Conference Agenda

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10.3 aims to “ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard” (United Nations, 2015) and SDG 4.5 aims to “(…) ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations” (ibid.). Despite this, language learning policies sometimes follow exclusionary practices, such as segregating students with beginning skills in the language of instruction (LoI), even though they are often referring to aim equal opportunities and inclusive education (Bunar & Juvonen, 2022; Hilt, 2017). These policies are released in the context of education, politics, and ideologies (Cross et al., 2022) and they are intended to be implemented by schools and teachers in the classroom in accordance with legal regulations (Cushing, 2023). However, language learning policies are subject to the interpretation of school leaders and teachers and can be influenced by school resources, ideologies, and other contextual factors (Bunar & Juvonen, 2022; Cushing, 2023). For example, German language support classes for students with beginning skills in the LoI in Austria are implemented in different ways from inclusive to segregated, which deviate to a greater or lesser extent from the current legal requirements (Schwab et al., 2023). In Sweden, teaching newly arrived students is more often based on the school's routines and school-specific solutions than on the student’s individual needs (Nilsson & Bunar, 2016). Therefore, the implementation of language learning policies is not always straightforward. The resources of the school, including personnel and spatial resources, and the interpretation of language learning policies by teachers, based on their ideologies, play a crucial role in ensuring that these policies are implemented effectively (Bunar & Juvonen, 2022; Cross et al., 2022; Cushing, 2023).

Noting the dependency of the implementation of language policies on the context and the responsible persons, the symposium aims to provide insights into the challenges and solutions of implementations of language learning policies for students with beginning skills in the LoI from a transnational perspective. Furthermore, the symposium will take into account a multilevel perspective with each contribution focusing on national, regional, and/or individual contexts of the implementation of language learning policies: the first contribution will examine the interaction of context and policy implementation at different organisational levels; the second contribution will emphasize public administrations as an interface between politics and schools and their regional peculiarities; the third contribution will analyse teachers’ different understanding of the implementation of language policies in a specific region.

The symposium comprises three contributions that address the issue of second language learning policies in educational research. The first contribution analyses the extent to which contextual factors and language learning policies affect the integration or segregation of students with beginning skills in the LoI in the US. The second contribution investigates the feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of German language support policies for students with beginning skills in the LoI from the perspective of employees in public administrations operating in different Austrian federal states. Finally, the third contribution focuses on how Norwegian teachers estimate the inclusion process of students with beginning skills in the LoI in upper secondary schools framed by educational policies. Overall, the results presented in this symposium will aid in the ongoing discussions about second language learning policies in educational research.

Objectives Second language learners (SLLs) in the United States--also referred to as multilingual learners (MLs)--benefit from, and are legally entitled to, specialized language instruction (Lau v. Nichols, 1974; Takanishi & Le Menestrel, 2017). Depending on how this instruction is organized, MLs may be either linguistically integrated or segregated. In this paper, we draw from studies conducted across schools in different US regions to explain how policy and contextual factors converge to create conditions for the segregation or integration of MLs. Theoretical Framework We bring together organizational and political theories to examine contextual complexities in SLL policy implementation (Burch, 2007; Honig, 2006). Such complexities mean that, while ML integration can occur in segregative policy contexts, segregation can occur in integrative policy contexts, with much variation in between (Freire & Alemán, 2021; Umansky et al., 2020). The extant literature points to four contextual dimensions that help to explain this variation: population demographics, external cultural and political forces, school and staff capacity, and organizational structures and norms (Hopkins et al., 2021; Lowenhaupt & Reeves, 2015). Methods We reanalyzed past studies of ML policy implementation conducted in different regions of the US and at different organizational levels (e.g., classroom, school, district, state) and coded for the four contextual dimensions in our theoretical framework. After examining patterns between policy and context in this cross-case analysis, we selected cases that illustrate specific relationships between policy and context and wrote within-case analytical memos (Miles et al., 2014) to better understand the connection to ML segregation and integration. Results We present four cases that highlight distinct relationships between policy and context: 1) segregative policy and segregative context, 2) segregative policy and integrative context, 3) integrative policy and integrative context, and 4) integrative policy and integrative context. Though each case is unique, we illustrate how the four dimensions converge in similar ways to create conditions for ML segregation or integration. Discussion Our findings show how local context can either exacerbate segregation, as in the case of dual language programs lacking the necessary demographics or local interest, or mitigate segregation, such as when school leaders integrate MLs despite mandates for separate language instruction. These findings have important implications for practice, given that these variations in policy implementation may be obstacles to finding solidarity around SLL policy reform and may contribute to the preservation of policies that are detrimental for MLs.

Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84-95. Freire, J.A., & Alemán Jr., E. (2021). “Two schools within a school”: Elitism, divisiveness, and intra-racial gentrification in a dual language strand. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 249-269. Honig, M.I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. The State University of New York Press. Hopkins, M., Weddle, H., Bjorklund, P., Umansky, I. M., & Blanca Dabach, D. (2021). “It’s created by a community”: Local context mediating districts’ approaches to serving immigrant and refugee newcomers. AERA Open, 7. Lowenhaupt, R., & Reeves, T. (2015). Toward a theory of school capacity in new immigrant destinations: Instructional and organizational considerations. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(3), 308-340. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage. Takanishi, R., & Le Menestrel, S. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies Press. Umansky, I.M., Hopkins, M., & Blanca Dabach, D. (2020). Ideals and realities: An examination of the factors shaping newcomer programming in six U.S. school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(1), 36-59.

In response to the growing plurality of student languages, Austrian authorities introduced a novel language support model in the 2018/19 school year (BMBWF, 2019). As part of the language support model, students who do not meet a certain language proficiency level in the language of instruction are mandated to participate in German language support classes (i.e., GLSC). Previous studies with teachers and school principals have shown that GLSC are associated with considerable organizational difficulties, have a negative impact on the educational biography of pupils and that there is a lack of empirical evidence with sound arguments or justifications (e.g. Spiel et al., 2022). To expand current knowledge about the perceived feasibility, effectiveness, and legitimacy of GLSC, this study, building on Bleidick’s (1985) theoretical framework, examines the perspectives of nine public administrators from different Austrian federal states. Preliminary results of a reflexive thematic analysis according to Braun & Clarke (2022) indicate that participants perceive strong differences in terms of feasibility between urban and rural regions. In particular, the participants report inadequate facilities and an insufficient quantity and quality of staff in rural schools, which is consistent with the findings of Schwab et al. (2023). Concerning urban schools, participants point to difficulties for teachers associated with the high heterogeneity of students in GLSC in terms of age and language proficiency. However, participants were also positive about the feasibility of GLSC, particularly in relation to the curriculum for GLSC students and sufficient support services for GLSC teachers (e.g., support materials). In terms of effectiveness, stakeholders were largely critical of the impact of GLSC on students’ development and socio-emotional aspects, which is in line with the findings of Resch et al. (2023) who point to social exclusion and othering processes perceived by teachers. Interestingly, few participants expressed concerns about the impact of GLSC on students’ language development. Finally, most participants did not criticize the legitimacy of GLSCs in relation to the lack of empirical evidence. This finding could be because the participants themselves take on monitoring tasks and are not involved in the actual implementation of the GLSC. Overall, the results of the present study indicate that it is particularly important to consider the views of administrative authorities, which play an important role in the implementation of top-down decisions in the education system. The implications derived from the present study point to the need to continuously promote close communication between administrative authorities and schools.

Bleidick, U. (1985). Theorie der Behindertenpädagogik : mit mehreren Tabellen. Marhold. Bundesministerium Für Bildung, Wissenschaft Und Forschung (BMBWF). (2019). Deutschförderklassen und Deutschförderkurse. Leitfaden für Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter. Bundesministerium Für Bildung, Wissenschaft Und Forschung. https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:f0e708af-3e17-4bf3-9281-1fe7098a4b23/deutschfoerderklassen.pdf Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 84–103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779- 6_103-1. Gitschthaler, M., Kast, J., Corazza, R., & Schwab, S. (2021). Inclusion of multilingual students-teachers' perceptions on language support models. International Journal of Inclusive Education, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011439 Resch, K., Gitschthaler, M., & Schwab, S. (2023). Teacher's perceptions of separate language learning models for students with immigrant background in Austrian schools. Intercultural Education (London, England), 34(3), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2023.2180487 Schwab, S., Resch, K., Gitschthaler, M., Hassani, S., Latzko, D., Peter, A., & Walczuch, S. (2023). From policy to practice: how schools implement German language support policy in Austria. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2269726 Spiel, C., Popper,V., & Holzer, J. (2022). Evaluation der Implementierung des Deutschfördermodells. https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:2ba5ac1e-3be9-4dd2-8d04-c2465169e726/deutschfoerdermodell_eval.pdf

The inclusion of minority language students (MLSs) has become a significant aim of Norwegian educational reforms since the 1970s (Vislie, 2003). Nevertheless, educational research indicates that recent Norwegian educational policy documents on inclusion still embed unresolved normative tensions and employ “technocratic” – or “efficiency-oriented” – narratives (Rompianesi & Hilt, in review). Not surprisingly, Norwegian teachers appear to have ambiguous representations of inclusion and cultural diversity (Burner et al., 2018) and may employ diverse and not always coherent inclusive practices (Andresen, 2020). Thus, this paper aims to investigate how Norwegian upper secondary school teachers narratively construct the inclusion process of MLSs and to discuss the analytical results within the context of Norwegian inclusion policies. The theoretical framework of this study is based on Bruner’s socio-constructivist perspective and narrative theory (Bruner, 1996, 2004). In this work, public and life narratives are understood “as a mode of thinking, as a structure for organizing our knowledge” (Bruner, 1996, p. 119), and thus as one of the ways we make sense of reality and our own experiences. Since public and life narratives are formed in a shared symbolic space, where knowledge is constructed through interactions with others, narrative research is an appropriate approach “to capture something of the multiple realities and visions which contribute to the realization and enactment of inclusion” (Lawson et al., 2006, p. 65). The study employs qualitative research methodology and methods. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews have been conducted with eight Norwegian upper secondary school teachers. The informants, selected through purposive sampling (Cohen et al., 2018), worked in multicultural classrooms and were from three different schools in the same municipality in Norway. In the first phase, the informants’ narratives will be analyzed using narrative content analysis with an inductive approach (Riessman, 2008). In the second phase, the themes and contents of the narratives will be discussed within the context of Norwegian inclusion policy narratives, as investigated by Rompianesi & Hilt (in review), to identify common patterns, differences, and similarities. The results are expected to provide new insights into how teachers make sense of educational inclusion and how they narratively construct the inclusion process of MLSs. The analysis will also offer new perspectives on how teachers navigate the tensions and paradoxes inherent in policy narratives on inclusion. A deeper understanding of the connections between policy and life narratives on inclusion will contribute to generating new insights valuable for teacher training and policymakers.

Andresen, S. (2020). Being inclusive when talking about diversity: How teachers manage boundaries of Norwegianness in the classroom. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3–4), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3725. Bruner, J.S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press. Bruner, J.S. (2004). Life as Narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691–710. Burner, T., Nodeland, T.S., & Aamaas, Å. (2018). Critical Perspectives on Perceptions and Practices of Diversity in Education. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 2(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2188. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. Lawson, H., Parker, M., & Sikes, P. (2006). Seeking stories: Reflections on a narrative approach to researching understandings of inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250500491823. Riessman, C.K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publ. Rompianesi, T., & Hilt, L.T. (in review). “Heroes”, “Victims”, and “Villains”: Policy Narratives on Inclusion in Norwegian and Italian Educational Documents. Intercultural Education. Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625082000042294