclusion (Alexiadou, 2005; Mills & Thompson, 2022). We shift the focus to the notion of intersectionality and multiple dimensions of ‘disadvantage’ (e.g., race, gender, and class) (Levitas et al., 2007). This paper draws on a larger critical policy study of school exclusionary practices in Australia. We conducted 15 case studies of families from diverse backgrounds and circumstances. We interviewed parents and, where feasible, their children. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify themes and used a narrative approach to examine each case in detail. In this paper, we present the experiences of one family to illustrate the ways in which policies are enacted and received and with what effects. The findings show that some families deal with complex circumstances across health, disability, employment, relationships, and cost of living. They struggle to engage with the ways in which school suspensions and exclusions policies are implemented by schools irrespective of these wider contextual issues. There is a feeling of powerlessness as policy is often ‘done to’ rather than ‘with them’. There is a sense of frustration and anger about how school suspensions and exclusions are ethically, educationally, and procedurally unfair. The case illustrates how some parents/carers resist the ways in which suspension and exclusion policies are enacted by ‘speaking back’ to dominant policy actors (e.g., principals, bureaucrats, and politicians) on behalf of their children. This kind of policy advocacy work or ‘politicking’ is exhausting and affects families in different ways, including: emotionally (e.g., frustration, anger, and time); financially (e.g., employment and housing); family relationships (e.g., siblings, parenting, and extended family); and educationally (e.g., access to schools, and alternative programs). This study has important implications for school discipline policy constructions more widely. It questions the purposes of school suspensions and exclusions and the extent to which they simply exacerbate forms of deep social exclusion. The paper concludes that the effects of school exclusionary practices are often long lasting and simply compound existing social and educational inequalities for some of society’s most disadvantaged and marginalised families.

Alexiadou, N. (2005). Social exclusion, and educational opportunity: The case of British education policies within a European Union context. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(1), 101–125. Levitas, R. A., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., & Patsios, D. (2007). The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. Mills, M., & Thomson, P. (2022). English schooling and little e and big E exclusion: What’s equity go to do with it? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 27(3), 185–198.

Despite the widespread recognition of inclusion as a fundamental value in education over the past three decades (UNESCO, 1994), schools worldwide continue to struggle with the practical implementation of this ideal (Keles et al., 2022).

In Norway, the introduction of the new Education Act in August 2024 further emphasizes the value of inclusion by highlighting that all students have the right to a safe and positive learning environment that promotes health, inclusion, well-being, and learning (Opplæringslova, 2023). However, a recurring challenge persists in determining whether the broad political support actually translates into tangible outcomes in practice (Ainscow, 2020). Haug (2022) raises the question of whether this lack of impact can be explained by the concept of "frozen ideologies" coined by Liedman (1997), suggesting that ingrained mentalities, regulations, and practices hinder progress.

The concept of inclusion can be understood in the light of what Røvik & Pettersen (2014) refer to as a master idea. A characteristic of master ideas is that over time they have gained great legitimacy and spread across sectors and countries. Furthermore, they have the power to trigger a number of reforms and initiatives and being more or less self-justifying. The fact that the ideas are self-justifying can be positive in the sense that one does not need to spend time and effort arguing for inclusion. At the same time, the danger is that a lack of argument leads to skipping important discussions which also identify challenges and dilemmas when translating the idea into educational practice (Øen et al., 2024). Mhairi et al. (2021), therefore call for a new approach to professional learning for inclusion that "takes as its starting point the complex professional dilemmas that educators articulate rather than viewing them as discrete issues that can be addressed separately" (p. 2166).

According to Dignath et al. (2022), schools often prioritize structural and organizational changes in their efforts towards inclusion. While these aspects are crucial, organizational change ultimately relies on professionals’ ability to change their own practices. Therefore, schools are advised to consider teachers' individual perceptions of reality when implementing reforms, particularly in the context of inclusive education. This aligns with research suggesting that significant improvements to practice necessitate discussions surrounding the underlying understandings or theories that inform practice (Robinson, 2018).

Mhairi et al. (2021) emphasizes the importance of collaborative learning within the professional community as a key factor in developing inclusive practices. The Norwegian Core Curriculum consequently clarifies the significance of schools functioning as professional communities where all employees engage in reflective dialogues about value choices and developmental needs (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017).

The development of inclusive practices involves the engagement of the schools' external support services within the professional community. In this paper, the external support services will be limited to the Educational and psychological counselling service (EPS). This entails collaborating with professional groups who have; varying mandates, perspectives, concept of knowledge, and results in offering alternative solutions (Haug, 2022). Within this dynamic, there exists the potential for the emergence of innovative practices. However, for effective collaboration to take place, curiosity, a willingness to learn, humility, and respect must prevail. Without these qualities, differing mandates, legal bases, and perceptions of reality may hinder productive collaboration (Øen & Mjøs, 2023). This could potentially lead to a situation known as the "Blame Game" (Hood, 2002), where parties attribute problems, solutions, and need for expertise to external sources rather than taking personal responsibility (Mjøs & Øen, 2022).

The research question for this paper is:

How can a survey contribute to exploring and challenging existing practice and collaboration in terms of developing a more inclusive practice?

In 1994, the UNESCO Salamanca Declaration stated that inclusion should be an issue of concern for all countries, and in 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals also marked inclusive and equitable quality education for all children in one of the 18 sustainability goals (goal no. 4 Quality Education) as a prerequisite to realise a sustainable development of the society. Despite political agreements, legislation and great effort in research and practices, the realisation of inclusive education (IE) has continued to prove challenging (Nilholm 2021). Among several explanations, a lack of a unified understanding of IE (ibid.) and a clash between IE values and values aimed at students’ academic achievements (Ainscow & Messiou 2018) are suggested to be two main obstacle. In order to advance the field of IE, researchers have explored inclusion as a multifaceted phenomenon that requires contemporaneous analysis on macro, meso, and micro levels (Schuelka &Engsig 2022, 449). Macro aspects such as ideologies, policy and laws, meso aspects such as school contexts and teachers’ practices and micro aspects such as psychological and learning dimensions must be considered and understood by focusing on their mutual interaction (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018; Messiou 2006). Qvortrup & Qvortrup (2018) further argue that we should avoid thinking about IE in an either-or-perspective, and they develop ‘…a framework for understanding and working with inclusion in schools that take into account the dynamic relationship between inclusion and exclusion and the fact that inclusive work will never reach a stable state of total inclusion’ (810). The framework relates to the broader trend of viewing the concept of special educational needs (SEN) from a perspective focusing on individual factors (the individual approach) but also focusing on the school’s failure to accommodate human diversity, which in turn necessitates a focus on the school context and its conditions for inclusion (social-contextual approach) (Skidmore, 1996). To meet these requests, holistic approaches have emerged, in which the shortcomings of previous approaches are highlighted, as they ‘[…] share common limitations of reductionism’ (Skidmore 1996, 33). As also suggested in Amartya Sen’s capability approach (2009), attention caused should be placed on both human diversity (we are all different), impairment and disability (as specific variables of human diversity) and barriers and inequalities by the social environment (see e.g. Reindal, 2009). In this way the contradictions and practical dilemmas of IE become visible: While on the one hand, IE involves identifying students’ differences to meet their individual needs, on the other, it is also about maintaining a sense of normality and treating all the same (Norwich 2002). Additionally, an enrichment approach arose, arguing that experiences with human diversity as crucial for students’ understanding and respect for others and themselves. Thus, this approach is about preparing for a future life in heterogeneous society (Befring 1997, 184).

In line with Kiuppis (2014) the development of different and apparently conflicting perspectives in the field of IE reflects ambiguities about the values of inclusion in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the advancement of the field by providing a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the implementation of IE from the ideological/political level, to the practical and individual one (inclusionary outcome for the student). The following research question was formulated to guide our study:

How should one understand the phenomenon of IE when analysing the dynamic interaction between the ideological value of IE, inclusive practices, and students’ inclusionary outcomes in schools?

The concept of participation in educational research comprises a complex field which involves issues of democracy, children’s rights and inclusion in schools, and it is a field “in search of definition” (Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2010, p. 1). Although there is no unifying definition of children’s participation, most definitions contain the elements of the child as a subject or agent, engaging with others around tasks or issues of concern to them (Malone & Hartung, 2010, p. 27). Drawing on Bae’s (2009) notion of mutual recognition, emphasising that “partners in interactions are of equal worth” (Bae, 2009, p. 397), leads the attention to how to create mutual conditions for everybody’s participation in joint activities. In a Norwegian context, although building a safe learning environment for everybody is not a specific part of a particular subject, it is clearly articulated in the Education Act, (1998, § 9 A-2) and in the overall part of the curriculum (Udir, 2017). Hence, in this study, participation is understood as linked to the three perspectives, the student, interactions with others, and what they do to collaborate in “shared learning experiences” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 3). Further, in their “framework for participation”, Florian et al. (2017) refer to how students’ participation is linked to the dimensions of access, collaboration, achievements and recognition and acceptance of all students, by students and teachers in a way that fosters a sense of belonging to the class as a learning community (Florian et al., 2017, p. 54). This paper reports on teacher-student interactions’ role in promoting students’ participation in singing as a joint start-up routine in a 5^th grade classroom. The main objective is on exploring why and how the students participate in classroom singing when the activity is conducted as a joint start-up routine. The purpose of the article is to gain insight about the role of the students’ and the teacher’s participation in a joint activity. Conducting singing activity as a routine at the beginning of the day may imply that the content and the form of singing promote students’ participation, since routines consist of both “structure and agency” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). In this way, conducting singing as a classroom activity might reinforce relationships (Savage et al., 2021, p. 2) and contribute to shape a learning environment where every student can belong, since “participation is part of belonging” (Lansdown, 2010, p. 11). Further, Savage (2021) argues that human musicality is a coevolved system for social bonding, where the phrase “social bonding refers to the formation, strengthening, and maintenance of affiliative connections” (Savage et al., 2021, p. 2) that brings forth the bonded relationships that underpin prosocial behaviour. As such, musical activities like group singing can enhance students prosocial behaviours towards others as well as their social inclusion in school (Barrett et al., 2019). To investigate the students’ and the teacher’s participation in singing as a start-up routine, the following research questions will be answered: How can the teacher’s and students’ participation in the singing activity be described, and how can the descriptions contribute to increased understanding about the appearance and significance of participation in the joint activity?

Since the 1994 UNESCO conference in Salamanca (1994), inclusive education has been high on the international education agenda. Research in the field has largely focused on theoretical aspects and top-down studies with inclusion defined in advance through state or municipal programs (Chapman & Ainscow, 2021). Because of this, exploring inclusive practices from the bottom up in local contexts is a potentially valuable approach (Chapman & Ainscow, 2021). This kind of school-based research, particularly including the voices of students themselves (Messiou, 2019a), holds promise for development of inclusive practices (Messiou & Ainscow, 2015; Messiou, 2019b). If teachers should systematically and consistently support every child’s right to express themselves and have their views given due weight in all matters affecting them (United Nations, 1989), then teachers must facilitate students’ opportunities to express their voice, have the skills to actively listen to the students, and then act appropriately, according to the students’ views (Lundy, 2007). Messiou (2006) explains that dialogues between teachers and their students are a manifestation of being inclusive, defining such dialogues as ‘reciprocal interactions between participants that lead to authentic engagement with each other’s views, creating new meanings and further questions’ (Messiou, 2019c).

Studies involving the views of students have been largely absent from the literature (Messiou & Ainscow, 2015). Students’ voices can be an important element if teachers are to reflect on how they can be more responsive to learner diversity and improve their inclusive practice (Messiou & Ainscow, 2015; Messiou, 2019b). For this is to be realised, teachers need to develop their ability to and skills for facilitating students expressing their voices, and it must be possible for them to act on the basis of student views (Lundy, 2007). This is not necessarily a straightforward process—according to the theory of ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Festinger, 1957), for instances, teachers might experience discomfort due to a discrepancy between their ideal practices and what they achieve or fail to achieve in their work. According to Treacy and Leavy (2023), however, this is merely an inevitable step in the process of positive teacher change.

In this paper we present a study conducted in a Norwegian public primary school characterised by student diversity in terms of ethnicity, religion, culture, language, family background, and learning needs. The aim of the study was to gain new understanding of teacher experiences with listening to students’ voices regarding inclusion. The participating teachers, together with the researchers, developed a framework for the school’s formal one-on-one teacher-student conversations in which the students were asked to share their experiences of inclusion and exclusion in everyday school life. Data in this study consist of teacher reflections on these conversations. The research question was formulated as follows:

What reflective response do three teachers have about their role and practices after engaging in conversations with students about their experiences of inclusion?

Anti-oppressive pedagogies emerged through the discussion of how the field of education, and primarily the curriculum (Armstrong, 1999; Erevelles, 2005) normalizes the oppression of some children, that, based on certain characteristics (e.g. gender, lower socioeconomic status, with minority background, disability) portray the Other in schools (Kumashiro, 2000; Beckett & Buckner, 2012; Beckett, 2015; Symeonidou & Chrysostomou, 2019). Three pedagogical practices (or four, according to the original presentation by Kumashiro, 2000) constitute the anti-oppressive pedagogies. Firstly, education about the other, involves ‘studying the Other and celebrating difference’ (Beckett, 2015, pp.79). Secondly, education that is critical of privileging and othering aims to highlight oppressive practices, while the third pedagogy, education that changes students and society concerns the education where oppresion can be challenged (Beckett, 2015, Symeonidou &; Chrysostomou, 2019).

However, even though sexism and racism are acknowldeged as the underlying cause of oppression against people of different race, social status and/or gender, and efforts are made to minimize them (e.g. Mulvay et al, 2020, Sutton et al, 2023), disablism is far from being realized as a fundamentaly oppressive way of thinking and acting against people with disabilities (Vlachou, 2023) for key holders in schools. Teachers, themselves, report their ignorance on how their practice can oppress people with disabilities (Symeonidou & Chrysostomou, 2019). Thus, the concept of disability in schools continues to be constructed in a negative manner. People with disabilities are presented as tragic persons and passive recipients of charity (Shakespeare, 2007, Skar, 2010). In the rare case that a children’s book on disability is used in school, it usually presents children with disabilities as odd, tragic persons, persons who are marginalized because of their impairment, or as persons that need to be super humans to be accepted (Beckett, Ellison, Barrett & Shah, 2010, Monoyiou & Symeonidou, 2016). To add to this, people with disabilities are deliberately silenced since their narratives and work are absent from the national curriculum and school textbooks.

It has been proposed (Favazza et al, 2022), and documented longidudinally through research, though, that informed teachers applying anti-oppressive pedagogies in their school practice, focusing on people with disabilities as the Other, may change the disabling narrative and promote positive attitudes. For example Ostrosky et al, (2013) and Vasileiadou (2022) utilized children’s literature to make disability positively present in the classroom and minimize stereotypes towards people with disabilities with encouraging results. Further researh is needed, though, in order to understand how the practice of implementing anti-oppressive pedagogies may affect children’s understanding and attitudes towards disability.

Hence, the aim of this study is to explore how the organization of teaching practice based on anti-oppressive pedagogies can influence how children interprete disabilty and/or react towards people with disabilities. Specifically, my research question was:

(a) How children’s understanding of disability and people with disabiities changes, if it does, after in the implementation of anti-oppressive pedagogies?

Student’s perceptions of teaching quality are important for understanding teaching effectiveness, setting research agendas, and fostering positive teacher-student interactions (Kikas & Magi, 2017; Wallace et al., 2016). Despite recognizing the importance of students' perceptions, a significant gap exists in the literature concerning how adolescents, specifically those at-risk perceive teacher emotional support, particularly in both academic and vocational tracks. Given the heightened sensitivity of students at-risk, there is a critical need to investigate how students at-risk status and teacher emotional support influences their perceptions in these educational contexts (Murray & Greenberg, 2001; O’Connor, 2010; Roorda et al., 2011, 2017). This study aims to fill this gap by investigating adolescent students’ perceptions of teacher emotional support and examining the impact of teacher emotional support and students at-risk in both academic and vocational groups.

The study employs the theoretical underpinnings of both the bioecological model of human development and the process-person-context-time model (PPCT), which emphasize the interconnectedness of various systems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1979, 2006). Delving into the educational context, the Teaching through Interactions framework (Hamre et al., 2013; Hofkens & Pianta, 2022) adapts these principles as it underscores the significance of the classroom as a context where proximal processes, such as teacher-student interactions unfold. Furthermore, the microsystem of the classroom is conceptualized, highlighting that the characteristics of both teacher (i.e., teacher emotional support), and students’ (i.e., at-risk status) play a pivotal role in shaping the quality of teacher-student interactions and students’ perceptions of these interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Pianta et al., 2003).

Internationally, inclusion has become a fundamental principle of modern education systems (Ainscow, 2020). While policies and legislation are necessary to begin the process of inclusion, they do not necessarily provide sufficient guidance about how inclusive education can be achieved (Woodcock & Hardy, 2022). Our research and that of our colleagues has found that in order for inclusive education to be successful, it is dependent on school educators’ collective attitudes, commitment, and intention to teach learners with diverse abilities, and the availability of support for educators to include all learners (Leyser et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). We believe that an individual teacher’s attitude, efficacy, and the availability of support to the teacher may not fully predict how likely it is that the school will implement inclusive practices. The school’s overall collective efficacy to include learners with diverse abilities may also be equally critical. Surprisingly, not much research has examined how the combination of factors i.e. individual educator’s intentions, individual teacher’s efficacy, and a school’s collective efficacy for inclusive education can have impact upon the school’s implementation of inclusive practices. While it may be difficult to measure the effectiveness and use of inclusive practices, teachers’ intentions to teach inclusively may be a basis to predict the inclusive practices (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). Awareness of these factors that relate to the effectiveness and use of inclusive practices, including teachers’ intentions to include all students, can allow policy makers to understand where the resources and supports need to be applied to in order to make schools and classrooms more inclusive, and what types of resources and supports those should be. For example, if the majority of teachers in a school have lower sense of teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms, not much progress can be made unless all educators are adequately prepared to teach all learners through well designed professional learning programs. On the other hand, if a school lacks collective efficacy to include all learners, intervention will be needed by the leadership team to enhance a school’s overall commitment and confidence to include all learners (Wilson et al., 2020). Research of this nature can also move our theoretical and conceptual understanding of important aspects that relate directly to employment of effective inclusive practices.

This symposium consists of three presentations. The first presentation acknowledges the importance of parents’ involvement in their child’s education. It focuses on school leaders of highly inclusive schools and examines the ways in which they engage with parents towards making the school highly inclusive. The second presentation highlights the importance of the challenges that teachers face in being inclusive as well as support mechanisms that are in place for them. It also focuses on teachers’ intentions towards inclusive education and how these relate to the challenges and supports that teachers experience. The third presentation examines the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion. It argues the importance of the interrelations between them in working towards more inclusive schools.

The aim of this symposium is to bring together important elements of inclusive practices to support policymakers, school leaders, educators, and parents. We will share these findings from a global perspective.

Inclusive education remains a contested concept (Woodcock & Hardy, 2022), despite being driven by a strong social justice agenda. In this context, school leaders play a critical role in the support and direction of the school’s inclusive practices (Subban et al., 2022). Research reveals the significance of both teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions to facilitate inclusive practices (Woodcock & Woolfson, 2019), however collaboration with parents is increasingly regarded as a vital component to supporting inclusion, and successful outcomes for students with disabilities (Wilson, 2016). This study examined approaches that leaders of highly inclusive schools utilised to engage parents into the daily functioning and operations of their school. As an exploratory qualitative study, it drew on collective data from 12 highly ranked inclusive schools from Italy, Switzerland, Australia, and Greece. The schools were acknowledged in each country as being highly inclusive within the school community. Schools varied across a number of characteristics including size (ranging from 100-750), socio-economic status and cultural context. Semi-structured focus group discussions and interviews were conducted each lasting approximately 60 minutes. Group discussions and interviews were conducted with school leaders specifically, with these then recorded, transcribed, and professionally translated. Subsequent to data cleaning, Miles, Huberman, and Saldana’s (2019) thematic analysis approach, involving multiple cycles of data coding, reflecting on connections and identifying themes within the data was applied to probe the data set. Three predominant findings emerged from the data. Firstly, the interviewed leaders explicitly acknowledged parents as integral stakeholders to be drawn into decision-making regarding inclusive practices for students with disabilities. Secondly, they noted that while schools maintained an open-door policy regarding parental involvement, they found that parental engagement may often be limited to advocacy with many parents, delegating weighty decisions to school staff and leaders. Thirdly, leaders recognised that concerted programs, which embedded parental input more intentionally, were likely to contribute more authentically to successful inclusion. The study reiterated the need for collaboration between schools and parents to drive inclusive practices, inviting all stakeholders to occupy active roles to support the success of students with additional learning needs.

Subban, P., Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., & May, F. (2022). How can school leaders create an inclusive culture and commitment? Monash Education Teach Space, Accessed from: https://www.monash.edu/education/teachspace/articles/how-can-school-leaders-create-an-inclusive-culture-and-commitment. Wilson, J. (2016). Reimagining Disability and Inclusive Education Through Universal Design for Learning. Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ), 37. Woodcock, S., & Hardy, I. (2022). 'You're probably going to catch me out here': principals' understandings of inclusion policy in complex times. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1645891 Woodcock, S., & Woolfson, L. M. (2019). Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. International journal of educational research, 93, 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004

Inclusion has become a fundamental principle of modern education systems around the world. Inclusive education is built on a premise of the right to an education for every student, where systems and schools are responsible for educating all young people within their communities (Nilholm, 2021). While inclusive education has been around for several decades, there are still challenges occurring with the way in which it should be employed. For inclusive education to be effective the need for a collective engagement is critical (Subban et al., 2023). Policy makers, school leaders, educators, and parents/carers, are some of the key stakeholders in engaging with effective inclusive practices for all students. Teachers’ beliefs in inclusive education, their capability to teach inclusively, and their intention to teach inclusively are some important aspects of their engagement in employing inclusive practices within their classrooms (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016; Woodcock et al., 2022). However, without support, teachers may face challenges that they are not able to overcome in order to engage effectively with inclusion (Woodcock & Woolfson, 2019). This study examined the relationship between teachers’ intentions to teach inclusively and the support and challenges that they experience. In-service teachers (n=869) across Switzerland, Canada, and Italy were surveyed. In each country teachers with the highest and lowest intentions to teach inclusively were identified through the ‘Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classroom’ scale (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). Thematic analysis was employed to examine and probe teachers’ supports and challenges. Findings reveal that across all countries and levels of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms teachers identified professional development, and classroom practices as key supports. However, across all countries teachers who hold a lower level of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had support experiences of education assistants (e.g., teacher aide), and collaboration as key supports, whereas teachers with a high intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had support experiences of teacher autonomy and social and emotional wellbeing. Across all countries teachers who hold a lower level of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had challenging experiences lacking parent involvement and expectation, whereas teachers with a high intention to teach in inclusive classrooms faced challenging experiences towards other teachers’ resistance and attitudes towards teaching inclusively. Studies have shown the importance of teachers’ intention to teach inclusively. Teachers have different intentions to teach inclusively and face various challenges and support needs in order to effectively teach inclusively. Further investigation is needed.

Nilholm, C. (2021). Research about inclusive education in 2020–How can we improve our theories in order to change practice?, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (3), 358-369. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, K. (2016). Predicting in-service educators' intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching & Teacher Education, 55, 13-23. Subban, P., Bradford, B., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Avramidis, E., Kullmann, H., Sahli-Lozano, C., Romano, A., & Woodcock, S. (2023). Does it really take a village to raise a child? Reflections on the need for collective responsibility in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(2), 291-302. Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103802. Woodcock, S., & Woolfson, L. M. (2019). Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. International journal of educational research, 93, 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004

To address the diverse needs of students effectively, teachers’ individual competences as well as their collective performance are indispensable (Sharma et al., 2023). This also includes collective efficacy, which 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 cater to students’ diversity requires well-functioning teams of teachers. To reach this objective, shared goals are essential. According to Goddard et al. (2000), they can be regarded as normative expectations for individual teachers, influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their performance in the classroom. Accordingly, self-efficacy and collective efficacy are interconnected (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and teachers’ collective efficacy is known for being linked to their attitudes towards inclusion and their intentions to teach (e.g., Leyser et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012). 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 (e.g., Sharma et al., 2023). Against this background, this paper examines the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion in a global context. A total of N=897 preschool, primary, and secondary school teachers from Canada, Germany and Switzerland were surveyed about their individual self-efficacy (TEIP; Sharma et al., 2012) and their collective self-efficacy (CTEIP; Sharma et al., 2023) with regard to inclusive practices as well as their attitudes towards inclusion (AIS; Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). The results indicate that Canadian teachers have higher levels of individual and collective efficacy than German and Swiss teachers. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are significantly lower in Germany and Switzerland compared to Canada. However, the correlations between AIS, TEIP, and CTEIP are not significantly different within the three countries. The results indicate that while both, individual as well as collective efficacy are significantly related to attitudes, the correlation between TEIP and AIS is much stronger compared to CTEIP vs. AIS. Directional interrelations between the three aspects of teacher professionalism together with country-specific interpretations will be presented and discussed.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 241–255. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, D. K. (2016). Predicting in-service educators’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., May, F., Romano, A., Sahli Lozano, C., Avramidis, E., Woodcock, S., Subban, P., & Kullmann, H. (2023). Measuring collective efficacy for inclusion in a global context. European Journal of Inclusive Education. doi:10.1080/08856257.2023.2195075 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.

The growing heterogeneity in classrooms is important in order to include all pupils (United Nations, 2006), but may be challenging for teachers: For instance, teachers need to assess the heterogeneous learning prerequisites of their students to make pedagogical and didactic choices, all while monitoring ongoing learning progress in their day-to-day teaching activities (Helmke & Weinert, 2021). Especially when teachers’ motivation and cognitive resources are low, teachers’ biases may come into play more frequently. Research confirms this and shows that teachers tend to use more heuristic judgement processes in these kinds of situations (Krolak-Schwerdt et al., 2013, 2018).

However, not all pupils are the same; some pupils are more at risk than others when it comes to teachers’ possible biases. Empirical evidence suggests that pupils with special educational needs and pupils with different ethnicities are often subject to biased teacher judgements (Glock et al., 2020). It is therefore crucial to look especially at those groups of pupils in order to examine possible mechanisms as a first step towards a more equitable and inclusive classroom. Thus, this symposium aims to contribute to the understanding of teachers’ perceptions, biases and expectations from an international perspective. To this end, the various contributions address questions that focus on the content of teacher biases as well as on the effects of these biases on teacher behavior:

In the first study from Luxembourg by Pit-ten Cate & Krischler, the focus is on teacher’s warmth and competence expectations and emotions concerning students with special educational needs. It investigates how these expectations and emotions vary based on specific special educational needs characteristics, namely learning difficulties and challenging behaviour. Results show differences between in-service and pre-service teachers when it comes to warmth and competence as well as between different special educational needs when it comes to teachers’ emotions.

The second study from Germany by Glock et al. explores the impact of social behaviour information on pre-service teachers' judgments and feelings of resignation. Pre-service teachers were presented with vignettes on pupils’ social behaviour, either positive or negative, and judged these pupils’ academic performance and learning behaviour. Results show that information, especially unusual negative information, biases the judgement.

The third study from the United States by Garcia Coppersmith et al. shifts the focus to racial-ethnic biases in teacher’ responses to pupils’ novel ideas in a mathematics lesson. By assessing how teachers react to online scenarios with pupils of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, the study shows that teachers found the same math task to be more difficult for Black and Latinx/e pupils. Furthermore, teachers’ language was biased as a function of the students’ race/ethnicity, for example in the topics the teachers discussed with the student.

The fourth study from Germany by Schell et al. adds another layer to the understanding of (future) teachers’ biases by examining stereotypes among pre-service teachers in the context of inclusion. Focusing on autistic pupils and pupils with Down syndrome, the research investigates the relationships between pre-service teachers' stereotypes, diagnostic processes, and decisions using an online simulation. This study aims to uncover how stereotypes may affect the inclusion of students with special educational needs in educational settings. Preliminary results show the existence of stereotypes as well as biased judgements.

Collectively, these studies highlight the important role teachers play in shaping pupils’ experiences while looking at the topic from an international angle. The findings highlight the need for strategies to address these found biases that may contribute to educational inequalities.

The increasing heterogeneity of the student population often poses a challenge for teachers, as they often feel inadequately prepared and therefore less positive about including students with special educational needs (SEN). In this context, research has indicated that a diagnosis or label of SEN affects teachers´ expectations and behaviour. Indeed, stereotype-based expectations of teachers determine their interactions with different students and in turn student outcomes. These expectations are also associated with different feelings, which in turn have an influence on how teachers (re)act in certain teaching situations. Stereotype based expectations can be triggered by just one salient attribute, whereby stereotype knowledge can reduce complexity and facilitates the effective processing of information. Stereotypes develop according to systematic principles, and people´s perception of others is mainly determined by the dimensions of warmth and competence. The mixed stereotype content model proposes that different warmth-competence combinations may trigger differential behavioural and affective responses (e.g. paternalistic emotions vs. resentment). The current study aimed to investigate to what extent teacher expectations of students´ warmth and competence and their emotions concerning inclusion of students with SEN varied as a function of specific SEN. Participants included 25 experienced in-service and 45 pre-service teachers (primary school). Participants were presented with two student descriptions: One student vignette described a student with learning difficulties and another a student with challenging behaviour. After reading each description, teachers were asked to complete scales to rate the student´s warmth and competence and teachers´ emotions were assessed using a semantic differential scale. Results of a 2×2×2 mixed method ANOVA showed significant main effects of stereotype dimension and teacher status but not SEN. Most interestingly however, there were significant two and three-way interaction effects indicating that in-service teachers´ ratings varied as a function of dimension and SEN whereas preservice teachers´ generally provided higher ratings for warmth than competence regardless of SEN. Results of a 2×2 mixed method ANOVA showed that teachers emotions varied as a function of student SEN but not teacher status. Teachers felt les secure, more anxious and less optimistic when considering including students with challenging behaviour than a student with learning difficulties. Results of our study support previous findings concerning the effect of student characteristics on teachers´ expectations and emotions. Given the relationship between teacher expectations and student performance and the associations between expectations, emotions and behaviour, these findings can contribute to understanding factors underlying educational inequalities.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers´ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology : An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663717 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS map. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0 Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 İnan-Kaya, G., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2022). Teacher classroom interactions and behaviours: Indications of bias. Learning and Instruction, 78(April 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101516

Social behaviors such as impatience and disrespect can be one important component of different types of SEN such as autism or challenging behavior (McClintock et al., 2003) but can also be associated with gifted students (Preckel et al., 2015). As such, gifted students often are associated with behavioral difficulties and negative social behavior, as are students with SEN. Teachers as well as preservice teachers know about typical social behavior patterns of students and how they are related to stereotypes about a particular student group. Stereotypes as generalized knowledge about the members of a particular social group (Smith, 1998), can color people’s perceptions and bias the judgments of the members of this groups. Many studies have already provided evidence for stereotypes biasing teacher judgments, in the domain of ethnic minority students, students from families with low socio-economic background, or students with special education needs (Glock et al., 2020).1 With this vignette study at hand, we were experimentally investigated whether very rare social information about a student biases teacher judgments. Among a sample 88 preservice teachers, we investigated the influence of social behavior on their academic achievement judgments and feelings of resignation. We described two students, one showing respect and patience in the interaction with others, while the other student was described as disrespectful and impatient. We asked the preservice teachers to judge the student’s language proficiency and in mathematics ability. Additionally, we asked the participants to judge the student’s learning behavior, general ability, concentration, motivation, and intelligence. The participants judged the concentration, motivation, and learning behavior of the student described with the positive social behavior more positively than of the student with the negative social behavior. Most impressively, the preservice teachers judged the student with the positive social behavior as higher achieving in mathematics than the student with the negative social behavior. The preservice teachers felt more resignation (e.g. “I would feel helpless”) when imagining a confrontation with the student with the negative as compared to the positive social behavior. Our study shows that simply adding very rare information about the social behavior of a student can bias preservice teachers’ judgments. This implies that students with SEN and also gifted students might at a double risk, because they might cause feelings of resignation and also because teachers might judge them worse even when the remaining information is controlled for.

Glock, S., Kleen, H., Krischler, M., & Pit-ten Cate, I. M. (2020). Die Einstellungen von Lehrpersonen gegenüber Schüler*innen ethnischer Minoritäten und Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf: Ein Forschungsüberblick [Teachers' attitudes toward students from ethnic minorites and with special education needs]. In S. Glock & H. Kleen (Eds.), Stereotype in der Schule (pp. 225–279). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27275-3_8 McClintock, K., Hall, S., & Oliver, C. (2003). Risk markers associated with challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(6), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00517.x Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413 Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 391–445). McGraw-Hill.

In the U.S., Black and Latinx/e students face educational disadvantages, especially in subjects belonging to the STEM field (Gutiérrez, 2012). Schools have been identified as one source contributing to such disparities (Michelmore & Rich, 2023). Within the school system, teachers and their practices play a critical role. Previous research has shown racial-ethnic biases in classroom instruction (e.g. Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). In mathematics, teacher biases can be a result of lower expectations towards pupils from minoritized groups, particularly Black girls (Copur-Gencturk et al., 2019). Whereas teacher biases have been extensively investigated in the domain of academic judgments and disciplinary referrals, to our knowledge, teachers’ natural language in approximations of teaching, particularly in the domain of ambitious math instruction, have not been investigated experimentally. Teachers’ language in their in-the-moment responses to students is a site that may be particularly sensitive to biases, as biases are most salient in non-reflective, automatic processes. We thus aimed to investigate teachers’ spontaneous spoken responses to students’ mathematical explanations in an experimental setting. Participants were N=271 teachers of record in the U.S. The study had a one-factorial between-persons design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a classroom with predominantly Black, Latinx/e or white students, reflecting the relatively segregated nature of American classrooms. Teachers were presented with six hypothetical fourth grade classroom vignettes. The vignettes showed different mathematics tasks and student explanations of their problem-solving process. After reading the target student explanation, teachers were asked what they would say and do next. Using voice recording software embedded in our survey panel, we captured teachers' spoken responses. We employ natural language processing methods to decipher topics by cohesion, identifying unique topics ranging from mathematically-focused language (e.g. number line) to process-oriented language (e.g. explain, who thinks). We also apply a sentiment analysis using the BING dictionary. We find significant differences in the topics discussed by experimental condition. Teachers showed, for example, greater likelihood of affirmative but little mathematical language for the Black condition relative to the White condition. Additionally, we find a tendency in sentiment that teachers were positive toward Black students compared to white or Latinx/e students. Finally, we find more words spoken on average in the white classroom condition compared to the Black and Latinx/e conditions. Our findings have implications for anti-racist teacher education tied to specific instructional domains in ambitious math teaching.

Copur-Gencturk, Y., Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., & Thacker, I. (2019). Teachers’ Bias Against the Mathematical Ability of Female, Black, and Hispanic Students: Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890577 Gutiérrez, R. (2012). Context matters: How should we conceptualize equity in mathematics education? In B. Herbel-Eisenmann, J. Choppin, D. Wagner, & D. Pimm (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 17–33). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2813-4_2 Michelmore, K., & Rich, P. (2023). Contextual origins of Black-White educational disparities in the 21st century: Evaluating long-term disadvantage across three domains. Social Forces, 101(4), 1918-1947. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac098 Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253

Inclusion has taken the spotlight in education and teachers and their attitudes play a decisive role in its successful implementation (Markova et al., 2016). Stereotypes are beliefs about the characteristics and behaviour of members of a social group (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). With regard to inclusion, stereotypes differ depending on the pupils’ needs: Pupils with Down syndrome, for example, are stereotypically perceived as warm but not very competent (Fiske, 2012). Autistic pupils, on the other hand, are often associated with savant abilities (Bennett et al., 2018). However, there is little research on the relationship between teachers’ stereotypes in the context of inclusion and their diagnostic process or diagnostic decisions. The few existing studies show inconsistent results (Glock et al., 2020). We therefore investigate the stereotypes of pre-service teachers, their diagnostic process/ decision as well as the relationship between them. We will focus on autistic pupils and pupils with Down syndrome as two large groups of pupils with special educational needs that are seen as very different (American Psychological Association, 2023) by investigating the following hypotheses: H1: Pre-service teachers have stereotypes towards autistic pupils and pupils with Down syndrome. H2: Pre-service teachers’ judgements are biased by the existence of a diagnosis in comparison to no diagnosis. H3: Pre-service teachers’ stereotypes influence the diagnostic decision so stereotypes lead to a biased decision independent of the actual information. We investigate this in an online simulation. Data collection is currently still running. An estimated N = 180 pre-service teachers will participate in an online study. The participants are presented with four pupils and different sources of information. The pupils vary depending on whether they have a diagnosis or not and whether they are described in a stereotypical way or not. With limited time, they are instructed to gather information and make a diagnostic decision. We also assess implicit and explicit stereotypes, prior knowledge and demographic data. Premilitary results show both- the existence of stereotypes as well as significant differences regarding the diagnostic decision: Considering the Bonferroni adjusted p-value, there was a significant difference between pupils described in the same way but with and without a diagnosis. Final results will be presented at the conference as we are just finishing data collection. We expect pre-service teachers to have stronger implicit than explicit stereotypes regarding autistic pupils and pupils with Down syndrome; leading to strongly biased decisions in which information related to stereotypes is overvalued.

American Psychological Association. (2023). APA Dicitionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/ Bennett, M., Webster, A. A., Goodall, E., & Rowland, S. (2018). Understanding the “True” Potential of Autistic People: Debunking the Savant Syndrome Myth. In M. Bennett, A. A. Webster, E. Goodall, & S. Rowland, Life on the Autism Spectrum (S. 103–124). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3359-0_6 Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype Content: Warmth and Competence Endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825 Glock, S., Kleen, H., Krischler, M., & Pit-ten Cate, I. (2020). Die Einstellungen von Lehrpersonen gegenüber Schüler*innen ethnischer Minoritäten und Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf: Ein Forschungsüberblick. In S. Glock & H. Kleen (Hrsg.), Stereotype in der Schule (S. 225–279). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27275-3_8 Pit-ten Cate, I. M., & Krischler, M. (2020). Stereotype hinsichtlich Schüler*innen mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf: Lehrkraftüberzeugungen, -erwartungen und -gefühle. In S. Glock & H. Kleen (Hrsg.), Stereotype in der Schule (S. 191–224). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27275-3_7

Global trends of increasing inequalities, decreasing citizen participation, pandemics, climate or technological change all have a profound impact on education. At the same time education is a critical site for change-making that can empower citizens to shape their future, but also those of communities and societies. Educational literature and policies increasingly suggest that teachers can act as ‘agents of change’ for addressing the challenges, such as increasing diversity of student populations that result from migration flows, or those related to the spread of artificial intelligence.

The idea that teachers can be key actors for leading and responding to change has reflected in the increasing number of empirical studies of teacher agency in relation to inclusion and social justice (Li & Ruppar, 2020; Pantić, 2017), school transformations (Reinius et al., 2022), climate change (Andrzejewski, 2016) and responses to pandemic (Ehren et al., 2021). These and other studies have started to show how teachers exercise agency for different purposes, pointing to the importance of relationships and collaboration, accounting for diversity of perspectives, opportunities for reflection. However, teachers’ capacity to act as agents of change is still under-researched, especially with regards to their impact on change and its mechanisms amidst other powerful influences. How do they make a difference that really matters to their students, professional and wider communities? And how can they be prepared and empowered to exercise agency to enact, shape or at times challenge change?

Agency is often described as a slippery concept. Different philosophical, sociological, psychological and educational theories emphasise differently individual and social aspects of agency. Questions about the nature and purposes of change are at the heart of understanding teachers’ roles and ways of responding to various, often external, agendas. Studies begin to show how educators’ own understanding of change might position them as both agents of change and of continuity. For example, they might embrace or resist technological change depending on its impact on their practice and availability of support to develop relevant skills. Teacher agency is highly contextualised and dependant on other actors in complex institutional, political and cultural dynamics (Berliner, 2002; Vongalis-Macrow, 2007).

Taking into account its relational and contextual nature, this symposium considers manifestations of teachers’ agency for different purposes and across different contexts, and its implications for teacher education and development, as follows:

1) The first paper considers interaction between teachers’ relational agency and structural conditions in three schools in Scotland, focusing on the patterns of teachers’ collaboration around support for migrant students.

2) The second paper considers the impact of the accessibility of artificial intelligence on Italian teachers’ agency focusing on their own beliefs, expectations, and fears.

3) The third paper highlights the importance of collaborative learning for development of teacher agency in Collaborative Action Research (CAR) programmes in six schools in Serbia.

4) The fourth paper considers the internationalisation of teacher education programmes in Sweden as a way of broadening student teachers’ perspectives that can make a difference towards addressing global challenges, such as diversity and inclusion.

Together these papers aim to unpack the concept of teacher agency for change in relation to the different areas of change and relative to the specific opportunities and constrains afforded by different school and country contexts. Central to these considerations is the role of schools and educators in shaping rather than simply responding to and coping with change. The symposium also considers opportunities for teacher education and development to collectively, together with learners and other actors, shape the kind of education that reflects the needs of their communities and for learning across different school and policy contexts.

This study aims to connect the dots between policies and practices in teachers' support for migrant students in Scotland. A universalist approach to integration of migrants in schools requires teachers to collaborate with specialists such as English as Additional language to support students withing the mainstream provision. In doing so they exercise a form of relational agency (Edwards, 2010) to mobilise the knowledge that exists within the school community. While contexts matter for the formation and dynamics of collaborative relationships and networks in schools, which contexts matter and how, however, often remains unestablished. Our study observes how teachers in three different schools collaborate with specialists to enact policy guidelines. The research questions are: 1) how the forms of teachers' collaboration reflect the policy arrangements within their school culture, and 2) in students’ perceptions. The study is informed by the principles of inclusive pedagogy, which sees diversity as the norm. In particular, the principle of inclusive collaboration among teachers and school staff is used as an interpretative lens for interactions that underlie teachers’ relational agency (Pantic & Florian, 2015) to codify the intensity and nature of teachers' collaborations and networks supporting migrant students, especially in their interactions with specialists. The study triangulates data collected with mixed methods, including social network and policy analysis, with qualitative fieldwork data collected in three schools in Scotland - Juniper, Beech, and Rowan (pseudonyms) - over the course of three years, from 2020 to 2023. The findings show how schools operating in the same policy setting have taken different approaches to addressing student diversity in their internal policies and to inform their daily practice. Teachers in different schools have used specialist support, such as the English for Additional Language teacher, differently in ways that are more or less aligned to the principles of inclusive pedagogy. Findings also show that policies largely focus on academic learning, with little to no mention of socialization and a sense of belonging, which is also reflected in students’ perceptions. Migrant students are primarily seen as speakers of a different language, flattening the heterogeneity of the group. Overall, this study unveils teachers’ relational practices in the support of migrant students at the intersection between the prevailing approach in Scotland and school-specific cultures of collaboration.

Edwards, P. A. (2010). Relational Agency: Working with Other Practitioners. In Being an Expert Professional Practitioner (pp. 61–79). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3969-9_4 Pantić, N. & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry 6(3), 333-351.

The recent global emergence of freely accessible Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms has marked a radical turning point in the field of education as well. However, while some analysts magnify the potential beneficial effects of AI on student learning, others highlight the risk that AI may impoverish the social and emotional aspects of teaching and, more broadly, deprofessionalize teachers (Holmes, 2023; UNESCO, 2021). This tension also permeates research on AI in Education (AIED), which highlights the potential of such tools in promoting student learning (e.g., by providing personalized learning content and intelligent feedback), but overlooks the crucial role played by teachers in facilitating this enhancement (Lameras, 2022). In light of this, it is pivotal to investigate the effects that the introduction of AI in schools has on teacher agency, as a key dimension of their professionalism. To this end, this contribution adopts a notion of agency as an ecological and relational dimension, which emerges through dialogue among actors within the structural and cultural context they are part of (Edwards, 2015; Pantić, 2015). In this sense, the literature emphasizes that teacher beliefs are instrumental in achieving professional agency (Priestley et al., 2015). Consequently, it is important to understand whether they also play a relevant role in shaping their approach to AI in education. This theme has been investigated through an exploratory study that examined the perceptions and orientations of primary school teachers towards AI through two research questions: - RQ1: What are the beliefs of primary school teachers regarding the use of AI in education? - RQ2: What are their expectations and fears in this regard? The study used a mixed methods approach through a survey that included both closed and open-ended questions directed at primary school teachers in Italy. The participants were a convenience sample, contacted through bulk email invitations, totaling 327 respondents. The quantitative data were processed through a descriptive analysis using SPSS, while the open responses were examined using thematic analysis supported by NVivo. The analysis of the survey results offers an initial interesting overview of teachers' beliefs regarding the potential impact of AI on their professional agency. The findings and their related implications in terms of ethics, inclusion, and social justice will be presented and discussed during the symposium.

Edwards, A. (2015). Recognising and realising teachers’ professional agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 779-784. Holmes, W., & Kharkova, I. (2023). The Challenge of Artificial Intelligence. Anthem Publishing. Lameras, P., & Arnab, S. (2021). Power to the teachers. An Exploratory Review on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Information, 13(1), 14. Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 759-778. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury. UNESCO (2021). AI and Education: A guidance for policymakers. UNESCO Publishing.

Over the years, various approaches to addressing what teachers need to know and how they should be taught to address differences between learners have been promoted. With traditional in-service training proving ineffective, there's been a push for alternative methods of professional development (PD) (UNESCO, 2020). Effective PD, as suggested, should be school-based, collaborative, embedded in teachers' daily routines, and offer follow-up support (Bull & Buechler, 1997). This has led to the development of different forms of collaborative PD, including frequently used action research (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). Action research, especially collaborative action research (CAR), has shown promise in enhancing teachers' sense of agency, redefining professional roles, and fostering competencies (Angelides et al., 2008; Jovanović et al., 2017). So, how come many teachers still report feeling unprepared or lacking confidence in addressing learning differences (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016), despite the promise and widespread implementation of CAR? We aim to present a cross-case analysis of CAR in six primary and secondary schools in Serbia. The analysis explores how teachers and researchers perceive their learning through CAR, while also identifying system-level barriers to CAR as a PD. Since May 2022, researchers and school practitioners in six schools in Serbia have collaborated to develop inclusive practices and foster inclusive school communities. They've utilised a CAR design involving planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and revising (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). The planning phase included a two-day workshop devoted to situation analysis, problem definition, and collaborative planning of action research. The acting and observing stage is followed by joint reflection on the process and outcomes of CAR. The reflection process is further supported through communities of practice, which engaged participants from all six schools. Six case studies, one from each school, will be prepared using various data sources - focus group discussions with school practitioners and researchers, research products (e.g., research plans), and written communication between practitioners and researchers. The cross-case analysis will be approached inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings will be discussed from a systemic perspective (Senge, 2020), attempting to identify patterns, system structures, and underlying beliefs that hinder the use of CAR as a tool for strengthening teachers’ competencies for inclusive education. The work is part of the project “Enhanced Equal Access to and Completion of Pre-University Education for Children in Need of Additional Support in Education” implemented by UNICEF Serbia and Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia, supported by the Delegation of EU.

Angelides, P., Georgiou, R., & Kyriakou, K. (2008). The implementation of a collaborative action research programme for developing inclusive practices: social learning in small internal networks. Educational Action Research, 16(4), 557–568. Bull, B., & Buechler, B. (1997). Planning together: Professional development for teachers of all students. Indiana Education Policy Center. Cochran-Smith, M., A. M. Villegas, L. Abrams, L. Chavez-Moreno, T. Mills, & R. Stern (2016). Research on Teacher Preparation: Charting the Landscape of a Sprawling Field. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 439–546). AERA. Jovanović, O., Plazinić, L., Joksimović, J., Komlenac, J., & Pešikan, A. (2017). Developing the early warning system for identification of students at risk of dropping out using a collaborative action research process. Psihološka istraživanja, 20(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.5937/PsIstra1701107J Senge, P. (2020). Commentary: Why practicing a system’s perspective is easier said than done. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 57–61. UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report. Inclusive teaching: preparing all teachers to teach all students. Available at: Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A Decade of Professional Development Research for Inclusive Education: A Critical Review and Notes for a Research Program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356.

Internationalisation is now integrated into the policies and curricula of most universities in the world, and increasingly embedded within education courses. It is valued for contributing to the quality of education and for broadening students’ experiences during their studies (Beelen & Jones, 2015). But, initial teacher education programs are still nationally-oriented, and internationalisation questions are often marginalised (Alexiadou et.al., 2021; Bamberger & Yemini, 2022). Our presentation reports findings from a research that investigates internationalisation of initial teacher education in a Swedish university. We focus on dimensions of internationalisation from the perspectives of the curriculum for K4-6 and students. Our research questions are: (a) How does the teacher education curriculum engage with internationalisation? (b) What are the perceptions and experiences of teacher education students in relation to internationalisation? Our empirical research consists of (a) content document analysis of the Primary Teacher Education programme curriculum; (b) review of core documents that frame teacher education in the specific university, and, (c) interviews with ten teacher education students. Our analysis suggests that despite the aspirations in the university-level policies, internationalisation does not emerge as an apparent agenda at the syllabi level. Explicit references of internationalisation are quite scarce. There are however (a) student skills and attributes connected to internationalisation such as critical thinking and global citizenship, and (b) whole syllabi that deal with interculturality and inclusion (themes of social justice, democracy, diversity, multilingualism, human local and global ecosystems). Nevertheless, the syllabi appear to be mostly situated in local and national than global narratives, which reflects the dilemma of universities, and Teacher Education, in their internationalisation process: balancing between national/local needs and those from internationalisation agendas. The students’ interviews suggest very positive attitudes towards further internationalisation of the curriculum. Students critique the relatively low engagement with internationalization questions, and propose that this could be better integrated into the pedagogical practice.

Alexiadou, N., Kefala, Z., Rönnberg, L. 2021. Preparing education students for an international future? Connecting students' experience to institutional contexts. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25:4, 443-460. Bamberger, A., Yemini, M. 2022. Internationalisation, teacher education and institutional identities: A comparative analysis. Teachers and Teaching 0:0, pages 1-19. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. 2015. Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott. (Eds.) The European higher education area. Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer Open.

The number of forcibly displaced persons has reached a new high in 2023, and currently there are more than 110 million refugees worldwide. Almost 40 % of those forcibly displaced are children (UNHCR, 2023). At the same time, the number of persons with disabilities is also growing. An estimated 1.3 billion people worldwide live with disabilities, which represents 16 % of the global population (WHO, 2022). Both persons with disabilities and refugees are very diverse populations. However, what they often have in common are the experiences of discrimination, exclusion, and inequality, which have so far been well documented.

The above-mentioned heterogeneity within the groups of refugees and persons with disabilities also means that some persons belong simultaneously to both groups. This particular population is far less visible. In fact, the incidence of disabilities amongst refugees still remains unknown (Crock et al., 2017). Some reports suggest even that the incidence seems to be higher than in the general population (HelpAge International & Handicap International, 2014), but reliable statistical data remains unavailable. Refugees with disabilities often face discriminatory practices targeted generally against persons with disabilities and refugees, but they also experience specific oppression stemming from the interplay of these two characteristics. They may thus be left behind during flight or they may not survive the journey, they often lack access to mainstream assistance programmes and are in danger of being exposed to further protection risks, such as sexual and physical violence and harassment (Reilly, 2010). For refugees with disabilities, their journeys often take longer putting them at greater risk of attack and insecurity (Kett & Trani, 2010). When accessing education, one of the fundamental human rights building the cornerstone for the exercise of other human rights, refugees with disabilities face particular challenges as well. Yet in situations of acute crises of human displacement, persons with disabilities and their right to education remain largely forgotten (Crock et al., 2013).

The proposed symposium aims to bring this partly invisible population to light while focusing on the role and experiences of displaced parents of children with disabilities while accessing the right to inclusive education within three different European contexts (Austria, United Kingdom and Germany). It uses the intersectional lens in order to bring not only the invisible cases of violations of the human right to (inclusive) education and the broader system failures to light, but also to highlight agency and resilience of individuals, who are often seen as vulnerable, and point out examples of good practice.

The involvement of parents in their children’s education promotes the developmental skills of children, enhances the motivation to learn (Jasis & Mariott, 2010) and has a positive influence on the academic success of children (Park & Halloway, 2013). However, several factors play a role in the process of parental involvement and different parental backgrounds result in different understandings about the necessity and type of parental involvement. On the other hand, parents can be challenged by systemic barriers and their involvement can be curbed. The culprit can be the “school” itself as well as it may be difficult to access or ‘hard to reach’ (Crozier & Davies, 2007). This may be true for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) (Lendrum et al., 2015). Research suggests that parents of children with SEND are infrequently asked or listed and are mainly reluctant to be involved. On the other hand, another group whose involvement in school is highly expected but at the same time challenged, is parents who were forced to migrate and have just settled in the new country. Immigrant parents, mainly in the context of forced migration, face several barriers to be involved in school-based engagement or home-based support (Leong et al. 2019). Their engagement, both in home-based and in school-based activities, can be challenged due to several factors such as language barriers, cultural barriers, or unfamiliarity with the school system, even more so if their children have a disability (Subasi Singh et al. 2021). However, the involvement of immigrant parents suffers mainly from static notions of culture and norms of society. Such norms can put parents in a passive, recipient role and expect from them to adjust to the new education system and to adopt it, especially given recent trends towards right-wing leaning policies across Europe. However, immigrant families bring new perspectives, different experiences, and expectations with them and their engagement can re-shape the norms about parental involvement and bring new insights to the school-parent relationship. In this contribution, we will report endeavours of Viennese schools to involve parents from a forced migration background in the decision-making processes in the school of their children. Data is informed by head teachers and teachers and their reflections on the efforts to increase parents’ involvement.

Crozier, G. & Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion of home-school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents.’ British Educational Research Journal, 33 (3), pp. 295–313. Jasis, P. & D. Marriott.(2010). All for Our Children: Migrant Families and Parent Participation in an Alternative Education Program.” Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(2). Lendrum, A., A. Barlow & N. Humphrey. (2015). Developing positive school–home relationships through structured conversations with parents of learners with special educational needs and disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(2) Leong, A. D., S. C. Berzin and S.S. Hawkins. (2019). Immigrant Parent Involvement in Government Funded Early Childhood Education Programming: An Examination of FACES. Early Childhood Development and Care, 189 (12). Park, S.& S D. Holloway. (2013). No Parent Left Behind: Predicting Parental Involvement in Adolescents’ Education Within a Sociodemographically Diverse Population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2). Subasi Singh, S., Pellech, C., Gutschik, A., Proyer, M., & O'Rourke, I. M. (2021). Intersectional Aspects of Education at the Nexus of Disability and Forced Migration: Perspectives of Parents, Educational Experts, and School Authorities in Greater Vienna. Education Sciences, 11(8), [423]. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080423

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24th February 2022 a mass forced migration began (Unicef, 2022). Many teachers across Europe found themselves welcoming children seeking sanctuary to their classrooms with over two million children from Ukraine at the start of the war travelling to other countries in search of safety (Kruszewska and Lavrenova, 2022). By December 2022, 3.9 million children had left Ukraine to seek refuge in other countries (Unicef, 2022). By September 2022, 22,100 applications for school places in the United Kingdom had been made for children from Ukraine (DfE, 2022). Schools have been welcoming and including children and trying to learn the best way to support the newest members of their school communities. This research explores what supports and what hinders the formation of effective parent-school relationships for the inclusion of refugee students and their families (Block et al., 2014). Through a series of semi-structured interviews with Ukrainian parents, we examine effective school-parent relationships for the inclusion of refugee families and children in education. Drawing on the voices of Ukrainian parents, we argue that recognising communication and relationships between schools and displaced parents turns on the formation of ongoing and inclusive dialogues. This, we contend, involves enacting shift from ‘monolingual cultures’ within schools (Sime, 2018), which compound isolation and exclusion, to multilingual cultures, which allows all students, parents, and members of staff to give voice to their differences. Indeed, we argue to the conclusion that what is needed between these parents and school staff is inclusive and attentive listening. Such listening, we will suggest, involves a willingness, not simply to hear others too often denigrated as deficit, but to also to listen to them with responsibility, that is, to prioritise the ability to respond to the other person before the ability to name, to classify, and to label them.

Block, K., Cross, S. Riggs, E. and Gibbs, L. (2014) Supporting schools to create an inclusive environment for refugee students, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1337-1355. Department for Education (DfE) (2022) School placements for children outside of the UK. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-placements-for-children-from-outside-of-the-uk [accessed 25.01.24] Kruszewska, A. & Lavrenova, M. (2022) The educational opportunities of Ukrainian children at the time of the Russian invasion: perspectives from teachers, Education 3-13, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2022.2083211 Sime, D. (2018) Educating migrant and refugee pupils. In: Scottish Education. pp. 768-778. Eds. T.G.K. Bryce, W.M. Humes, D. Gillies and A. Kennedy, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Unicef (2022) Humanitarian response for children outside of Ukraine. Available at Humanitarian Response for Children Outside of Ukraine Factsheet No. 12, December 2022.pdf (unicef.org) [accessed 25.01.24]

Given the rather unsatisfactory situation in the general progress of implementing the right to inclusive education worldwide and the scarce resources and infrastructure in many countries, it is not surprising that also the specific group of refugees with disabilities, finding themselves on the intersection of multiple vulnerabilities, face various challenges when accessing their right to inclusive education worldwide (Smith-Khan & Crock, 2018), as well as in Germany (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, 2016; Steigmann, 2020; Bacakova, 2023). These range from physical inaccessibility of school facilities (Refugee Law Project, 2014; Steigmann, 2020), missing and inadequate teacher training in inclusive education (Handicap International, 2015), the lack of even the most basic assistive devices ensuring reasonable accommodation as required by the CRPD (Smith-Khan & Crock, 2018) to stereotyping and stigmatising of children with disabilities and/or their families (Smith-Khan, 2013; HelpAge International & Handicap International, 2014; UNESCO, 2018). All these barriers prevail despite the increased funding of education in emergencies (UNESCO, 2020). While it is essential to research and target the exclusion refugees with disabilities face, it is just as important to challenge the victim perspective and give space to the agency of maginalised population. This is why this proposed paper concentrates not on the discriminatory practices faced by Ukrainian refugee parents of children with disabilities in Germany when accessing education, but on their dreams and aspirations for their children, which have until now remained largely unknown. The paper will present part of a larger mixed-methods research project currently (2023-2024) conducted by a team lead by the author concentrating only on the results obtained from more than 300 Ukrainian refugee families with children with disabilities through an online survey offering first insights into the educational dreams these parents share.

Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte. (2016). Entwicklung der Menschenrechtssituation in Deutschland Juli 2016 – Juni 2017. Bericht an den Deutschen Bundestag gemäß § 2 Absatz 5 DIMRG. Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte. Handicap International. (2015). Disability in humanitarian context: Views from affected people and organisations. Handicap International. https://handicap-international.ch/sites/ch/files/documents/files/disability-humanitarian-context.pdf HelpAge International, & Handicap International. (2014). Hidden victims of the Syrian crisis: disabled, injured and older refugees. HelpAge International and Handicap International. Refugee Law Project. (2014). From the Frying Pan into the Fire: Psychosocial Challenges Faced by Vulnerable Refugee Women and Girls in Kampala. Refugee Law Project. Smith-Khan, L. (2013). Overcoming barriers to education for refugees with disabilities. Migration Australia, 3, 63–67. Smith-Khan, L., & Crock, M. (2018). Making Rights to Education Real for Refugees with Disabilities: Background paper prepared for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266058 Steigmann, F. (2020). Inclusive Education for Refugee Children With Disabilities in Berlin - The Decisive Role of Parental Support. Frontiers in Education, 5(529615), 1–15. UNESCO. (2018). Migration, Displacement, and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls. UNESCO.