Conference Agenda

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.