Conference Agenda

Educational inequalities pose critical concerns worldwide, including European education systems demonstrating relatively high performance in international educational assessment studies. Educational inequalities can be conceptualised as systematic disparities in access to educational resources, learning environments or learning outcomes that are related to students’ background or geographical location (OECD, 2013). A strong body of European research confirms that inequalities exist in terms of socioeconomic status (SES), immigrant background, ethnicity, gender, geographic location and school segregation, but much of this research is cross-sectional (see Campos et al., 2025). However, to be able to understand how inequalities evolve and what education systems can do to mitigate them through more effective policies and interventions, longitudinal research is needed. There have been initiatives across Europe to fill this gap in research gap, but currently the evidence is scattered and there is no clear overview of what kind of longitudinal datasets exists that would enable the identification of effective policies and practices promoting educational equality. For this reason, European Union began to fund five project under a Horizon Europe (HE) topic in 2024 to 1) map existing longitudinal data allowing to analyse trends in educational inequalities, 2) analyse available literature on inequalities in education, training and learning achievements over time, and 3) identify interventions that compensate inequalities in learning outcomes over time based on the analysis of longitudinal data.

The aim of this symposium is to give an overview of the theoretical underpinnings and the results achieved so far in all the five projects funded from this HE topic. Organised by the MapIE project coordinated by the hosting Tampere University, the topic and the symposium is introduced defining key concepts and research aims in the light of the results published in the systematic literature review conducted in MapIE (Campos et al., 2025). The four papers of the symposium present the first empirical results of the four other projects funded from the same HE topic: LINEup, STRIDE, REVERS-ED and LEARN.

The LINEup paper presents the results of systematic data mapping conducted in 32 European countries. Rather than focusing on a single national case, it examines cross-country variation in data availability, documentation practices, access conditions, and analytical potential, highlighting structural asymmetries and shared challenges in building longitudinal evidence on educational inequalities across Europe.

In STRIDE, the long-term effectiveness of major early childhood education interventions were evaluated in England and Norway. The paper adopts a comparative approach, where two different national cases with similar reforms are compared. In this way it is possible to investigate the association between reforms covering pre-school level and outcomes in upper secondary school in two different contexts and thus explore the contextual factors in how inequality is shaped, changed and preserved through the educational systems.

The paper presented by the REVERS-ED project adopts a national perspective by analysing longitudinal standardised assessment data from Catalonia, a region in Spain with its own educational evaluation system, to compare educational achievement in a group of vulnerable schools that implement successful educational actions with the average educational achievements of all schools from the same region.

In the study conducted by LEARN, a comparative case-study design was applied to investigate how evidence-based education (EBE) principles are translated into practice within diverse national policy landscapes. Using initial scoping work from the UK, the barriers and approaches to EBE integration are examined in the Netherlands, Finland, and Switzerland.

Together, these presentations offer rich perspectives on research on educational inequalities in Europe. The results are discussed in the context of comparative education.

Longitudinal data are widely recognised as a key resource for studying how educational inequalities emerge, evolve, and persist over time. However, despite growing interest in longitudinal approaches, researchers and policymakers often lack a clear overview of which longitudinal education datasets exist, how they are structured, and to what extent they can be used to analyse inequality dynamics across countries. This paper addresses this gap by presenting the results of a large-scale empirical mapping of longitudinal datasets on student learning outcomes in Europe. The paper draws on the mapping activity conducted within the Horizon Europe project LINEup (Longitudinal Data for INequalities in Education), which identified, documented, and analysed longitudinal datasets covering primary and secondary education (ISCED 1–3) across 32 European countries. The mapping resulted in 103 validated longitudinal datasets from administrative sources, surveys, and hybrid designs, providing the first cross-country overview of educational longitudinal data. Methodologically, the mapping followed a structured, multi-step strategy combining evidence from a systematic literature review, an expert questionnaire involving over 300 stakeholders across 28 countries, and extensive desk research. Datasets were assessed against shared inclusion criteria and documented using a standardised metadata template capturing longitudinal design, temporal span, learning outcomes, contextual variables, geographical scope, and data accessibility. A multi-level validation process ensured consistency and comparability across national contexts. The results highlight substantial cross-country variation in the availability, structure, and quality of included datasets. National-level datasets offer broader coverage and longer observation periods, often supported by established administrative infrastructures, while sub-national and project-based datasets provide richer contextual information but face limitations in continuity, representativeness, and access. Across countries, gaps remain in the availability of school- and teacher-level variables and in the transparency of access conditions. Access to microdata is uneven, with legal, technical, and institutional barriers limiting secondary use. Rather than advancing a theoretical interpretation of these differences, the paper focuses on the descriptive and methodological contribution of systematic mapping. It shows how mapping makes visible both existing data resources and the constraints when designing longitudinal and comparative studies. By organising heterogeneous datasets within a shared analytical framework, the mapping supports informed data selection and identifies priorities for future data development. Systematic mapping is a necessary precondition for strengthening the use of longitudinal evidence in education research and policy. By clarifying the current landscape of longitudinal education data in Europe, the mapping contributes to more transparent, cumulative, and methodologically grounded research on educational inequalities.

Pavolini, E., Argentin, G., Mobilio, V., Lievore, I., Kochergina, E., & Zanga, G. (2025). Mapping longitudinal datasets on educational inequalities in primary and secondary education: Research findings and implications. Deliverable D3.1, Horizon Europe Project LINEup. Kampylis, P., et al. (2024). Tracing educational inequalities in primary and secondary schools: Insights from a systematic literature review. LINEup Project, Deliverable D2.1. Campos, D. G., Koskinen, A., Munkácsy, B., Rolfe, V., Patsis, P., Tóth, E., Olsen, R. V., Scherer, R., Söldner, L., Danek, A. H., Greiff, S., & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2025). Educational inequalities in Europe: A scoping review of longitudinal studies in K–12 education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 87, 101523. Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

Educational inequality remains a persistent barrier to social mobility. In England, the unequal distribution of educational success and achievement across different social groups remains a critical issue (Sutton Trust, 2021). Inequalities often emerge early in childhood and can influence an individual's life chances and social mobility (Heckman, 2006). In Norway, despite an egalitarian ethos, educational outcomes are influenced by socioeconomic background. While universal childcare ensures 93% participation, the primary equity challenge is the integration of immigrant students, who comprise 21% of the population (IMDi, 2025). Data shows that immigrant-background students achieve lower average grades than native peers. This suggests a "Matthew effect" where children from majority backgrounds derive greater linguistic benefits from early education than minority-language peers (Bakken, 2024). Consequently, while "second-generation" students are often highly ambitious, they face higher dropout rates and longer completion times in higher education than the general population (Statistics Norway, 2024). Although early childhood education (ECE) interventions/programs are widely recognized as a primary tool for fostering equity, longitudinal evidence regarding its impact on long-term outcomes—specifically post-16 attainment—remains critical for future policy design. This study evaluates the long-term effectiveness of two major ECE interventions: England’s Sure Start Program and Norway’s Free Core Time in Kindergarten Initiative. The Sure Start (est. 1998) initiative in England targeted early inequalities in deprived communities by providing integrated health and development services to close the achievement gap. Similarly, Norway’s Free Core Time (Gratis kjernetid) (est. 1998), originally provided 20 free weekly hours of kindergarten for children aged 2–5 from low-income families in certain areas (Drange and Telle, 2015). While Sure Start focused on broad community support, the Norwegian scheme specifically aims to improve school preparedness and language proficiency among minority groups, facilitating socialization into national norms and values. This study focuses on the specific cohorts prioritized by each state as the primary "equity targets": socioeconomically disadvantaged students in England (measured by enrolment in Free School Meals) and socioeconomically disadvantaged migrant-background students in Norway. This allows for a critical evaluation of whether targeted ECE can successfully mitigate the dominant drivers of inequality in different welfare contexts—addressing the class-based stratification prevalent in England and the linguistic and cultural integration challenges in Norway. The study offers critical insights into the mechanisms through which ECE interventions can reduce intersectional disadvantages. The findings aim to inform international policy development, offering a robust evaluation of how early-years reform shapes educational trajectories in the long term.

Bakken, A., & Elstad, J. I. (2023). Parents’ Income and Wealth Matter More for Children with Low than High Academic Performance: Evidence from Comparisons Between and Within Families in Egalitarian Norway Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Education at a Glance 2025: OECD indicators OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2025-en Directorate of Integration and Diversity [IMDi]. (2025). Indikatorer for integrering: Utdanning, arbeid og inntekt [Indicators for integration: Education, work and income]. https://www.imdi.no/om-integrering-i-norge/statistikk-og-analyse/ Drange, N. & Telle, K. (2015). Promoting integration of immigrants: effects of free child care on child enrolment and parental employment. Labour Economics 34: 26-38. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898 Sutton Trust (2021). Universities and Social Mobility: Which university degrees are best for intergenerational mobility? London: The Sutton Trust Statistics Norway. (2024). Gjennomføring i videregående opplæring blant innvandrere og norskfødte med innvandrerforeldre [Completion of upper secondary education among immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents]. https://www.ssb.no/utdanning

Educational inequalities remain a significant challenge, despite international efforts aimed at fostering more inclusive and equitable learning environments. Vulnerable groups continue to face barriers that severely limit their educational opportunities and outcomes (Baysu et al., 2018; Becker & Tuppat, 2018). However, whereas a substantial body of research has examined educational inequalities (Breen et al., 2008; Brinbaum, & Lutz, 2017), it remains crucial to conduct research that identifies which interventions are effective in mitigating such inequalities over time (Ruiz-Eugenio et al., 2023). To contribute to filling this gap, this study provides a mixed-methods analysis of longitudinal data from Catalonia (Spain), combined with qualitative evidence, to examine the impact of Successful Educational Actions (SEAs) in reversing educational inequalities. First, it compares standardized test results from 2019 and 2024 of a group of 10 schools of high complexity (vulnerability index used in Catalonia) implementing SEAs with the results of the same tests obtained by all Catalan schools in the same years. Second, it compares the evolution of the results of one of those 10 schools (Z school) in those standardized tests in 2011, 2019 and 2025 with results obtained in the same tests by all Catalan schools in the same years. These longitudinal analyses have been complemented with communicative interviews with teachers, family members and students from Z school. The longitudinal analyses reveal substantive improvements in students’ outcomes in schools implementing SEAs. In Z school, which began implementing SEAs in 2017, the proportion of students performing at the lowest levels in languages (Catalan, Spanish, English) and mathematics declined markedly over time, reversing earlier negative trends and outperforming the Catalan regional average. For example, the share of students at the lowest achievement level in mathematics dropped from 44,4% in 2011 to 9,10% in 2025, compared to a more modest stabilization in Catalonia (18,5% to 12,3%). Furthermore, when expanding the lens to the ten schools implementing SEAs, similar patterns emerge. Between 2019 and 2024, the proportion of students at the lowest level in mathematics decreased from 20% to 14.51%, whereas the broader Catalan average remained relatively stable (13% to 12.2%). Qualitative findings confirm these improvements. Teachers report higher levels of student engagement and academic expectations, while families emphasize increased involvement in learning processes and a shared commitment to academic success. By combining quantitative longitudinal data with qualitative analysis, this paper demonstrates the value of longitudinal approaches for identifying real trends of change in educational outcomes.

Baysu, G., Alanya, A., & de Valk, H. A. G. (2018). School trajectories of the second generation of Turkish immigrants in Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, and Germany: The role of school systems. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59(5-6), 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715218818638 Becker, B., & Tuppat, J. (2018). Does ethnic bias affect kindergarten teachers’ school entry recommendations? Educational Research, 60(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1421476 Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W., & Pollak, R. (2009). Long-term trends in educational inequality in Europe: Class inequalities and gender differences. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp001 Brinbaum, Y., & Lutz, A. (2017). Examining educational inequalities in two national systems: a comparison of the North African second generation in France and the Mexican second generation in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(15), 2591–2615. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1290522 Ruiz-Eugenio, L., Soler-Gallart, M., Racionero-Plaza, S., & Padrós, M. (2023). Dialogic literary gatherings: A systematic review of evidence to overcome social and educational inequalities. Educational Research Review, 39(100534), 100534.

While the Evidence-Based Education (EBE) movement has gained significant traction globally, its implementation remains highly uneven across Europe (European Commission, 2024). This research investigates how EBE principles are translated into practice within diverse national policy landscapes. Using initial scoping work from the United Kingdom as a baseline for a highly institutionalized "What Works" model (Edovald and Nevill, 2020), this study examines the barriers and approaches to EBE integration in three further jurisdictions: the Netherlands, Finland, and Switzerland. It employs a comparative case-study design framed by a multidimensional rubric of five EBE pillars: practice-based research, causal evidential standards, systematic synthesis, knowledge mobilization, and institutionalization. Data collection consisted of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 15–20 key experts (4–5 per country) across the sectors of policy-making, academic research, and school leadership. This qualitative approach explores the systemic facilitators and inhibitors that dictate how rigorous evidence actually reaches the classroom. Preliminary analysis shows differences in how EBE is operationalized compared to the UK model. In the Netherlands, there is a strong emphasis on sophisticated knowledge mobilization and clearinghouse structures (Wubbels and van Tartwijk, 2017). In Finland, EBE appears less as a top-down mandate and more as an embedded feature of high-level initial teacher education, where a "teacher-as-researcher" culture may render rigid institutional bodies less necessary (Chung, 2023). In Switzerland, the decentralized, cantonal system creates unique challenges for the implementation of evidence-based interventions in a systematic way (OECD, 2022). The results suggest that EBE integration is non-linear. This can create friction points where the drive for high-fidelity RCT evidence often competes with the bottom-up necessity for teachers to adapt research (Hofmann, 2024). Furthermore, a lack of central coordination towards the production and implementation of EBE, a lack of capacity to run these studies, and difficulties in translating evidence for practitioners and policy makers remain significant hurdles (Gorard, See, and Siddiqui, 2020). By mapping these case studies back to the original EBE rubric, this work demonstrates that successful implementation requires an "ecosystem approach." Rather than a one-size-fits-all model of institutionalization, the results suggest that effective evidence use depends on balancing structural rigor with local professional agency (Hargreaves, 1997). This research provides a critical roadmap for policymakers to foster evidence-informed cultures that are both scientifically robust and contextually sensitive.

Chung, J. (2023). ‘Research-informed teacher education, teacher autonomy and teacher agency: the example of Finland’. London Review of Education, 21(1). Edovald, T. and Nevill, C. (2020). ‘Working Out What Works: The Case of the Education Endowment Foundation in England’. ECNU Review of Education, 3(1). European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2024). Investing in Education 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. Gorard, S., See, B.H. and Siddiqui, N. (2020). ‘What Is the Evidence on the Best Way to Get Evidence into Use in Education?’. Review of Education, 8(2), pp.570–610. Hargreaves, D.H. (1997). ‘In Defence of Research for Evidence‐based Teaching: A Rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley’. British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), pp.405–419. Hofmann, R. (2024). ‘The Four Paradoxes That Stop Practitioners from Using Research to Change Professional Practice and How to Overcome Them’. Education Sciences, 14(9), p.996. OECD. (2022). Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? Strengthening Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing, Paris. Wubbels, T. and van Tartwijk, J. (2017). ‘Evidence Informed Innovation of Education in the Netherlands: Learning from Reforms’. In: M.Y. Eryaman and B. Schneider, eds., Evidence and Public Good in Educational Policy, Research and Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.125–142.