Conference Agenda

National policies present rights, duties, and measures for policy action through messages framed by particular concepts. Research has shown how understandings of policy conceptualizations have changed over time with shifting policies and premises (Stenersen & Prøitz 2020). One of these concepts is the powerful movement towards inclusive schooling. Although countries have different historically developed educational contexts, resembling regulations for inclusive schooling have been implemented, and stakeholders have interpreted regulations leading to many variations (Badstieber & Moldenhauer, 2016). School principals play a major role in this chain of international guidelines, national and finally local implementation (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2019). However, due to different understandings of inclusion and variations in local contexts, the role of school leaders in this high-stake policy issue is unclear (Wermke & Prøitz, 2019). The first paper of this symposium analyses inclusion policies in Norway, where especially school leaders play a significant role in reform implementation (Moos et al., 2016).

Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires signatory states to ensure ‘an inclusive education system at all levels’ – there are, however, variations in the wording of this article: The version ratified by Switzerland in 2014, for instance, replaces ‘inclusive’ with ‘integrative’. This means that children with disabilities are granted equal access to free, high-quality education in the primary and secondary schools in their community, but not necessarily in mainstream classrooms alongside their peers. Previous research has identified a lack of transparency regarding the implementation of national integration policy by the cantonal departments of education (Kronenberg, 2021) as well as significant differences among Swiss cantons in the legal regulations governing the structure and financing of integrative measures (Wicki, 2020; Wicki & Antognini, 2022). The second paper of this symposium explores the strategies employed by German-speaking cantons in Switzerland to redesign their school system in compliance with Swiss national integration policy and assesses their inclusiveness.

Educational policy and legislation in Portugal have been, since the 70s, on a path to developing a more inclusive education system for all. The development of inclusive education systems requires a joined-up approach that includes not only a focus on “special” groups, but on developing inclusive curricula and pedagogies (including assessment), designed with learner diversity as a starting point, aiming at realising the rights of all learners to education in terms of access to, participation, and success in education. The third paper focuses on the legislation and policy developments in Portugal which intended to develop a national inclusive education system and presents an overview of the development of educational public policies towards inclusion.

Recent research has increasingly focused on students’ and teachers' attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and self-efficacy regarding diversity and inclusive education. The fourth paper focuses on the national application of questionnaires to teachers in Portugal, exploring their attitudes toward diversity, inclusive cultures, and practices, and identifying correlations and differences in attitudes considering various personal and professional variables. It draws on the broad definition of attitudes, encompassing perceptions, views, beliefs, feelings, and predispositions, as put forth by Van Mieghem et al. (2020). The research is situated within the context of Portuguese TEIP school clusters associated with the Includ-Ed Community Learning Program. This study, part of the LC4Inclusion project (PTDC/CED-EDG/4650/2021), aims to understand the development processes of Learning Communities and strategies used to combat inequality and promote inclusion and success.

By bringing together four perspectives on the development and implementation of national educational policy in three different European countries, we hope to gain new insights into the challenges and opportunities regarding the promotion of inclusive education in Europe.

In Norway, inclusive schooling for all pupils is manifested in legislations with focus on learning environment. In the national curriculum it is written that “a generous and supportive learning environment is the basis for a positive culture where students are encouraged and stimulated for professional and social development” (Directorate for Education and Training, 2020). School principals are obliged to follow this law and have to justify their decisions based on the Education Act (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). However, the exact role of school principals, their duties and responsibility regarding inclusive schooling is still underexplored (Badstieber, 2021). The study aims to analyze how school leaders´ responsibilities for inclusive schooling are depicted in policy documents in Norway regarding the implementation of inclusion policies since 1994 and how this is understood in the discourse on school leaders´ responsibilities in school leaders’ professional journals in Norway. Due to the Salamanca Declaration and subsequent efforts for more inclusive school systems, the analysis of policy documents begins with the year 1994. For the analysis of the documents Bowen’s content document analysis in the further development of Prøitz (2015) was used. For the first part, school laws and their guiding documents regarding inclusive education were investigated. The second part of the analysis worked with school leader union magazines, partially written by principals for principals. The document material shows how political implementations arrive in professional daily work life and how policies are understood and interpreted by principals and their associations. The material furthermore presents the interface between intentions and practice. Preliminary results indicates that school leaders in Norway had to undertake increasing responsibilities for inclusive school settings over the years. It can be seen in more defined job descriptions regarding the development of competences of school staff, evaluations, and collaboration with other stakeholders. Even though the regulations for inclusion communicate a certain degree of autonomy, control from higher school authorities is increasing and school principals are made more accountable for their decisions. This is made clear through penalties, highly discussed in the union magazines, accompanied by suggestions from lawyers on how to interpret and deal with duties manifested in policies. This study show how policies on inclusion at various times can imply for school leaders in the implementation of an inclusive school for all children.

Abrahamsen, H. N., & Aas, M. (2019). Mellomleder i skolen. Fagbokforlaget. Badstieber, B. (2021). Inklusion als Transformation?! Eine empirische Analyse der Rekontextualisierungsstrategien von Schulleitenden im Kontext schulischer Inklusion. Julius Klinkhardt. Badstieber, B. & Moldenhauer, A. (2016). Schulleitungshandeln in inklusionsorientierten Schulentwicklungsprozessen. In U. Böing & A. Köpfer (Eds.), Be-Hinderung der Teilhabe. Soziale, politische und institutionelle Herausforderungen inklusiver Bildungsräume (pp. 209 - 219). Julius Klinkhardt. Directorate for Education and Training (2020). Overordnet del: Prinsipper for skolens praksis. Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet 2020. https://sokeresultat.udir.no/finn-lareplan.html?fltypefiltermulti=Kunnskapsl%C3%B8ftet%202020 Prøitz, T. S. (2015). Learning Outcomes as a Key Concept in Policy Documents throughout Policy Changes. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 59(3), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.904418 Moos, L., Nihlfors, E. & Paulsen, J. M. (2016). Nordic Superintendents: Agents in a Broken Chain. Springer International Publishing. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising education: New Public Management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of educational administration and history, 45(4), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.822353 Stenersen, C. R., & Prøitz, T. S. (2022). Just a buzzword? The use of concepts and ideas in educational governance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788153 Wermke, W., & Prøitz, T. S. (2019). Discussing the curriculum-Didaktik dichotomy and comparative conceptualisations of the teaching profession. Education enquiry, 10(4), 300-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1618677

The research presented in this paper aims to identify similarities and differences in the cantonal approaches to the integration of children with ‘special educational needs’ in regular schools and to assess how inclusive these approaches are. This analysis forms part of a larger mixed-methods study on the development and management of integrative schools in Switzerland. It consists of a document analysis examining official programmes published by the 20 German-speaking cantons that outline their implementation of national ‘integrated special education’ legislation. Objectives were captured using the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002); measures were recorded inductively, and their implementation – as outlined in the programmes – was coded as inclusive or segregated, consistent with UN terminology (2016). The analysis reveals that inclusion, as conceptualised by the UN (cf. 2016) and operationalised by Booth & Ainscow (2002), is not widely pursued in Swiss special education programmes. Objectives focus heavily on cooperation, coordination, and individualised teaching, while broader approaches to inclusiveness, such as tackling all forms of discrimination, stigmatisation, and bullying, receive little to no attention. The programmes define student support measures mainly along diagnostic lines and try to match the various needs arising from disorders and disabilities (and from learning German as a second language) with appropriate assistance and accommodations. Overall, there is a moderate tendency towards inclusive, rather than segregated implementation, though most support measures are described as optionally inclusive, thus delegating the decision to lower-level educational authorities and leaving room for both inclusive and segregated implementations. Of the twenty cantons under study, one takes a consistently inclusive approach and another two that show similar consistency, albeit to a lesser extent. Overall, this document analysis shows great variety among the 20 cantons, with some striving to provide not just integrated support within the school but inclusive, needs-based support in the classroom. All cantons, however, maintain at least temporary segregation measures and, thus, fall short of providing a fully inclusive classroom setting. The findings of this comprehensive analysis help to identify different political strategies in dealing with the requirements of national and international education policy. Whereas some cantons outline especial efforts towards a more inclusive mainstream education system, others have opted for a more pragmatic approach, trying to strike a balance between goal setting and realisable measures and often leaving many decisions to educational and political actors at the municipal level.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. 2002. Index for Inclusion. Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, United Kingdom. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2016. General Comment No. 4. (2016) on the Right to Inclusive Education.

This presentation will focus on the legislation and policy developments in Portugal which intended to develop a national inclusive education system. Two main theories will support our analysis of the Portuguese context: 1) Bernstein’s claim that ‘curriculum, pedagogic practice, and modes of evaluation set the terms for the crucial encounters in the classroom context of teachers and pupils’ (Bernstein, 2003, p. 154); 2) Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018) and its principles of using multiple means of engagement, representation, action and expression. These will be used in the context of the recent international policies (e.g., United Nations, 2016; International Bureau of Education-UNESCO, 2016; UNESCO, 2017) to argue that inclusion in education means much more than mainstreaming learners with disabilities, and that it means changing education systems to remove barriers to learning that may be experienced by all learners. Considering inclusive education as a possibility for breaking cultural reproduction and for redistributing power, this presentation will map the Education for All and the inclusive education movements in Portugal. From the 1950s and 60s when a very selective system allowed only a minority of the population to attend education, and extremely low levels of literacy existed. Through to the mid-70s with an awareness of the selective and discriminatory character of education, along with an inflow of migrants from the countries colonised by Portugal (Marques et al., 2007). And, in 1986, through the Fundamental Law of the Education System, which organised schooling into Pre-School, Basic and Secondary Education. Basic education comprises three cycles: First Cycle (Grades 1–4); Second Cycle (Grades 5–6), and Third Cycle (Grades 7–9). Secondary Education includes Grades 10–12. Through an opening of education to children and young people from lower social economic backgrounds (aiming to achieve education for all), and a parallel development of legislation from the late 1970s that expected the increasing presence of some learners with disabilities in mainstream schools (special/inclusive education movement), Portuguese policies have progressively moved towards inclusive education for all, expected to happen in mainstream schools.

Bernstein, B., 2003. Class, Codes and Control, Volume V, The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Routledge, London. CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 (p. 2018). CAST. International Bureau of Education-UNESCO, 2016. Reaching Out to All Learners: A Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education. IBE-UNESCO, Geneva. Marques, M.M., Valente-Rosa, M.J., Martins, J.L., 2007. School and diversity in a weak state: the Portuguese case. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 33 (7), 1145–1168. UNESCO, 2017. A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. UNESCO, Paris United Nations, 2016. General Comment No. 4 (2016), Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education. UN Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD), pp. 1–24

This paper presents findings from the LC4Inclusion project, exploring teacher attitudes towards diversity and inclusive education in Portugal. This study is significant as it delves into an under-researched area within the Portuguese context, examining attitudes across various dimensions and their implications for inclusive education. Recent studies have shifted their focus towards understanding the attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and self-efficacy of students and teachers in relation to diversity and inclusive education (Guillemot, Lacroix & Nocus, 2022; Semião et al., 2023, Yada et al., 2022). This paper adopts the comprehensive perspective on attitudes, which includes perceptions, views, beliefs, feelings, and predispositions, as described by Van Mieghem et al. (2020). The methodology employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing an extensive component of questionnaires administered to teachers and students across 59 school clusters and 14 in depth case studies. The questionnaire, adapted from Semião et al. (in press) and based on the Index for Inclusion by Booth and Ainscow (2002), focused on three factors: Diversity and Inclusion, Classroom Practices, and Inclusive Cultures. The study revealed overall positive attitudes towards inclusive education, with variations across different dimensions. Key findings include the influence of teaching level, with primary teachers displaying more favorable attitudes, and the impact of training on enhancing positive perceptions towards inclusion. Similarly for students, those attending elementary school presented significantly more favorable perceptions towards inclusion than those attending high school. Despite positive attitudes, the study identified areas for improvement, particularly in supporting diversity and catering to all students' learning needs. The results also highlighted a moderate level of self-reported knowledge about inclusive education among teachers. The study’s limitations include, the self-report nature of the data collection tool limits insights into how these attitudes translate into actual inclusive practices in schools. In conclusion, inclusive education is a complex challenge that requires an integrated and collaborative approach. Communities of practice in educational settings can be an effective strategy for promoting inclusive education, allowing for the sharing of knowledge and resources, collaboration between teachers, professional development, and the creation of a sense of belonging and cohesion. However, to be effective, it is essential to create favorable conditions for their implementation and operation, including leadership committed to inclusive education, adequate time and resources, and training and support for teachers. The promotion of inclusive education is a fundamental challenge for Portuguese society, and communities of practice can be an important strategy for addressing it in a collaborative and reflective manner.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. CSIE. Guillemot, F., Lacroix, F., & Nocus, I. (2022). Teachers’ attitude towards inclusive education from 2000 to 2020. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3. Semião et al. (in press). Validação de um questionário sobre educação inclusiva. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial. Semião, D., Mogarro, M.J., Pinto, F.B., Martins, M.J.D., Santos, N., Sousa, O., Marchão, A., Freire, I.P., Lord, L., & Tinoca, L. (2023). Teachers’ Perspectives on Students’ Cultural Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences, 13, 1215. Van Mieghem et al. (2020). An analysis of research on inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 675-689. Yada, A., Leskinen, M., Savolainen, H., & Schwab, S. (2022). Meta-analysis of the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109.