Conference Agenda

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals prioritise the elimination of poverty and inequalities, and position education as key to civic and cultural participation (UN, 2015). At a European level, it is claimed that social diversity and equality in higher education (HE) are conditions of European competitiveness in the context of Europe’s changing demographic profile (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019). Yet, despite the Paris Declaration of EU member states that promoted citizenship, freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2016), at an institutional level, research undertaken by the European University Association has identified barriers to the realisation of strategic objectives specifically related to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), particularly, lack of both resources and awareness (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019).

In contrast to the pervasive liberal humanist discourse of equality of opportunity, EDI initiatives in higher education imply awareness that students from socially marginalised demographics are likely to require additional resource and support in order to achieve equal outcomes, thereby complementing the use of participation rates as accountability-related institutional demonstrations of the inclusion of specific demographics. However, the aforementioned report notes variability in the extent to which intersectionality is addressed, where intersectionality describes student identification with ‘various dimensions of diversity’ (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, & Stöber, 2019, p.24) such as gender, socio-economic disadvantage, disability. In Deleuze’s (1995) configuration of the ‘control’ society, reconfigured by Rouvroy (2013, p.157) as ‘algorithmic governmentality’, participation rate data comprises ‘infra-individual digital traces of impersonal, disparate, heterogeneous, dividualized facets of daily life and interactions’, meaning that, for instance, the embodied intersection of dis-ability and disadvantage or lower socio-economic status is neglected. The reported small-scale study focuses on higher education students’ experience of this specific intersection but problematises an additive configuration of intersectionality (the accumulation of oppressions) in favour of a working hypothesis that intersectionality denotes variable and qualitatively distinctive experiences.

Following (Charteris & Smardon, 2019, p.6), the notion of voicework is problematic, risking tokenism and unaltered hegemonic institutional power relations. Nevertheless, this research can be read as contributing to ‘discourses of refusal’ that ‘trouble structures of neoliberal accountability and responsibilisation through setting up new spaces of refusal and reflexivity’, in contrast to discourses of governmentality and accountability which position students as, respectively, passive consumer informants (Demetriou, 2001) or as assurers of the quality of institutional provision (Keddie, 2015). We refer to the interview as intra-viewing, drawing on Foucault’s (1980, 2012) configuration of power as relational, and Deleuze’s (1994, p.29) refusal to view difference solely in terms of contradiction or opposition and positing of an underlying radical relationality. When applied to the interview, researcher and researched remain imbricated in the discourses associated with institutionally codified ethical practice, which assume a power relation and the vulnerability of socially marginalised participants (British Educational Research Association, BERA, 2018); yet, concurrent with and beneath such socially constructed individuated identities, they are also ‘larval subjects’ (Deleuze, 1994, p.78) - subjects-in-process in a relational space characterised by fluidity not fixed categories of identity.

Project aims:

1) To investigate the lived experience of students classified as dis-abled and of lower socio-economic status.

2) To reconfigure the interview process as a generative process (not only as a power differential between researcher-researched), affording more control to participants.

3) To reconsider the concept of intersectionality (rejecting additive conceptualisations) and identifying any distinctive features associated with the intersection of socio-economic status and dis-ability.

4) To contribute to the literature on HE student 'voice' (examining discourses around 'voice' in the context of our findings).

Research question:

What is the embodied experience of the intersection of dis-ability and lower socio-economic status for HE students in an English university?

While the discourse on the rights and participation of disabled people is hardly focusing on children, the discourse on children's rights is hardly ever considering children with disabilities. The proposal aims to analyse the largely separate discourses on childhood and disability, children's rights and the rights of disabled people and their participation. In doing so, it intends to emphasise the potential of discourse entanglement for the implementation of the rights of children and young people with disabilities.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN-CRC, UN 1989) calls for the realization of 'protection', 'provision' and 'participation'. One of the four guiding principles of the UN CRC stipulates that 'the best interests of the child' (Art. 3, para. 1) should be taken into account in the best possible way in all measures that affect them. However, in Germany, as in many other countries, the innovative potential of the UN CRC is underestimated. All Children but especially children who contradict norms of a presumed ‘normal childhood’, such as children with disabilities, are treated in a patronising way, with children's rights being reduced to the legal groups of protection rights and rights to care and services and participatory rights being neglected. Such a practice contradicts UN CRC, which recognises children as independent legal subjects from birth, doing so in a binding form under international law for the first time (Lindmeier 2023). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD, UN 2006) which aims to ensure the rights of disabled people of all ages, also implies a comprehensive recognition of the interests, participation rights and subject status of children in Art. 7 para. 3 (Rossa, 2014). This assures the right of disabled children to be heard (Art. 12 UN CRC) in a double manner.

Nevertheless, there are serious deficits in the establishment of sustainable and effective participation opportunities for children and young people with disabilities and their agency(Lindmeier, 2023; Mac Arthur et al. 2007). In practice, the participation of children with disabilities does not sufficiently fulfil the requirements of both conventions. In particular, participants do not have sufficient clarity about their roles and functions and the resulting power to influence. There is also a lack of transparency and accessible communication, and the interests of children with disabilities are hardly represented, "not to mention by children and young people themselves" (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, 2015, 10).

The proposal analyses the concepts of disability and childhood, agency and vulnerability, using critical discourse analysis. In doing so, it aims at changing the view of children with disabilities by paying more attention to children's agency (Ehrenberg 2023; Priestley, 2020), informed by an understanding of children as active social actors. A general attribution of children with disabilities as vulnerable bears the risk of stigmatizing them instead of building upon their resources, and the risk of distracting from social inequality and emerging power relations instead of critically discussing and breaking them down (Schmitt, 2019). In order establish an inclusive childhood education, it is necessary, on the one hand, to focus more strongly on children's interests and, on the other hand, not to neglect group-specific vulnerability. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the communicative conditions under which disabled children can assert their right to be heard. The final question is therefore how disabled children realize agency under these conditions and what significance the perspective on children's rights and interests has. This will be discussed in conclusion with reference to the authors' initial empirical work and will result in suggestions on participatory research methods suitable to involve disabled children in a meaningful way.

This study falls within the feminist approach of Disability Studies and Inclusive Education. It also draws upon the concept of intersectionality which is addressed by Critical Disability Studies and other disciplines.

Personal experiences of disability are considered important by disability feminists, since they lead to unique experiences which vary even for persons who live in the same cultural contexts (Morris, 1996; Thomas, 1999). Disability feminists highlight the fact that women with disabilities are oppressed on the basis of disability and gender. They also argue that they may also experience multiple oppression because of their gender, race, and disability giving a more comprehensive understanding of personal experiences (Vernon, 1996, 1998). More recently, Critical Disability Studies scholars draw upon the concept of intersectionality to further highlight that the identities of women with disabilities intersect and define their experiences in different areas of life (Goodley, 2017). This concept was developed by Crenshaw (1989, 1991) and has been informing different disciplines. Furthermore, Goodley, Lawthom, and Runswick-Cole (2014) refer to the DisHuman, and they focus on the ways in which people with disabilities tend to be considered "less human" and dehumanized.

The narratives shared by people with disabilities regarding their experiences within the educational system, taking into account their intersecting identities and how these aspects influence their educational or social integration or exclusion, highlight the significance of implementing fair pedagogical approaches that are deeply connected to the diverse identities and experiences of students (Janzen, 2019; Schwitzman, 2019). Therefore, the adoption of an intersectional perspective in education is not just beneficial but essential for fostering inclusion and ensuring equitable opportunities for all students. Most of the literature focusses on the barriers posed by segregating or mainstream settings and call for inclusive education. Personal experiences during school life may enhance this argument and shed light on how the identified barriers impact children’s lives. At the same time, personal experiences may illuminate new parameters that define school experiences. These experiences may be relevant to children’s different identities and their intersections and the relevance of these identities to other factors such as the family and the cultural context. Thus, it is important to consider personal experiences in education if we are to adopt a social justice perspective in policy and practice, infused by inclusive education ideology (Liasidou, 2013).

This study aims to examine how the experiences of women with disabilities at school and their intersectional identities can help us conceptualize how the education system and other factors oppresses or empowers them. The research question is: How do the intersectional identities of women with disabilities and other factors influence their life trajectory through their experiences in the education system?

Social justice leadership internationally is gaining increased attention as issues of equity, equality, inclusion, and diversity inform policies (Torrance, Forde, King and Razzaq, 2021a). This research is situated within the work of the International School Leadership Development Network’s (ISLDN) research project studying social justice school leadership. The network was formed in 2010 under the sponsorship of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS) and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). There are representatives from over 20 countries collaborating in this area. The research developed to form two strands (a) preparing and developing leaders who advocate for social justice and (b) preparing and developing leaders for high-need, low-performing schools. This research resides within the first strand. The team developed a shared research protocol around two key issues: how school leaders “make sense” and “do” social justice (Torrance and Angelle, 2019). Within the Irish context, these questions were situated within an adaptation of Bronfennbrenner’s ecological framework allowing exploration of leadership for social justice at the micro, meso, and macro levels with the principal at the centre (King and Travers, 2017). This paper reports on the Irish findings concerning conceptualisations of social justice leadership, whether school leaders identify as such and the factors that support or hinder such leadership in developing inclusive schools.

Several researchers highlight the links between educational leadership and social justice. Chunoo, Beatty & Gruver (2019) argue that social justice is at the heart of leadership with a bias for action and advocacy. Meanwhile Sarid (2021) argues for connecting adaptive leadership and social justice educational leadership around four principles pertinent to each: being disruptive, dilemmatic, collaborative and context-emergent. Cochran-Smith (1999) also connects educational leadership and social justice in the context of the entrenched inequities in the social, economic, and educational systems. This necessitates a values and political orientation.

Slater (2017) identified three concepts underpinning the understanding of social justice leadership among the ISLDN team of 33 researchers across 14 countries at the time. The first concept was around providing equitable treatment regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. This could also be seen as the absence of any discrimination. The second concept concerned critiquing policies, practices, roles, and relationships in relation to how they marginalise certain groups. This could be interpreted as being proactive in preventing exclusion occurring in the first place. The third concept entailed collective action to include those who have been excluded. This could be interpreted as positive discrimination in addressing barriers and challenges to inclusion in schools.

Artiles et al. (2006) argue that an underlying assumption of inclusion is that it serves social justice goals. They map discourses of inclusion identified by Dyson (1999) onto different views of social justice. The discourse of justification is based on a distributive view of social justice emphasising individual access to additional resources and underpins special and compensatory education (Rawls, 1971). In contrast, they argue that the implementation discourse draws mostly from a communitarian model of social justice, with an emphasis on social cohesion and shared values and beliefs. Artiles et al (2006) argue that the process of increasing social justice for marginalised/ diverse groups will not occur unless the identity of the dominant group also changes. This requires a transformative change involving participation, deliberation and critique on local and wider forces leading to a more inclusive social community and a more just distribution of resources in which all can flourish.

Every person has potentials. According to Children's Rights Article 29, education must "fully develop the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child" (UNICEF, 1989). In the context of inclusion, the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994) calls for education in an inclusive setting in order to enable educational equity for all learners: "An inclusive approach to education means that each individual's needs are taken into account and that all learners participate and achieve together. It acknowledges that all children can learn and that every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs. Special focus is placed on learners who may be at risk of marginalisation, exclusion or underachievement."

However, it shows that the implementation of inclusive settings in the school context is insufficient in German-speaking countries. One possible reason for this could be the lack of a standardised definition of inclusion (Grosche, 2015; S. 17; Loreman, 2014; Resch et al, 2021). The situation is similar with the term "giftedness", which is associated with giftedness and high performance. These inconsistent definitions of the terms in turn lead to "exclusive" support measures that do not address every learner. The pedagogical attitude that every learner, regardless of their origin, their own physical and psychological learning prerequisites and their ethnic diversity, has potential within them that needs to be discovered and nurtured, is thus hardly done justice by educators (Schrittesser, 2019; 2021). For this reason, the term "inclusive gifted education" was coined. It not only supports pupils who have been able to demonstrate their talents through performance in the classroom, as has long been the case in gifted education. Inclusive gifted education assumes that everyone has potential and that this potential can be developed through suitable, individualised learning opportunities and settings. Support measures that are to be offered inclusively in the classroom should benefit all pupils. It is assumed that all learners have different potentials that become visible through individualised learning opportunities. Recognising and promoting this potential has a positive influence on the personal development of learners.

The realisation and implementation of inclusive gifted education requires systematic and systematic school development processes and the corresponding attitude of all teachers. They must observe their pupils in different learning settings and try to recognise potential at an early stage. The promotion of different potentials must not depend on individual teachers and thus be left to chance. Systemtic and systematic school development that involves the entire school staff is therefore essential (Rolff, 2018).

School management plays a special role in this school development process. They are considered the "driver for change" (Bryk, 2010). In their role of steering school development processes, they need a vision and a clear, uniform understanding of inclusive gifted education, which they live out together with their team at the school site and which they implement in their pedagogical work.

Since 2021, the government of Lower Bavaria, in cooperation with the University of Passau and the Vienna/Krems University of Education, has been developing a certificate in the context of inclusive gifted education. The criteria were based on the Index for Inclusion (Ainsen & Booth, 2017).

In the course of this project, the question of what influence the role of school management has on the implementation and realisation of inclusive gifted education in the classroom will be investigated.

The aim is to further develop the specified criteria for the certificate based on the results of the study so that every learner benefits from the promotion of potential. Research is also being conducted into how science, politics and practice can cooperate successfully in the field of inclusive gifted education.

The legal imperative for inclusion, underscored by the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 (CRPD), mandated German mainstream schools to transition from exclusive to inclusive settings. Despite this formal commitment, challenges persist, evident in stable exclusion rates (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). This discrepancy between the legal mandate and on-the-ground practices prompts an exploration of the practical implications and regional variations in inclusive education.

Educational policy and science recognize that inclusion extends beyond the category of disability, encompassing diverse socially constructed differentiation categories. While inclusive education promises to diminish formal exclusion and discrimination by embracing the diversity of all pupils, the reality portrays a stark contrast. There remains a gap between the legal claim to inclusion and the prevailing distribution of students, indicating a complex landscape that extends beyond disability alone; this discrepancy is evident not only in the context of pupils with disabilities but also applies to newcomer students, for example (Plöger i.V.).

Regional disparities in implementing the normative claim to inclusion reveal substantial differences among German federal states (Katzenbach 2018; Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Urban and rural areas present distinct challenges, with the latter often neglected in the discourse on inclusion (Kuhn 2012). This oversight becomes significant as rural regions may lack the necessary personnel for inclusive education, predominantly found in urban areas around university cities challenge (Ottersbach et al. 2016). However, surveys indicate that regular teachers do not feel adequately prepared for its implementation (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Additionally, there is a shortage of teachers and specialized personnel.

Interestingly, rural regions, despite facing obstacles, offer untapped potential for inclusive education. Institutions promoting exclusive practices, such as special schools and secondary schools, are less prevalent in these areas. Leveraging this potential, however, necessitates educators with specialized expertise, often attributed to special needs teachers (Katzenbach 2018). Recognized for their unique training and skills in handling diversity, special needs teachers play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between the formal claim to inclusion and its practical implementation.

Against this backdrop, recent observations in Rhineland-Palatinate, a state in the South of Germany, raise pertinent questions regarding the practical implications of the formal claim to inclusion at the school level. The notable trend of relocating special needs teachers from rural areas to the Mainz metropolitan region sparks an inquiry into the broader regional dynamics impacting inclusive education (cf. https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinlandpfalz/ludwigshafen/versetzung-foerderschulen-demo-100.html). This case study sheds light on the complexities of translating legal mandates into actionable strategies, especially in regions with distinct educational landscapes.

The presentation aims to unravel the nuances of regional disparities in implementing inclusive education, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies that consider the unique challenges and potential each region presents. Through an in-depth analysis, it seeks to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on inclusive education in the German context.

AAchieving a sustainable future requires equipping people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to adapt to an uncertain and complex world without losing sight of their well-being (UN, 2022). Digital technologies are presented as a common good that can support the achievement of SDG 4 - Education 2030 - and build a future beyond 2030 (UNESCO, 2016), which renders the combination of inclusive practices, digitalization and creativity into a key challenge for teachers in different education systems. Various publications have reported on the meaning and significance of policies along these lines (e.g. Eurydice, 2019). Previous research has shown the importance of economic, technological and educational rationalities for reconstructing conservative pedagogy and enabling the "transmission" (e.g. Sancho et al., 2020; Selwyn et al., 2017, 2022). With few exceptions, has reference been made to how policies are realised in practice in disadvantaged schools (e.g. Engel and Coll, 2022; Vigo, 2021). This paper attempts to do this. It aims to generate knowledge on how teachers can engage in their schools to address the challenges of uncertainty when making commitments toward transforming education for sustainability and equipping people with skills, attitudes, and values for their well-being in an uncertain future and complex world (UN, 2023). It addresses what teachers are doing in relation to these policies when they use digital media in schools identified as 'difficult' because of their high percentage of foreign population or their location in remote geographical areas and because of invisible global forces (Mizrav, 2023).
This paper invokes the voices of teachers who are working in segregated schools since they were positioned as ‘difficult’ because of the high percentage of abroad population or its location in remote geographic areas, using critical ethnography to present the experiences of teachers in five schools. According to Apple and Jungk(1990) we consider the relevance of knowing the experiences of teachers in order to reorganise and to actively participate in the reconstruction of these societies. However, according to the same author (2013) or Smyth et al. (2014) we can consider how people can actively participate in the reconstruction of these situations. There has sometimes been a move towards practices that recognise disadvantaged groups in order to create an education that responds to the short and long-term needs of black people that responds to the short- and long-term needs of the population in these schools (i.e. Beach and Vigo, 2020; Feito, 2020). It aims to generate knowledge on how teachers can engage in their schools to address the challenges of uncertainty when making commitments toward transforming education for sustainability and equipping people with skills, attitudes, and values for their well-being in an uncertain future and complex world (UN, 2023)

Sustainable Development Goal 4 highlights inclusion and equity as indicators of quality in education, with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) highlighted as an opportunity to advance educational inclusion (Pedró et al., 2019). While several studies within the field of educational technology have assessed the application of technology in vulnerable groups, students with SEN are still in a position of disadvantage (Cranmer, 2020; Trujillo, 2021). Studies show a need to incorporate a holistic pedagogical model based on Universal Design for Learning, providing accessibility and facilitating inclusion for all (Serrano et al., 2019). The opportunities of ICT in education are evident: the individualisation, the breaking down of barriers of time and space, and the permeability of technology that makes it possible to respond to the principles of UDL. However, it is evident that having ICT tools and technologies does not guarantee that the teachers will effectively use them or change their teaching practices (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). It is rather teacher competencies and beliefs that count (Almerich et al., 2016; Ertmer et al., 2012).

Digitalisation is a global priority, and, in this respect, competence frameworks have been developed from different continents, targeting both citizens at an initial stage and then teachers at all levels of education. In the European context, the DigComp framework in its different versions (Carretero et al., 2016; Vuorikari et al., 2022) has been extended and implemented as a reference model for teacher training in the design of school curricula and updating training plans. Later, the specific digital competence framework for teachers, DigCompEdu (Redecker, 2017), which was taken as a reference by governments for the adaptation of their policies and implementation plans, became the benchmark. Its accessibility has been facilitated by the development and publication of the Selfie for Teachers tool, which provides the educational community with an open and free instrument for the assessment of the perception of teachers' digital competence and is available in 29 languages (Economou, 2023).

The most relevant aspects of this framework focus on the digital competence of students and the practices that teachers and students carry out for the development of teaching-learning processes that respond to the principles of UDL. The DigCompEdu model (Redecker, 2017) presents six competence areas differentiated into: educators’ professional competences, pedagogical competences, and learners’ competences. It is competence 5, learner empowerment, that offers the greatest opportunity for vulnerable learners and students with SEN, as it focuses on personalisation, accessibility, inclusion, and active learner motivation.

In the Digital Education at School Report of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (Eurydice, 2019), digital competence has been described as a priority area for individuals since its initial mention in European Recommendation in 2006 (European Parliament, 2006). A comparison among European countries was made in terms of curricula and approaches. The focus on special needs education related to digital competencies was embedded in the curricula of Belgium, Holland, Germany, Croatia, Austria, and Poland (Eurydice, 2019). A recent report indicates the need for access and participation for inclusion and focuses on teachers’ preparedness for learning environments (European Commission, 2023).

The aim of this study is to assess the use of ICT by teachers working with students with SEN, assess and compare their digital competencies in education, and identify predictors of their digital competency in education across three countries: Türkiye, Ireland, and the Basque Country.

Current global developments, such as migration movements, go hand in hand with increasing social heterogeneity (Mecheril/Rangger 2022). Dealing with heterogeneity in school , in the sense of a broad understanding of inclusion (Löser/Werning 2015), means enabling all pupils to learn the same subject regardless of their different learning needs and backgrounds (Werning 2020). While this heterogeneity is often seen as an opportunity for learning in school cultural development processes (Budde 2015), it also comes with challenges, especially for teachers. They must prepare lessons that are sensitive to heterogeneity, especially in subjects that require complex teaching and learning processes with a high degree of abstraction. This also includes science lessons with experimentation as a core method (Stinken-Rösner et al. 2023).

When experimenting, teachers have to choose between small-step instructions, which have little cognitive activating effect, or open task formats, which can be overwhelming for students (Kleinert et al. 2021). Incremental learning aids offer a central and established solution to this requirement (ibid.): They break down complex tasks into subtasks and provide hints and solutions for each step, which students can access independently. In combination with digital media, such as an app for the tablet, they also offer further possibilities for differentiation.

The use of tablets in the classroom is an internationally researched topic (Aufenanger/Bastian 2017; Zhang/Nouri 2018). Tablets, as well as other digital media, are proving to be significant for the development of teaching and are also seen as a significant opportunity for the success of inclusive teaching (Filk/Schaumburg 2021). The user competences of teachers and students with regard to digital media are diverse and multifaceted (Engel/Jörissen 2022) and the actual use of the media remains largely dependent on the respective individuals (Aufenanger 2017). For science lessons, it has been shown that digital media have the potential to break down barriers (Stinken-Rösner et al. 2023).

This is where our research comes in. We focus the use of an app for inclusive science classes with an ethnographic approach and a special focus on its inclusive and exclusive potential. For this Lesson observations and, interviews with teachers and pupils are carried out. Our research is situated within the joint research project "DiLernProfis" (Short for: Learning process oriented diagnostics and didactis - digital incremental scaffolds as a professionalization concept for adaptive teaching), funded by the BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research). The goal of “DiLernprofis” is the development of a web app that enables teachers to create and use digital learning aids. These should allow all pupils to complete complex tasks, such as experimentation, independently. In line with a broad understanding of inclusion, the focus is not on a specific group of pupils, but on the entire learning group, which is defined as heterogeneous in terms of its composition. To this end, a teacher training program is carried out and a certified training concept developed on this basis (Löser et al. 2023). The findings of our sub-project are used to further develop the app as well as the teacher training.

The concept of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) refers to the intention to speak or to remain silent given free choice (MacIntyre, 2007) . Originally, it was associated with speaking in one’s first language, but in the 1990s, it was applied to second language communication. And the concept was refined to denote a language learner’s willingness to use the target language to communicate with a certain person at a certain time (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998)
WTC in second language (L2) is conceptualized as a dynamic state of communicative readiness (Zarrinabadi & Tanbakooei, 2016). For example, MacIntyre et al., (1998) developed a pyramid WTC model that integrates various layers of variables, including communication behavior, behavioral intention, situated antecedents, motivational propensities, affective-cognitive context, and social and individual context.
The complex interrelationship of variables affecting WTC construction in L2 can be categorized into six different levels. The variables from the upper three layers, communication behavior, behavioral intention, and situated antecedents, have a temporary and changeable influence on students' willingness to communicate.
Motivation can be categorized into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is characterized by a sense of enjoyment and satisfaction associated with an activity, for example, students enjoy the process of language learning and feel a sense of satisfaction in acquiring new skills. It is based on the belief that interpersonal interactions and social environments can fulfill fundamental psychological needs, allowing individuals to develop growth-oriented tendencies such as internalization and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Noels, 2009).
Conversely, extrinsic motivation pertains to behaviors that are performed for reasons other than the inherent satisfaction they provide (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Within Self-Determination Theory, four primary subtypes of extrinsic motivation have been identified: external regulation, involving behaviors motivated by external rewards or punishments; introjected regulation, where behavior is governed by internal rewards like self-esteem for success; identified regulation, characterized by a person’s endorsement of an activity’s value, leading to a higher willingness to act; and integrated regulation, where an individual not only sees the value in the activity but also aligns it with their other values.

While willingness to communicate (WTC) is widely acknowledged as a significant contributor to language achievement, its potential in the context of reading performance among immigrant students remains underexplored. However, it is less explored in scenarios such as learning the language through immersion in a country where the language is spoken. Besides, research has traditionally focused on WTC’s impact in oral communication scenarios, leaving a gap in our understanding of how it influences reading achievement.
Motivation (MOT) is a well-established driver of academic success, acting as the fuel that powers students’ efforts to overcome challenges and achieve their educational goals. In the study of language learning, MOT’s role is particularly pronounced, influencing not only the desire to learn but also the persistence in overcoming barriers. The inclusion of MOT alongside WTC in this research acknowledges the complex interplay between a student’s desire to communicate and their underlying motivational drives. Understanding how WTC mediates the relationship between MOT and reading performance could unveil new pathways to enhancing immigrant students’ academic outcomes, spotlighting the need for educational strategies that nurture both motivation and communication willingness.

The Early Childhood Education Act (Barnehageloven, 2005) in Norway upholds the principle of inclusivity, emphasizing the provision of a high-quality educational experience tailored to every child's individual needs. The aim is to nurture the development of each child’s abilities and talents. However, when it comes to the education of gifted children, the responsibility seems to lie with individual early childhood care institutions and municipalities. This decentralized approach has led to notable variations in practices and methodologies among different institutions. Perceptions of giftedness, however, vary, and researchers across countries and cultures face challenges in defining and theorizing giftedness in children (Furnes & Jokstad, 2023; Idsøe, 2021; Sternberg, 2019). The Norwegian education system and early childhood care also have diverse opinions on children, shaping attitudes and pedagogical practices (Furnes & Jokstad, 2023). Early childhood care teachers play a pivotal role in identifying and addressing the needs of every child, as outlined in Norwegian regulations (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017; Barnehageloven, 2005). Inclusion is a key aspect of Norwegian education and laws (Barnehageloven, 2005).

In our comparative study, we aim to investigate the national policies and attitudes regarding gifted children within the context of early childhood care. Our focus extends to comparing the approaches taken in Norway and Denmark. In its early stages, the research adopts a documentary empiric approach, examining policy documents from both nations. The intersection between pedagogic and special pedagogic considerations in Norway is a significant aspect, with Befring and Næss (2019) emphasizing gifted children as a goal for special education. Our analysis delves into how policy documents utilize the term "gifted children" and its connection with inclusion and the rights of children with special needs, as outlined by UNESCO (1994).

Questions in the study arise about the alignment of these attitudes with Amartya Sen's research on capabilities (1993, 1999), The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Actions on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), and Norwegian laws (NOU 2009:18). Our research aims to reflect on these questions. This study is part of a larger research project that aims to contribute to the conversation concerning the education and treatment of gifted children in the future.

The term ‘Autism’ was first used in 1911 by Eugen Bleuler (1951) as a description of a form of schizophrenia. In the 1940s the first widely recognized descriptions auf autism were published by Leo Kanner (1968 [1943]) and Hans Asperger (1944) (Lord et al. 2020). Due to these publications languages a gap between German speaking and international/English discourse became evident and can still be observed in today’s educational discourse.
Kanner's description of the cold ‘schizophrenogenic’ mother as the cause of autism (Sterwald and Baker 2019) was particularly taken up in psychoanalytic considerations in the 1960s and 1970s. Bruno Bettelheim's (1973 [1967]) description of "refrigerator mothers" gained popularity subsequently but is now considered refuted (Zankl 2012). Concurrently, and in addition, the first neurological descriptions of autism emerged (Hermelin and O'CONNOR 1963; Rimland 1964). Especially Rimland shifted the perspective in the search for the origins away from parental misbehavior towards neurological causes. In 1979, Wing and Gould (1979) first used the term ‘Autism-Spectrum’. This term is still present in medical publications such as the ICD-11 (WHO, 2019) today. Autism was first named in a medical diagnostic manual in the DSM-III (1980). With this, research on autism almost exclusively adopted a medical/pathological perspective as evident in the frequent use of the term ‘disorder’ in reference to autism. Approaches such as Baron-Cohen and colleagues' Mind-Blindness Theory (1985; 1995) are exemplary of this perspective. Baron-Cohen himself underwent a paradigm shift in the following years of his career towards a perspective of neurodiversity (Baron-Cohen, 2017), representing the evolution of the scientific discourse.
Through this period autism as a phenomenon was always part of the practical and scientifical educational conversation, presumably highly influenced by the previously described developments in the medical perspectives. As it’s evident for example in the Berlin guidelines on special needs education (SenBJF 2023) where the description criteria for ‘autistic behavior’ matches the diagnostical criteria for ‘autism spectrum disorder’ in ICD-11 (WHO 2020). Similar perspectives can be found in other practical and theoretical publications. This leads to the questions: On what background is autism discussed in the current pedagogical discourse? And how does it correspond to inclusive perspectives?

To answer these questions, this presentation will focus on references to autism used in current pedagogical publications (comparing the German and English discourse) and analyze their implicit meanings and realted models of autism. By doing this, it’s possible to show the current state of pedagogical autism research. This presentation will be based on the results of a scoping review. By taking the underlying models into account it’s also possible to question whether the most commonly used models relate to inclusive models of disability.
This presentation will use the descriptions of inclusive perspectives by Mai-Anh Boger (e.g. 2017) and Adi Goldiner (2022) as a framework.
In the work on the ‘trilemma of inclusion’ Boger uses a philosophical-analytical approach to show the relation between the perspectives of ‘normalization’, ‘deconstruction’ and ‘empowerment’ (Boger 2017). In a nutshell she concludes the inclusive theories can always only engage a maximum of two of these perspectives, while necessarily opposing the last (Redlich and Gerhards 2023).
Meanwhile Goldiners ‘Cluster of Disability Models’ summarizes approaches towards disability models in a three-dimensional scheme. The Cluster concludes that every Model of diability can be assorted in three axis: medical vs. social model; tragedy vs. affirmative model & minority vs. universal model (Goldiner 2022).
These two approaches will be combined in a theoretical framework to assess models of autism from an inclusive perspective and examine their implications for theoretical and practical perspectives. Thus analyzing the implications of descriptions of autism between ‘neurodiversity’, ‘spectrum’ and ‘disorder’.

The aim of my presentation is to present the results of research on the recognition of the discourse of inclusion/social exclusion in the documents of youth organizations operating in Poland.

The basic concepts are inclusion and social exclusion. Social inclusion is "the process of taking initiatives to open people up to diversity in such a way that they respect and accept their differences. These actions are intended to ensure equal rights and access to goods, services, capital and markets, enable the implementation of their plans, and facilitate participation in the life of the community" (Kołodziejczyk, 2018). Social exclusion, on the other hand, is defined as "a partial or total inability to use generally available public goods and institutions, limited participation in social, cultural and economic aspects of an individual's social life and acquiring financial resources necessary for a decent life, as well as hindered performance of social roles in a given community" (NSIS, 2003, p. 23, quoted in: Kołodziejczyk, 2018).

The concepts of inclusion and social exclusion are analyzed within the framework of Teun van Dijk's theory of discourse, in which the factors coupling language with social action are distinguished (Rypel, 2017, p.13). The notion of "discourse" allows us to read the message in the context of its use, and thus "shifts the focus from the finished product to the culturally conditioned strategies of its production" (Grochowski, 2001, p.7). This analysis will be carried out on the basis of two dimensions of discourse: the linguistic phenomenon and the communicative event (Biskupska, 2014, pp. 370-371).

The linguistic phenomenon is understood in terms of the formal features of language, which generally consist of lexis, stylistics and grammar. In my analyses, I focus primarily on the lexis of the language used by organizations, and in particular on the vocabulary that directly or indirectly indicates inclusion/exclusion. A communicative event is interpreted as a written or oral statement on a specific topic or categories and rules of discussion. In my analyses, I focus on statements with specific themes, i.e. those that concern activities and subjects subject to inclusion/exclusion.

On the one hand, the definitions indicate the actions and, on the other, the subjects of the actions. Therefore, two research questions were posed:

1. What lexical forms with an inclusive/exclusive meaning are used by youth organizations operating in Poland?

2. In what forms of communication are statements of inclusive/exclusive significance presented, and what activities and entities do they concern?

The first dimension of discourse, understood in terms of the formal features of language, was analysed in a two-stage procedure: the selection of words on the basis of synonyms and words synonymous with inclusion/exclusion, and the selection of utterances read on the basis of indicators derived from the definition of inclusion/exclusivity, placed in the context of utterances. I perceive the second dimension of discourse, i.e. the communicative event, perceived as a statement, a text, a message on a specific topic, as dependent on its cultural context. In these analyses, I have focused on the forms of expression and their subject matter, revealing the forms of undertaken actions and their subjects, i.e. the recipients of these actions.

The research is carried out as part of the broader project "Heterotopies of Citizenship - Educational Discourse and Pedagogies of Militarization in the Spaces of Youth Organizations. Analytical-critical and comparative approach", funded by a grant from the National Science Centre (no. 2019/35/B/HS6/01365). As part of the project, there were corresponding articles published by Helena Ostrowicka, & Klaudia Wolniewicz-Słomka (2023) and Celina Czech-Włodarczyk, & Magdalena Cuprjak, in the study.

Ever since special education emerged as a discipline, it has consisted of contradicting views on what constitutes good education for children with disabilities (Haustätter & Thuen, 2014). In Norway, the conflicting perspectives existing within special education culminated in the late 1980’s where a decision was made to close down all state governed special schools. Replacing the special school system was an ambition of integrating children with disabilities into their neighbourhood schools (Haug, 2014; Wendelborg & Tøssebro, 2011). However, integration gradually received criticism for becoming too focused on adapting the pupil with disabilities to fit within ordinary education rather than focusing on how the educational system itself could change in order to encompass a broader diversity within the context of an education for all (Haug, 2014). Inclusion later replaced integration as the principle to realise education for all. However, there is not one agreed upon definition of inclusion and the concept could both mean both participation in an ordinary fellowship and in a segregated setting (Haug, 2010).

Theoretical perspectives

The theoretical framework of this paper is based on critical theory (Skjervheim, 1996). Skjervheim argues that we have two alternatives when interacting with others who may have different perspectives on a certain topic from ourselves. On one hand, we can choose to take a participant position where the interaction will consist of at least three parts, the ego (the self), the alter (the other) and the topic for discussion. This position requires an equal distribution of power between the actors and is recognised by both parties (the ego and alter) being willing to engage in the topic the other puts forward. On the other hand, we can choose a spectator position. In this position the interaction is reduced to two parts, the ego and the alter. Instead of engaging in the topic that the alter puts forward, we instead direct our attention to the one stating it. A spectator position is recognised by an attempt interpret what the statement of the other can tell us about the one stating it. In the latter position we are, according to Skjervheim, Psychologising the other, similar to how a therapist tries to analyse what a statement of a patient can tell us about their condition.

However, the two mentioned position is not only restricted to interactions taking place between subjects, the same may also be the case between representatives of different perspectives sharing interest in the same area. The issue with a spectator position is that it inhibits dialogue and cooperation between disciplines or interests within special/inclusive education because one or more actor is reluctant to negotiate on one’s own position. Alternatively one could envision a discourse within special/inclusive education emerging from a participant position, where the focus is no longer on dominating the other perspective but instead on what kinds of original knowledge can emerge from engaging in discussion on certain topics from different positions. There are examples on how the reconciliation of two or more opposing perspectives may have beneficial outcomes, such as the relational perspective on disability. If actors within different branches of special education are able to avoid objectifying opposing perspective and engage with representatives of these perspectives as subjects holding views worthy of respect, contradicting perspective could become potential enrichments to field of special education going forward.

Research question

This paper has the following research question: What potential outcomes may emerge from taking a participant position in discussion between actors representing opposing views about the future of special education?

In the field of inclusive education teachers’ attitudes constitute a central focus of research, in particular those of pre-service teachers (Schwab, 2018; Amor et al., 2019; Van Steen & Wilson, 2020). These studies generally focus on disability-related issues, such as teachers’ opinions, beliefs or even fears, as well as their propension to adopt certain types of differentiation strategies or to collaborate with colleagues to support students with special educational needs.

Research on discriminatory attitudes is fragmented around the three big "isms" (racism, sexism, and classism) (Gimez, 2001; Collins, 2019), while ableism, which entails all phenomena targeting (dis)ability, is still a neglected subject. With reference to discriminatory attitudes among teachers, studies are even rarer, especially those investigating possible implications of implicit attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, according to some studies teachers would daily act biased micro-interactions, such as differentiating communication, eye contact, tone of voice, and assessment procedures according to the individual characteristics of the pupils (e.g. skin color, height, weight, manifestation of behavioral problems, etc.) (e.g., Turetsky et al., 2021; Costa, Langher & Pirchio, 2021; Nutter et al., 2019), affecting negatively pupils’ learning and self-esteem, while favoring pupils' belonging to the majority group (e.g. Pin-Ten Cate & Glock, 2019).

On the other hand, according to international literature in the field, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion might be modified through training (Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019) and interaction with or experience of pupils with disabilities (Guillemot, Lacroix & Nocus, 2022; de Boer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2020; Avramidis & Norwich, 2022).

These findings highlight the importance of teacher training, both pre-service and in-service.

On this background, our research had three main objectives:

1. To investigate the prevalence of discriminatory attitudes among teachers (ableism, classism, racism, and sexism).
2. To analyze the interconnection between the four discriminatory attitudes.
3. To investigate how ableist attitudes influence the propensity to adopt differentiation strategies in order to meet the needs of pupils with disability and other special educational needs.

For this reason, we developed and administered a questionnaire entailing validated scales on discriminatory attitudes (racism, sexism, classism and racism) and scales regarding teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive teaching (e.g. Ewing et al., 2017). The survey consisted of 23 questions, including items on socio-demographic such as gender, age, and educational background (i.e. teaching experience, participation in specific training courses related to inclusion, disabilities and special educational needs).

This study presents an ongoing research on initial teacher education for inclusive education in Chile, aiming to stimulate discussion about teacher education for inclusion in a highly standardised educational system driven by market forces. Previous research has shown that the Chilean system struggles to implement inclusive policies (Lopez et al., 2018) and that teachers' roles are limited by prescriptive mechanisms (Assaél et al., 2018). The results of this research are expected to contribute to the international debates about the challenges of teacher education in this topic in different contexts.

Inclusive education has become a crucial international project in recent decades (Ainscow et al., 2019). Due to its complexity, inclusive education requires collaboration among various educational stakeholders. Teachers are considered key actors in this process, and initial teacher education plays a central role (Li & Ruppar, 2021). However, despite the integration of inclusion into teacher education programs, literature shows that teachers still feel unprepared (Florian & Camedda, 2020).

International research on teacher education for inclusion points out various challenges to address. First, it has mainly focused on developing positive attitudes, knowledge and skills towards inclusion (Tristani & Basset-Gunter, 2020), and the comprehension of the contextual factors which influence teacher education is still needed (Pugash et al., 2020). Second, other authors underline the relevance of the knowledge needed for an inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Camedda, 2021), particularly in student teachers’ practicum at schools (Sharma, 2018). In that regard, a broad approach to studying teacher education for inclusion is critical.

The study conceptualises inclusive education from a social justice perspective (Waitoller, 2020), emphasising teacher education's role in understanding and addressing social injustice, reflecting on the school context and their teaching practice, and promoting transformative agency (Pantić & Florian, 2015). Additionally, the study considers student teachers' school experiences as part of subjectivity formation and production, where teachers redefine their identity through interaction with others (Larrosa, 2004). Hence, this research focuses on exploring the complexity of the experiences of inclusion and exclusion during the practicum that tension initial teacher education programs.

Accordingly, this paper will be guided by the following question: how do student teachers' experiences in practicum at schools affect their stance on inclusive education? Thus, the study seeks to characterize primary student teachers’ practicum experiences related to inclusion and exclusion and analyse their stance on inclusive education.

In the project "Inclusion - Thinking and Designing: Interactions between Inclusion-Related Attitudes and Pedagogical Actions of Primary School Teachers on Inclusion in a Social Context" (University of Hildesheim, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation), attitudes related to inclusion, experiences associated with inclusive schools, and changes in attitudes of teachers, parents, and children are being studied on a longitudinal basis. The project is based on a broad understanding of inclusion that encompasses all dimensions of heterogeneity and that every school should be an inclusive school. Following Hinz (2019), an inclusive school is one that adapts to the needs of the students and is thus thought of more broadly than inclusion. Thus, every school, whether with children with impairments or not, should be an inclusive school.

The ratification of the UNCRPD and the resulting new school laws in Germany have further broadened the scope of diversity in schools, bringing with it considerable didactic and educational challenges as well as far-reaching consequences for organizational and individual processes at all levels in the education sector: the education system, the school and the classroom (Fend 2008). The educational system level is challenged to create a structural framework for inclusive schooling that enables all children to attend a general education school. Changes at the school level result in the establishment of new patterns of interaction, especially between colleagues, parents and children. Finally, teaching must also be rethought: New forms of teaching and methods must be applied. In this way, diversity can become the norm. Teachers take on new roles in the classroom. In an inclusive classroom, they now see themselves as learning facilitators. This, in turn, can also bring about individual and socioemotional changes.

Teachers are thus of central importance in the inclusion process (Arndt & Werning 2018; Hattie & Zierer 2016). They are one of the most important - if not the most important - actors with whom inclusion stands and falls.

In addition to resources and pedagogical as well as didactical changes, teachers' attitudes are thus particularly relevant. Their attitudes (based on the expectation-value model according to Ajzen 1996) shape pedagogical action, which in turn is influenced by experience and can lead to changes in attitude. Thus, it can be assumed that attitudes (and their change) can be considered an important prerequisite, if not a condition for success, for the realization of school inclusion.

Previous studies indicate a fundamentally positive attitude of teachers towards teaching all children together (Werning, Mackowiak, Rothe & Müller). Furthermore, correlations between the attitude and the type of school as well as previous experiences can be identified (cf. Kullmann et al. 2014). However, a positive attitude is not synonymous with readiness for inclusive teaching. Furthermore, there is a research desideratum in the area of systematic longitudinal studies (Greve & Hauenschild 2017; Kullmann et al. 2014).

Results from the qualitative project part of the teachers are presented. 57 problem-centered interviews with elementary school teachers, special education teachers, and students were analyzed longitudinally using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2018). The results indicate that teachers are characterized by different types of attitudes, which differ in manifold demands and expectations in the pedagogical context, cooperations as well as motivations. Longitudinal analysis also suggests that attitudes can change through teachers' experiences.

If attitudes can be changed through experience, it can be assumed that this has an influence on the pedagogical actions of teachers. The importance and role of teachers in the inclusion process is thus once again emphasized, opening up further research questions in the context of inclusion and the respective actors involved.

This Paper was accepted last year, but could not be presented.

Compulsory School for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (CSSID) in Sweden is undergoing extensive policy change with the overall argument of promoting inclusive education. Core is a guarantee regarding support measures to enable achievement, which is in turn connected to increased national assessment and the implementation of a revised curriculum. In this change, increased equity and quality have been stated as motives. At the same time, equity and quality has shown to be challenged in the Nordic education systems (Frønes et al., 2020). The political will and enhancement of assessment in education is a phenomenon troughout Europe, often with the incentive to reform education deriving from international comparisons of knowledge, as PISA for example.

Through the shifting governing of CSSID, towards assessment, discourses of normality and of assessment joins forces and pushes ACS toward the discourse on learning, knowledge and assessment of the mainstream compulsory school (Andersson et al, 2023).). This is an example on how neoliberal values are embedded in today’s schooling and inclusion, equity, and quality are often approached as being promoted by comparison and competition (Blossing et al., 2014; Harvey, 2005; Smith, 2018; Yang Hansen and Gustafsson, 2016). This phenomenon has also appeared in other contexts and has been criticized by researchers who emphasize that quality of life, equity and self-determination need to be focused to a greater extent. Something that can be achieved by considering inclusion as an ethical responsibility that school and society have, rather than reducing inclusion to neoliberal values ​​that include knowledge assessment, competition, comparison, and freedom of choice (Brossard Børhaug & Reindal, 2018). In relation to this, Waitoller (2020) discusses the force of accumulation, which refers to the identification and sorting of students as able or not. Furthermore, learners’ identity is within the realm of assessment often linked to the ideal of the neoliberal human being. Whenever this ideal is not met, due to individuals having deficits, it is seen as a threat to economic progress (Ball, 2013). We claim that these circumstances especially impact students ASC and is reinforced during assessment.

The purpose of the study is to contribute knowledge on national assessment for compulsory students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) in Sweden. For the current paper, we have developed the method for selection and analysis and have focused on two governmental investigations to do so. Furthermore, we will put the results in relation to global and traveling discourses on assessment of knowledge and students with ID and discuss the outcome in relation to New Public Management and how policy mediates meaning (see Ball, 2013; 2017). In prolongation, we will analyze policy as well as the national assessment material itself and how these together constructs students’ knowledge, the student with ID as a learner and the assessment itself.

Contribution

Like other Nordic countries, Norway has a culture and history of promoting politics that emphasise social equalisation and equal access to education for all (Keles et al., 2022). Education for all aims to support respect and acceptance for diversity and to promote learning in inclusive settings as well as learning from one another, thus creating spaces for social relations to enrich the understanding of what it means to be part of a democratic society (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). The Nordic countries’ similarities and shared aims for education are defined as the ‘Nordic model’ of education (Frønes et al., 2020), which has traditionally further promoted the policy of inclusion through legal and legislative documents as well as principles for inclusive educational practices (Haug, 2017; Keles et al., 2022).

The situation seems to have hit a dead end, however, as the Nordic model concept is threatened by the forces of marketisation, efficiency, individualism and competition, challenging the traditional welfare values of education for all (Hanssen et al., 2021). This is particularly observed in Norway, where there is a persistent gap between national legal and legislative documents and the practices of inclusive education for students with special educational needs (SEN). This gap is linked to an increase in segregated educational spaces and a lack of special education expertise (Olsen, 2021), which may restrict learning and social participation for this group of students. Such barriers for inclusion can emerge in any context but especially in settings where legal and legislative documents lack a common understanding of the concept of inclusion and offer vague guidelines for promoting inclusive education practices (Olsen & Hanssen, 2021).

The current paper follows Kemmis et al.’s (2014) definition of practice as a socially established cooperative activity involving utterance and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action and activity (doings) and the ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings). Inclusive education practices for students with SEN are thus understood as the varied ways in which teachers include students with SEN in education (doings), how they express themselves in words and language to describe what is going on in their teaching (sayings) and how they relate to students, colleagues and other partners (relatings) (Mahon et al., 2017). Inclusive education practices are ‘held in place’ by external structures or arrangements (cultural-discursive, material-economic and sociopolitical circumstances. Against this background, the present study investigates the following research question:

How can the new Norwegian Education Act constrain and enable inclusive education practices for students with SEN in primary and secondary schools?

The research question is explored by analysing the forthcoming Education Act and its preparatory documents.

In the pursuit of promoting transitional justice education for reconciliation in post-colonial societies, it is important not to ignore the issues of historical justice and educational justice for indigenous peoples. In recent years, many countries have actively incorporated Indigenous knowledge, perspectives and historical narratives into the promotion of transitional justice education. Not only increasing emphases have placed on “justice-sensitive pedagogy for social justice” as a vital theme in curriculum change and in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2010; Davis, 2017; Parkinson & Jones, 2018); but also increasing efforts have given to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in education (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2017). Since education is a human right and the foundation for more equitable, inclusive and cohesive societies (Vitello & Mithaug, 1998), it is imperative to provide education that acknowledges the value of diversity and respect for human dignity to enable all learners (with different gender, ethnicity, indigenous status, etc.) to thrive, to understand their realities, and to work for a more just society (UNESCO, 2017).

In Taiwan, since the lifting of the martial law in 1987 there have been various transitional justice initiatives and mechanisms advocated by the civic society which have accumulated many remarkable democratic achievements. Over the past decades, Taiwan government has also developed a powerful policy and legal framework to protect and support Indigenous rights and development, culminating in the establishment of the Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee, however, Indigenous peoples are still the most disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable group in the country, and in education, Indigenous peoples continue to have significantly lower academic achievements and outcomes compared to their Han Chinese peers (Nesterova, 2023). In view of the fact that although the newly reformed National Curriculum Guidelines has included the diverse historical and cultural perspectives of indigenous peoples, the content and supporting mechanisms are not quite relevant, and the goal of promoting transitional justice for Indigenous peoples has not been fully understood and implemented. According to Couch et al. (2023), in Taiwan, although there have been some regulations and policies to deal with the learning disadvantages of Indigenous students and the loss of Indigenous culture and language, the education provided in schools has always been limited to Han Chinese culture, and the institutional structure has not changed to respond to the learning needs of Indigenous students.

It is necessary to rethink education for Indigenous peoples from the perspectives of cultural diversity and cognitive justice (Makoelle, 2014). Schools must recognize the coexistence of different forms of knowledge and cognitive forms, and need to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into school curricula and take into account the cognitive justice of students from different cultural background (Muchenje, 2017). In this way, students can interact with familiar concepts in different cultural contexts to generate meaningful learning. As researchers point out, equitable and inclusive education provides better learning opportunities, processes and results for all learners that can promote psychological and social adjustment, not only improve their academic achievement, but also foster their socio-emotional growth, self-esteem and peer acceptance which may consequently enhance trust for social cohesion to be built (Mezzanotte, 2022; Nishina, et al., 2019).

Therefore, this study aims to explore feasible approaches and practicable inclusive education for all that can be historically, culturally, and cognitively sensitive to the perspectives and aspirations of Indigenous peoples. Based on this, the main research purposes of this study include:

(1) to understand the perspectives of Indigenous education leaders regarding the issues of historical justice and educational justice for Indigenous peoples

to explore the aspirations of Indigenous education promoters and practitioners for the construction of justice-sensitive curriculum and pedagogy for Inclusive Indigenous Education

This Panel Discussion builds upon a double seminar that took place at ECER 2023, which led to a Special Issue call in the European Journal of Inclusive Education.

Despite the global drive for the development of inclusion within schools, special education has maintained its role across the world in various guises (Slee, 2018; Rix, 2015; Hausstatter & Jahnukainen, 2015). For example, in Finland, 9% of children in 2020 were identified for special support with over 40% receiving all education in a special education setting (Statistics Finland, 2021); in Ireland, special schools numbers have continued to grow to over 140 and nearly 25% of the school population have been identified with special educational needs (Kenny et al, 2020); in the Czech republic 33% of those identified with Special educational needs spend their school days in special settings (EASNIE, 2020), whilst in England special school numbers have grown by over 20% since 2011 (Selfe & Richmond, 2020). Similarly, in Spain there are over 500 special schools (Cermi 2023) and in some parts of the country 40% of children with special needs education, high abilities and specific learning disabilities attend special schools, with 60% in integration classes with variable periods in mainstream schools (Junta de Andalucia, 2022).

Even if efforts are made to accept the historical value of special education and to shift the focus onto a singular inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2013), it is clearly not happening in ways that transforms the dominant marginalising processes of the education system. As suggested by Richardson and Powell (2011), the historical and cultural development of both general and special education has led to a mutual dependency, which has created a complexity that inclusive education is not able to solve. Special education may function as a mechanism for regulating educational systems, however it also exemplifies the limits of hope and despair (Ball, 2020) about the potential of education.

In last year’s seminar, Ilektra Spandagou suggested that a possible solution was to shift the focus to radical special education. In this Panel Discussion we will explore the possible nature of such an approach.

Ilektra Spandagou, Olja Jovanović, Rune Hausstatter, Anabel Granados and Jonathan Rix (acting as chair) will present ideas that speak to three underlying issues that emerged from the seminar in 2023 and the subsequent submissions to the special issue:

• How can we redistribute power in special education and to whom?
• How can special education be retheorised?
• What should teacher education be focussed upon when it engages with radical special education?

These presentations will be informed by a mix of data from classrooms, reviews of the literature, theoretical analysis and personal reflection. They will examine the extensive challenges of enabling meaningful voice, responsive administration and participatory governance. They will consider how special education can shift its focus from the quantitative understanding of difference to qualitative understandings, from structures framed by certainty to ones that embrace uncertainty. They will explore how teacher education can shift a focus to collective action, and from issues of therapy to matters of teaching and learning.

The discussion which follows will evaluate the challenges and opportunities raised by the speakers in relation to reimagining special education so that it supports the transformative potential of inclusion. In addition, it will seek to raise future possibilities for research, publication and collaboration. A valued output from this session will be the further development of a network of interested researchers from across a range of nations. Please join us.

We aim to present the newly published book, "Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care" (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9), which provides insights from various countries including Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The emphasis of this Symposium will be on delving into the dynamics of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) within the context of inclusive ECEC in three European countries, namely Finland, Lithuania, and Norway.Formos viršus

Most countries in the world follow the international education priority that is emphasised in UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all (UN, 2022). European countries have significantly reformulated their ECEC systems with inclusive education in view. Nevertheless, across the countries, there is still an incomplete provision of equal educational opportunities for all, particularly for children with special educational needs (Hanssen et al., 2021). Therefore, a systemic approach to inclusive ECEC services and a strong collaboration between the different sectors, such as education, health and social is being emphasised.

To address the main internationally agreed priorities related to ECEC, this anthology focuses on ‘inclusion’ in ECEC (UNESCO-IBE, 2008, p. 18). Across the chapters of the book, it is clear that themes, serving as a ‘red thread’ throughout the volume, are related to collaboration in ECEC in various European countries. Initially, our focus was to examine IPC within the realm of ECEC across diverse social-cultural contexts. In the context of inclusive ECEC, IPC is considered as precondition for the holistic child and family practice, partnership-based professional relations, coordinated services, spread of competences, and innovative activities within teams and organisations (Payler & Georgeson, 2013). IPC is a significant factor for the effective provision of inclusive education especially for children with special educational needs and their families aiming to address challenges when jointly acting with representatives from different professions.

Research show that in reality IPC often is a challenge (Hong & Shaffer, 2015). The reasons for this relate to, among other issues, lack of research defining the concept and the structure of IPC, i.e. subjective and different interpretation of the IPC conception, lack of presumptions for success and sufficiency of IPC, issues of professional power, professional identities and relations, and diversity of professional languages and roles (Alisauskiene & Gevorgianiene, 2015). Reflecting on the past experiences, it is evident that the role of a professional was strictly defined by the precise set of functions described in a certain professional code and did not foresee interdisciplinary and interprofessional cooperation nor flexibility in professional roles and functions. The emphasis on professional identity was strengthened by historically developed “niche” of certain professions and their status and prestige in society. In this aspect, the discussion can be based on P. Bourdieu’s conception of habitus, capital (knowledge, linguistic, cultural, etc.), and “practical theory”, which emphasizes virtuous interactions between individuals (King, 2000). The IPC in ECEC might be problematic, when professionals encounter a variety of complex new roles in multi-service settings. Moreover, a common feature is that none of the countries have entirely fulfilled the pledge of strong collaboration between various professionals in ECEC in educational practices (Sundqvist, 2021). Therefore, the countries’ knowledge and experiences can encourage interest in discussions about realising a fruitful interprofessional collaboration within inclusive ECEC. According to Ainscow (2021), learning from what happening on the other places, when we visiting other countries it is like a mirror, it makes us to think about what we do in our context. Insights into diverse approaches adopted by European countries, such as Finland, Lithuania, and Norway, can significantly enhance our comprehension of the distinct collaborations in ECEC.

The society of today puts great demands on personnel in early childhood education and care (ECEC) since expectations are that personnel can support children with a wide variety of needs. Research indicate that personnel in ECEC lack knowledge regarding children with special educational needs (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016) and furthermore personnel might lack knowledge regarding inclusive practice (Lundqvist et al., 2016). For ensuring that children receive appropriate and inclusive support in regular educational settings collaboration between professionals with different competencies is a necessity. In Finland, a common collaborative approach is that early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs) deliver consultative support to personnel in ECEC (Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019). The aim of this paper is to gain an understanding of how ECSETs experience their consultative role in ECEC. We have formulated two research questions that guided the study. The research questions are as follows; `How do ECSETs experience the prevailing conditions surrounding the consultative role´ and `How do ECSETS experience the implementation of consultation and the use of consultation strategies´. For present research, a multiple-case study design was chosen since it is an effective methodology to study multifaceted issues in real-world settings (Yin, 2014). Data is collected through semi structured group interviews and ten respondents from four different municipalities are divided into three interview groups. First, the case analysis was written as a narrative report for each case followed by a cross-case analysis where shared patterns and themes were searched for (Yin, 2014). The in-depth description of each case is presented as three narratives; (a) frustrated knowledge sharer, (b) adapted and collaborative quick-fixers, and (c) satisfied reflection supporters. By comparing patterns through the lens of theory (Abbott, 1988) and earlier research two themes addressing the research question become visible: poor conditions – weak jurisdiction for conducting the consultative task and balancing between quick fixes and the use of reflection as consultation strategy. The chapter concludes that the prevailing practical conditions and a weak jurisdiction hinder high quality consultations. Furthermore, consultation is not clearly stated or implemented in policy documents or in local work descriptions nor is it clearly communicated in the ambits that ECETS operate in.

Abbott, A. (1988). The System of professions. An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago. Hannås, B-M, & Bahdanovich Hanssen, N. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31:4, 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Heiskanen, N., & Viitala, R. (2019). Special educational needs and disabilities in early childhood education (Finland). In J. Kauko & M. Waniganayake (Eds.). Bloomsbury education and childhood studies. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350995925.0004 Lundqvist, J., Westling Allodi, M., & Siljehag, E. (2016). Characteristics of Swedish preschools that provide education and care to children with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 3(1), 124–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108041 Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Sage.

Well-trained and motivated professionals play a crucial role in ensuring the delivery of high-quality ECEC to all children and their families (European Commission, 2021). However, the development of an interprofessional team may face challenges stemming from subjective and differently interpreted communication, as well as a lack of presumptions for success and efficient communication within the teams (D’Amour et al., 2005). This presentation explores the concept of (in)formal communication among professionals as a key component of interprofessional team collaboration in addressing the special educational needs (SEN) of children. Interprofessional collaboration and communication are characterized by active relationships among professionals from various sectors such as educational support, health care, and social support, all working together with the shared goals of joint problem-solving and service provision (Barret & Keeping, 2005; Reeves et al., 2010). In the context of ECEC, interprofessional collaboration is grounded in a holistic approach and is viewed as a prerequisite for fostering equal, partnership-based relationships, along with the complexity and integration of services (Barker, 2009). In our study, we aimed to identify and interpret communication experiences among professionals collaborating within different types of ECEC teams to address the SEN of children. The research question guiding this study was: What are the main components of interprofessional communication as identified by professionals working in contexts within special and inclusive ECEC? The research adopts ethnographic case study research design, delving into subjective meanings of participants to elucidate interprofessional communication within two ECEC settings. Specifically, the study examines implementation of communication and explores the meanings manifested in professionals' narratives (Elliot, 2005; Ntinda, 2020). The qualitative methods, including individual and group interviews and observational journals have been employed to collect data. Qualitative thematic analysis has been carried out following the inductive logics of data analysis. The findings move between concrete expressions and descriptive text on meanings of lived experiences (Van Manen, 2016; Sundler et al., 2019). The research findings are presented through group narratives, collaboratively co-constructed by both the researchers and the participants involved in the study. The findings indicate that professionals in ECEC interprofessional teams highlight the following communication aspects as crucial when addressing children's educational needs: adopting a holistic approach to child development and education; emphasizing informal everyday communication, which involves sharing professional knowledge, experiences, and collaborative problem-solving; recognizing the significance of formal communication during team meetings, encompassing functional goals, the structure of discussions, and the ability to actively participate in team deliberations

Barker, R. (2009). Making Sense of Every Child Matters: Multiprofessional Practice Guidance. The Policy Press. Barrett, G., & Keeping, C. (2005). The Processes Required for Effective Interprofessional Working. In G. Barret, D. Sellman, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Interprofessional Working in Health and Social Care: Professional Perspectives (pp.19-31). Palgrave Macmillan. Elliot, J. (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage. European Commission (Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture). (2021). Early childhood education and care: how to recruit, train and motivate well-qualified staff: final report. Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/489043 D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulie, M. D. (2005). The Conceptual Basis for Interprofessional Collaboration: Core Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 116–131. Ntinda, K., (2020). Narrative Research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed). Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, pp.1-12. Sundler, AJ, Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nurs Open, 6(3), 733-739. doi: 10.1002/nop2.275. PMID: 31367394; PMCID: PMC6650661. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. New York, NY: Routlege. [Google Scholar]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that, on the practice level, the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in Norwegian ECEC is often unsatisfactory and inadequate—in the sense of it being rare—while also apparently weakening the continuity and quality of inclusive ECEC (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016). A weak system of IPC can be explained by the lack of attention on the policy and legislation levels regarding central guidance and the coordination of services (Nordahl et al., 2018). Surprisingly, neither the Kindergarten Act (KA) nor Framework Plan have been able to provide a guide for IPC for how to draft the interprofessional approach, which has led to them being criticised for not being more detailed and specific about the content and design of IPC (KA, 2006; MER, 2017). Indeed, there is a reported lack of concrete measures and follow-ups on the progression of ECEC work with respect to quality and availability (Nordahl et al., 2018). The aim of this paper is to give an overview of IPC in ECEC at the legal and legislative levels. We have formulated the following question: How is IPC defined and described in Norwegian legal and legislative documents, and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration? The empirical basis of the current paper is a document analysis. Three main legal and legislative documents which treats the concept of IPC, were chosen for analysis: Kindergarten Act 2006 (KA, 2006); Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of ECEC (MER, 2017); Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019). In the current study, the data consisted of texts that were analysed with the help of thematic analysis using an inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The results show that there is a lack of concrete definitions of IPC in legal and legislative documents. Furthermore, the legal and legislative documents provide some guidelines for IPC but on a general level and with an unclear basis. The chapter concludes that the definition of IPC in ECEC should be clarified and explained more clearly and made more apparently related to each other, both in the legal and legislative documents. As practical implications, drawing up a common national strategy plan and common guidelines regarding IPC in ECEC can be an effective move the authorities could use to steer development in the education sector towards more inclusive ECEC, especially for children with special educational needs.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Hannås, B. M., & Hanssen, N. B. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Kindergarten act (2006). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005- 06-17-64 Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECECs. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-ECECs2- 2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2019). Close attention – Early intervention and inclusive community in ECEC, school and after-school care. (Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020)). https://www.regjeringen.no Nordahl, T., Persson, B., Brørup Dyssegaard, C., Wessel Hennestad, B., Vaage Wang, M., Martinsen, J., & Johnsen, T. (2018). Inclusive community for children and young people. The expert group for children and young people with SEN. Fagbokforlaget.

Inclusive education is a contested term with varied meanings attached to it. The term was endorsed 30 years ago, during the the World Conference on Special Needs Education. At that time, the term was mostly associated with those defined as having special educational needs. Gradually the term has become broader, focusing on all students. In a recent document by UNESCO (2020) this emphasis on all is reiterated by using the phrase “All means all”. The papers in this symposium are informed by theories of inclusion and theoretical understandings of voice. We adopt Ainscow’s (2007) broad concept of inclusion as an ongoing process of finding ways to reach out to all learners with a focus on their presence, participation, and achievement. We acknowledge that this is a challenging process that requires the involvement of all stakeholders, such as parents, teachers and children and young people.

The symposium will focus on exploring the contributions and voices of different stakeholders to understand better notions of inclusion and identify ways to promote inclusive thinking and practices. By voice we refer to both verbal and nonverbal means of communication (Thomson, 2008), including silences (Lewis, 2010). Reay (2006) draws attention to the dangers of the collectiveness of voice. Here we emphasise the plurality of voices and focusing on exploring diversity of views amongst our participants, and amongst ourselves. It has been argued that voice can never be fully captured in research (Mazzei, 2009). Others have argued that participants’ voices in qualitative research may have been burdened with too much weight (St Pierre, 2009), going on to highlight that voice is just one source among many others that qualitative researchers should use in trying to make sense of complex phenomena. Starting with these positions the papers in this symposium bring to the fore diverse voices, including those of researchers.

Studies carried out in various parts of the world have explored the roles of different stakeholders in the process of inclusion such as the role of teachers (e.g. Pantic and Florian, 2015), children (e.g.Black-Hawkins, Maguire and Kershner, 2021) and parents (e.g.Paseka and Schwab, 2020). Research participants take various roles in such studies ranging from being respondents to researchers’ agendas, to being more actively involved in the research process, including participants themselves setting the agendas of exploration. The symposium first explores how different stakeholders’ voices can be involved in research, and the ways in which different methodological approaches can inform developments in the field of inclusive education. At the same time, the role of researchers is also explored in efforts to understand and promote inclusion.

This symposium will explore diverse perspectives, from studies in different countries: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Portugal, Spain and the Philippines. All studies in this symposium employed qualitative approaches focusing on gaining understandings from the participants’ perspectives. Two of the papers explore studies that were carried out in school contexts, whereas one of the studies is focusing on research with mothers.

During the symposium we will explore the following questions:

- How can understandings from diverse perspectives (parents, teachers and children and young people) facilitate understandings towards promoting inclusion?

- How can we bring these perspectives together to promote inclusion?

- What are the different roles of researchers in such endeavours?

Understandings gained through the different contexts and studies will inform efforts towards greater understandings of the meanings of inclusion, and ways to develop further inclusive thinking and practices.

This paper is inspired by the developments in student voice and migration studies. Migration scholarship claims that children’s voices in decision-making processes of transnational families are often relegated to a secondary status (de los Reyes, 2020; Lam & Yeoh, 2019ab). Ironically, when adult-driven migration projects fail, children are forced to become adults (de los Reyes, 2020) and help in meeting their family’s economic needs through the gig economy. In the Philippines, these contradictions result to strained family relationships, lack of co-ownership of decisions, and lower academic resilience among left-behind children (henceforth, LBCs) (ECMI/AOS-Manila et al., 2004; Carandang et al., 2007, in Asis & Marave, 2013). In student voice research, ‘voice’ is considered as a myriad of learners’ ways, whether verbal or non-verbal, of expressing their views and participation in dialogue, and in examining and providing solutions to issues that matter to them (Messiou, 2018; Fielding & McGregor, 2005; Cook-Sather, 2005). At the same time, the field of student voice research also considers voice as ‘dynamic and contextual’ (Messiou, 2023) which directs attention to the need to generate cultural accounts of thinking about and practicing ‘voice’, especially from non-western, and in the Global South. Mobilising these developments in understanding ‘voice’ among families, this study asks the question, “what counts as ‘voice’ of children when families decide about migration and education of left-behind children?” Addressing this question is important because if opens up spaces for new thinking and ‘doing’ voice that takes into account various contexts where interaction among stakeholders happen. For example, what do migrant mothers from developing Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines consider as expression of their children’s voice or as ways of listening to them? At the same time, what do left-behind children think as genuine expression of their voice and well-meaning ways of including them in family decision-making? By looking at conceptualisations and practices of ‘voice’ from the perspective of Filipina migrant mothers and their left-behind children, cultural and intergenerational perspectives on voice is offered. To respond to the core and sub-questions above, this paper will use data from interviews with (1) 40 migrant Filipinas working as domestic workers in Hong Kong and Singapore, and as nursing professionals in the United Kingdom and Australia; and (2) 40 left-behind children (12-18 years old) based in the Philippines.

Asis, M. M., & Ruiz-Marave, C. (2013). Leaving a legacy: Parental migration and school outcomes among young children in the Philippines. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 22(3), 349-375. Carandang, M.L., Sison, B., & Carandang, C. F. A. (2007). Nawala ang ilaw ng tahanan: Case studies of families left behind by OFW mothers. Anvil. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. de los Reyes, E. J. Y. (2020). ‘Left-behind’to ‘get-ahead’? Youth futures in localities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(2), 167-180. Fielding, M. and McGregor, J. (2005). Deconstructing student voice: new spaces for dialogue or new opportunities for surveillance. American Educational Research Association (AERA), Canada. Lam, T., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2019a). Parental migration and disruptions in everyday life: reactions of LBCs in Southeast Asia. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 45(16), 3085–3104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1547022 Lam, T., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2019b). Under one roof? LBCs's perspectives in negotiating relationships with absent and return-migrant parents. Population, Space and Place, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2151 Messiou, K. (2023). The role of students’ voices in promoting inclusive education’. In Tierney, R.J., Rizvi, F., Erkican, K. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 9. Elsevier.

Ensuring inclusion and equity in education is a challenge. Although the main principle is straightforward ‘Every learner matters and matters equally’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2017) the efforts towards its achievement are complex (Messiou 2017). At the forefront of the complexities surrounding inclusion and equity in education is teacher professional development since, teachers, are considered the agents (Pantić and Florian 2015) who can support and sustain the equal valuing of all children in schools across the world (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2018). This study (Gerosimou and Messiou 2023) focuses on teacher professional development and more specifically it seeks to address the research question: ‘What areas should be considered in teacher professional development for promoting the equal valuing of all children?’ Based on the naturalist paradigm, the study followed a qualitative research approach, using a ‘collective type’ of case study research design. It was carried out in two primary schools in Cyprus and the participants were all the school staff in these two schools (i.e. two head teachers, forty-five teachers, three special teachers, two speech therapists, two school escorts). Qualitative methods were used: i.e. participant observations, critical incidents, informal conversational interviews, and semi-structured interviews. The findings suggest that in order to encourage the equal valuing of all children, teachers’ professional development should address two areas: (a) the dominant value system, which represents a set of values that relate to a deficit way of thinking about children’s perceived abilities, immigrant status, and family background and (b) pedagogical strategies concerning individual children and the whole classroom, to address diversity. It is argued that these areas are intertwined in ways that influence and interact with each other. Conceptualising teachers ‘professional development through this spectrum of interactions has implications for understanding and developing teacher professional development opportunities as a means of promoting inclusion and equity in schools (Gerosimou and Messiou 2023).

Gerosimou E. and Messiou K.(2023) Thinking outside the ‘deficit box’: promoting the equal valuing of all children through teacher professional development, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2023.2255608 Messiou, K. 2017. “Research in the Field of Inclusive Education: Time for a Rethink?.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (2): 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13603116.2016.1223184. Pantić,Ν., and L. Florian.2015.“Developing Teachers as Agents of Inclusion and Social Justice.”Education Inquiry6 (3): 333–351.https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.27311. OECD. 2018. Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA Global Competence Framework. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf UNESCO. 2017. A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Research involving schools is usually dominated by truths explored and brought to the surface by either university researchers, or those that are co-constructed between researchers and teachers. What is less common is having students in schools being part of such processes (Hadfield and Haw, 2001). Students’ voices, have been given a prominent role in research and in education, especially since the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989), which was ratified by almost every country in the world. Student voice has been linked to active and meaningful participation, and having an active role in decision-making processes (Cook-Sather, 2006). Doing so in schools requires dialogues between teachers and students through which shared narratives (Lodge, 2005) and understandings are developed. This presentation will draw from a set of interconnected studies, where university researchers worked collaborative with teachers and children and young people in schools. The first two studies were carried out in thirty-eight schools (primary and secondary) in five European countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Portugal and Spain) (Messiou and Ainscow, 2020) and had as a central feature student voice approaches (Cook-Sather, 2006) and student-teacher dialogues. The last study was carried out with a network of five primary schools in England and involved significant involvement by the research participants in decision-making processes, including setting the research agendas. All of this Collaborative action research processes were employed in all studies that involve “different stakeholders functioning as co-researchers’ (p. 345, Mitchell, Reilly, & Logue, 2009). Teachers and school students took the role of co-researchers in the various school contexts (both primary and secondary school students). Data analysed from the various school contexts involved: lesson observations, planning meetings, training of student researchers and planning meetings between teachers and children, interviews with student researchers and interviews with teachers. ‘Group interpretive processes’ (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006) were used for analysis and interpretation. These processes established trustworthiness, using the member check approach recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Understandings gained through the analysis of the data in these studies highlight the importance of involving students and teachers in dialogues in schools. These can facilitate efforts towards inclusion by highlighting different possibilities about what is happening in schools, including details about learning and teaching. At the same time, challenges involved in this kind of research will be explored, such as issues of power between the various research participants and the researchers and how these can be addressed.

Ainscow, M., T. Booth, and A. Dyson (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London: Routledge. Cook-Sather, A. (2006) Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. Hadfield, M. and Haw, K. (2001) ‘Voice’, young people and action research, Educational Action Research, 9:3, 485-502 Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: SAGE. Lodge, C. (2005). “From Hearing Voices to Engaging in Dialogue: Problematising Student Participation in School Improvement.” Journal of Educational Change 6: 125–146. Messiou, K., and Ainscow, M. (2020) "Inclusive Inquiry: Student-teacher dialogue as a means of promoting inclusion in schools." British Educational Research Journal 46 (3): 670- 687. Mitchell, S.N., R.C. Reilly, and M.E. Logue. (2009) “Benefits of Collaborative Action Research for the Beginning Teacher.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 344–349.