Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:41 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 01 B: Conditions and Pathways for Inclusive Education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Conditions for Developing Inclusive Education for Pupils entitled to Individually Tailored Education (ITE) in Lower Primary School Volda University College, Norway Presenting Author:Introduction Since ratifying the Salamanca Statement (1994), Norway has been committed to the principle that all children should attend mainstream schools unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). Recent data reveals a complex trend: while more pupils receive Individually Tailored Education, ITE, (former called special education) within the ordinary classroom, there has also been a significant increase in pupils receiving education in segregated settings—up by 452 pupils over the last five years (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2023). This paradox suggests that despite inclusive ideals, the barriers to full participation remain high. This article addresses the research question: "What are the conditions for developing inclusive education for pupils with ITE needs in lower primary school?" Utilizing data from the KOSIP project, the study intends to identify factors that either facilitate or hinder inclusive practice. Legal and Theoretical Framework The Norwegian Education Act (2023) defines education as both a right and a duty (§§ 2-1, 2-2). While § 11-1 mandates that all pupils receive a "satisfactory benefit" from ordinary education, § 11-6 grants a statutory right to ITE when these needs cannot be met through general adaptations. This relationship can be explained through Haug’s (2017) complementarity theory: high-quality ordinary education reduces the need for special measures, whereas systemic failures in the ordinary classroom increase the demand for ITE. Dimensions of Inclusion To capture the complexity of inclusion, Haug (2014) deconstructs the concept into two dimensions:
Multiprofessional Cooperation as a Quality Factor Inclusive education requires a shift from individual teacher autonomy to collective responsibility. The QU!S-S model (Schurig et al., 2025) identifies multiprofessional cooperation as a critical level of school development. Key elements include (1) Enhanced individualization: Collaborative problem-solving enables adaptive and differentiated teaching. (2) Systemic support: Statutory cooperation with the Pedagogical-Psychological Service (PPT) is essential for holistic service delivery (§§ 11-13, 24-1). (3) External networks: For complex needs, schools must bridge services between parents, health institutions, and social welfare services. Critical challenges: Paradigm shifts and pupil voice Despite inclusive rhetoric, an "integration paradigm" often persists, where a pupil’s inclusion is conditional upon their perceived "fit" within existing resources (Lindner et al., 2023). Furthermore, a significant barrier is the lack of pupil voice. Decisions are frequently made on behalf of pupils rather than with them (Cosma & Soni, 2019). Authentic inclusion requires identifying and dismantling structures that marginalize these pupils (de Leeuw et al., 2018). Finally, Hornby and Kauffman (2023) provide a necessary critique, warning that an ideological push for "full inclusion" might undermine the specialized pedagogical support some pupils require. They argue that placement should not override the actual educational benefit for the child. Developing inclusive education at the primary level depends on high-quality ordinary instruction, robust collaborative structures, and a shift in professional attitudes. Success is contingent upon the school’s "competence capital"—both formal knowledge and the capacity for collective pedagogical reflection (Olsen & Haug, 2022). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study is based on empirical data from the national web-based survey KOSIP (Competence Mapping of Special Education and Inclusive Practices). The survey was developed through a collaboration between four academic institutions: the University of South-Eastern Norway, the University of Stavanger, Volda University College, and The Arctic University of Norway. Data collection was conducted using the SurveyXact software and concluded in 2022. The primary objective of the study is to reflect the knowledge and perspectives conveyed by the KOSIP participants. This article specifically focuses on inclusion, adapted education, individually tailored education (ITE), and interdisciplinary collaboration. Sample and categorization While the national survey included 2,550 respondents working within grades 1–4, this article utilizes a regional subset with a sample size of N=405. To identify variations between different professional roles, the respondents were initially divided into several categories. Overview of the Sample Leaders with personnel responsibility (Principals, inspectors, dept. heads, etc.) N=60 Class teachers N=177 Subject teachers without class responsibility N=61 Social educators/Youth workers (3-year degree) N=8 Assistants/Para-educators/Skilled workers N=46 Special education teachers N=38 Special education advisors/coordinators N=1 Social-pedagogical advisors N=0 Other N=14 For the qualitative analysis, these roles were consolidated into three overarching categories to facilitate a clearer thematic overview: -Leaders and coordinators: Includes principals, inspectors, department heads, and special education advisors. -Teachers: Includes class teachers, subject teachers, and special education teachers. -Assistants and social educators: Includes respondents in roles without primary pedagogical responsibility, such as assistants, para-educators, and youth workers. This consolidation ensures a manageable level of detail, allowing for the identification of significant trends across the material without compromising the interpretability of the data. Analytical approach The analysis includes only respondents who completed the entire survey. During the processing of the data, filters were applied to isolate "Primary School," "Grades 1–4," and the specific geographical region. The quantitative component utilizes descriptive statistics, with a primary emphasis on cross-tabulation. This is a bivariate analytical technique used to examine relationships between categorical variables at the nominal level—meaning variables categorized without an inherent natural ranking (Cohen et al., 2018). The qualitative data was first segmented into the three professional categories described above. The responses were sorted and identified primary tendencies within each professional category. Following this summary, a content analysis was performed. This involved an iterative process of reading, coding, and categorizing the responses. These categories were subsequently mapped to the article’s core themes to address the overarching research question. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Perceived strengths in inclusive practice The preliminary findings identify four areas where respondents perceive their schools to be successful in fostering inclusion. (1) A core strength is the ability to view each pupil as an individual, tailoring instruction to their specific prerequisites. This involves facilitating a sense of mastery through differentiated tasks, individual education plans, and flexible pedagogical approaches. (2) Inclusion is viewed as a holistic process where social belonging is as vital as academic progress. Schools emphasize the importance of play environments, friendships, and structured recess activities. (3) Success is attributed to robust internal and external networks. This includes the internal sharing of expertise between general teachers, special educators, and assistants, as well as maintaining a constructive dialogue with parents and external agencies like the Pedagogical-Psychological Service. (4) There is a widespread commitment to a positive view of the pupil, where diversity is framed as a fundamental value Barriers to realizing inclusive education Despite the positive intentions of staff, several systemic factors hinder the full realization of inclusion. (1) Budgetary instability and municipal cuts are cited as significant barriers. Resources are often "locked" to formal administrative decisions, making it difficult to proactively strengthen ordinary instruction. (2) The lack of time remains a critical obstacle, affecting everything from lesson differentiation to the implementation of new routines and systemic collaboration. (3) General teachers often feel overwhelmed when managing large classes with diverse, complex needs without sufficient support, challenging the feasibility of the teacher's role. (4) Informants report a lack of clear leadership from municipal authorities and fragmented collaboration with external agencies. Excessive documentation and administrative meetings are perceived to detract from direct student interaction. Finally, a lack of shared responsibility—where inclusion is seen solely as the special educator's task—remains a persistent barrier. References Cohen, L., Morrison, K., & Manion, L. (2018). Research methods in education (Eighth edition ed.). Routledge. Cosma, P., & Soni, A. (2019). A systematic literature review exploring the factors identified by children and young people with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties as influential on their experiences of education. Emotional and behavioural difficulties, 24(4), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2019.1633738 de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2018). Student voices on social exclusion in general primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 166-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1424783 Haug, P. (2014). Inkludering. In T. Nordahl & O. Hansen (Eds.), Inklusion. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. [Inclusion] Haug, P. (2017). Kva spesialundervisning handlar om, og kva funksjon den har. In P. Haug (ed.), Spesialundervisning. Innhald og funksjon. (pp. 386-411). Samlaget. [The essence and function of Special Needs Education] Hornby, G., & Kauffman, J. M. (2023). Special education's zombies and their consequences. Support for learning, 38(3), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12451 Lindner, K.-T., Schwab, S., Emara, M., & Avramidis, E. (2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(6), 766-787. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2172894 Mitchell, D., & Sutherland, D. (2020). What really works in special and inclusive education: using evidence-based teaching strategies (Third edition ed.). Routledge. Olsen, M. H., & Haug, P. (2022). Tverretatlig samarbeid (1. utgave ed.). Cappelen Damm akademisk. [Inter-agency collaboration] Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa. (LOV-2023-06-09-30), (2023). https://lovdata.no/lov/2023-06-09-30 [The Norwegian Educational Act] Schurig, M., Weiß, S., Kiel, E., Heimlich, U., & Gebhardt, M. (2025). Assessment of the quality of inclusive schools A short form of the quality scale of inclusive school development (QU!S-S) – reliability, factorial structure and measurement invariance. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(12), 2168-2183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1862405 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Conditions for Successful Educational Trajectories of Students with Disabilities: Insights from the TRENDI Project Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain Presenting Author:This paper is a part of the research project “TRENDI. Inclusive and successful educational trajectories of students with disabilities”, funded by the Spanish Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2024-2027. This research starts from the premise that, since the assumption of inclusive education as the main approach to the education of students with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994; UN, 2007), the educational prospects of these students have improved substantially. However, most educational systems still have room to improve regarding the educational provisions offered to students with disabilities and their academic achievements. To improve the educational and social inclusion of students with disabilities, it is necessary to analyse which components of educational systems and practices shape inclusive and successful trajectories that enhance students’ participation, learning, academic achievement, and overall development of their abilities. Previous research has found that successful educational trajectories for students with disabilities are often characterised by early intervention, individualised support, and active family involvement. Other key factors include the presence of inclusive teaching practices that accommodate diverse learning needs and the promotion of peer support networks. Schools that foster a culture of inclusivity and provide adequate resources to learn in shared learning environments enable students with disabilities to achieve higher academic outcomes and develop essential life skills (Cole et al., 2023; Sierra & Parrilla, 2019; Then & Pohlmann-Rother, 2024). The primary-secondary education transition represents a critical juncture for students with disabilities, as it often involves significant changes in academic expectations, school environments, and social dynamics (O'Hagan, et al., 2024). Additionally, the transition from compulsory secondary education to post-compulsory education (e.g., baccalaureate, vocational training, or higher education) poses additional challenges for students with disabilities. Beyond school, non-formal education plays a pivotal role in complementing formal education by providing additional opportunities for personal and academic development. (Argyropoulos & Kanari, 2019). Despite some evidence on the facilitators of students with disabilities' educational trajectories, the challenge of achieving more inclusive and successful trajectories remains evident. The social model of disability shifts the focus from individual impairments to the characteristics of the environment where a person lives, learns, and develops. In the school context, it focuses on “barriers to learning and participation” (Ainscow, 2020), which helps identify the changes schools and educational systems can implement at the policy, culture, and practice levels to develop more inclusive educational contexts that maximise students’ educational opportunities, outcomes, and prospects. Based on existing knowledge, the project's general objective is to identify the conditions for inclusive and successful educational trajectories of students with disabilities in primary and secondary education. Particular focus will be placed on educational transitions between primary and secondary education and beyond, specificities for particular disabilities and developmental disorders, and potential synergies between formal and non-formal educational contexts. For this purpose, TRENDI will use the case study as the main instrument to approach and analyse a social problem (Yin, 2012), with the study conducted from a communicative and co-creation perspective. The project is aligned with the aims underlying Horizon Europe (2021-2027) and the second Horizon Europe strategic plan (EC, 2025-2027), which sets out “a more resilient, competitive, inclusive and democratic Europe” as one of its three strategic orientations for research and innovation. Specifically, persons with disabilities is one area of concern for research, innovation and policy development, following the European Commission’s Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030. This strategy aims to ensure the full participation of persons with disabilities in society, in line with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which establish equality and non-discrimination as keystones of EU policies. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The project began in September 2025 and will conclude in August 2028. The first stage of the study is to conduct a literature review on the topic. The specific objective is to deepen the analysis of the scientific literature related to educational trajectories and transitions of students with disabilities. This state-of-the-art will serve as a starting point to guide the collection of empirical data through case studies. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Articles in WoS and Scopus databases published between 2011 and 2025 were searched. Four different searches were conducted in each database on: 1) facilitators of educational trajectories of students with disabilities, 2) enablers of successful transitions to secondary and post-compulsory education of students with disabilities, 3) synergies between formal and non-formal contexts in successful educational trajectories of students with disabilities, and 4) facilitators of successful educational trajectories for specific disabilities. For each topic, search strings based on relevant keywords were used. Once the article records were retrieved, and duplicates were discarded, the studies were screened based on title and abstract using the following criteria: a) target: people with disabilities, b) topic: study focused on analysing educational trajectories and transitions, c) empirical research or review, d) full text access, and e) language: English or Spanish. First, an AI-aided screening was performed using the Perplexity tool. Subsequently, the screening was independently reviewed by two researchers, and a final list of articles for analysis was agreed upon. Subsequently, the full-text articles were obtained, and data were extracted for analysis. The AI tool was used to extract relevant data for each study (country, methods, sample, type/s of disabilities covered, context of intervention/study, objectives, main results, conclusions and limitations). Data was then reviewed by the research team and relevant information analysed according to four thematic categories: i) facilitators of successful educational trajectories, ii) facilitators of successful transitions to secondary and post-compulsory education, iii) synergies between formal and non-formal educational contexts, and iv) facilitators of successful educational trajectories for specific disabilities. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary results from the literature review indicate effective facilitators of successful educational trajectories for students with disabilities. These include: teacher training and support that equip them to manage diverse classrooms; curricular and instructional adaptations to meet diverse learning needs; collaboration, partnerships and community involvement; and the use of technologies to enhance accessibility and personalisation. When focusing on successful transitions to secondary and post-secondary education, institutional support and accommodations, including mentoring programs, and collaborative transition planning that include students, families, educators and service providers, help improve educational outcomes. Additionally, non-formal educational contexts, such as after-school programs and community initiatives, play a significant role in supporting formal education by providing additional learning opportunities and social interactions. Some of the research gaps identified are the need for more longitudinal research to track the long-term outcomes of inclusive education for students with disabilities across different educational stages; a specific disability focus, with more nuanced studies that address the specific needs of different disability categories; the impact of intersectionality and cultural contexts on educational trajectories and transitions; the specific benefits and limitations of non-formal educational contexts in supporting formal education for students with disabilities; and incorporating the perspectives of students with disabilities in research, which can provide valuable insights into their experiences and needs. The empirical research that will be conducted within the TRENDI project will contribute to adding evidence to understanding the educational components enabling successful trajectories of students with disabilities in primary and secondary education, and will especially contribute to cover some of the identified gaps: a disability focus, as the trajectories of students with different disability categories will be explored; an emphasis on non-formal educational contexts as an enhancer of educational outcomes of students with disabilities; and the incorporation of the students’ perspective, from a co-creative and communicative approach. References Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49(3-4), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w Argyropoulos, V. & Kanari, C. (2019). The Role of Non-formal Learning Environments in Education and Socialization of Children with Visual Disability: The Case of Museums. In: Halder, S., Argyropoulos, V. (Eeds.). Inclusion, Equity and Access for Individuals with Disabilities. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5962-0_7 Cole, S.M., Murphy, H.R., Frisby, M.B. & Robinson, J. (2023). The Relationship Between Special Education Placement and High School Outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 57(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221097945 O'Hagan, K.G., Stiefel, L., & Schwartz, A.E. (2024). The Academic Effects of Moving to Middle School on Students with Disabilities Relative to Their General Education Peers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 01623737241229990. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241229990 Sierra Martínez, S. & Parrilla Latas, Á. (2019). Doing participative transitions: Development of methodological tools. Publicaciones de la Facultad de Educación y Humanidades del Campus de Melilla. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v49i3.11409 Then, D. & Pohlmann-Rother, S. (2024). Adaptivity in the inclusive transition to school. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1304918. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1304918 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO. United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations. Yin, R. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Preschool Teachers' Perspectives and Practices Regarding Individual Differences of Children 1: Kirikkale University, Turkey (Türkiye); 2: Hacettepe University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) constitute a foundational framework in early childhood education, advocating for instructional approaches that are congruent with children's developmental stages, individual characteristics, and sociocultural contexts (Jumiaan et al., 2020; NAEYC, 2009; Paro et al., 2024). A critical component of DAP is the implementation of inclusive education, which aims to create learning environments where all children, not only those with diagnosed special needs, can achieve their full potential and cultivate a sense of belonging (Kostelnik et al., 2019). The increasing diversity in contemporary classrooms, stemming from varied socioeconomic backgrounds, temperaments, learning styles, and developmental needs, necessitates that educators move beyond a one-size-fits-all pedagogical approach. Effective inclusion requires teachers to adopt a responsive pedagogy to all, differentiating instruction through the adaptation of the physical environment, curriculum content, learning processes, and assessment methods (Bredekamp, 2015). This involves a proactive, response-to-intervention approach, where teachers identify and support children who may be lagging behind their peers without undue delay. Foundational to this process is the teacher's ability to accurately observe and assess children's unique interests, strengths, and areas requiring support (Boat et al., 2010). Empirical research suggests that the implementation of differentiated learning strategies not only facilitates effective classroom management but also mitigates challenging behaviors by fostering an inclusive atmosphere (Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2004). Furthermore, establishing robust collaborations with families, who serve as a child's first educators, is integral to understanding and supporting individual differences (Bredekamp, 2015). Despite the theoretical emphasis on individualization within early childhood education literature, a discernible gap often exists between espoused principles and enacted practices. This study, therefore, aims to investigate the perceptions and practices of preschool teachers concerning individual differences within their classrooms. The following research questions guide this inquiry: 1. What are the prevailing perspectives of preschool teachers regarding individual differences? 2. What specific practices do preschool teachers implement to address individual differences? 3. What are preschool teachers' perspectives on and experiences with collaboration to support children's individual differences? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a basic qualitative research design to gain an in-depth understanding of teachers' perspectives and practices. Participants were selected using a criterion-based purposive sampling method (Fraenkel et al., 2015; Merriam, 2009). The primary criterion for inclusion was being a permanently employed preschool teacher in a public kindergarten under the Ministry of National Education, as these institutions adhere to a national curriculum and typically feature larger, more diverse student populations, thereby providing a rich context for examining individual differences. Data were collected through a demographic information form and semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol was developed by the researchers, drawing upon established literature in Developmentally Appropriate Practice and effective early childhood education, and was subsequently refined based on expert feedback. Data analysis was conducted using content analysis, a systematic process of coding and categorizing data to identify recurring patterns and themes (Merriam, 2009). The transcribed interviews were read repeatedly by the research team to generate codes, which were then organized into broader categories and themes aligned with the research questions. To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, several measures were employed: expert consultation on the analysis process, the development of a detailed coding manual with explicit definitions, and the calculation of co-coder agreement to establish inter-rater reliability. Ethical approval was secured from the University Ethics Review Board prior to data collection. All participants were fully informed about the study's purpose and procedures and provided informed consent. Confidentiality was maintained through the use of pseudonyms. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings reveal a nuanced yet constrained understanding of individual differences among participating teachers. While participants demonstrated a multidimensional perspective, their definitions were predominantly framed around children with diagnosed special needs or developmental delays. Perceptions of individual differences among typically developing children were comparatively limited, though factors such as family background, socioeconomic status, developmental variations, interests, and temperament were acknowledged as sources of diversity. Teachers recognized the critical role of assessment in identifying these differences but reported significant limitations in their utilization of evidence-based assessment tools, while concurrently valuing early recognition for its potential to facilitate timely intervention. Regarding pedagogical practices, teachers identified observation during play as their primary method for understanding children's individual differences including developmental needs. They reported employing various individualized strategies, including peer support, role-modeling, and one-on-one instruction. However, they also expressed significant challenges in implementing these practices consistently, often feeling compelled to prioritize the general classroom level over individualized attention, particularly for children with special needs or behavioral disorders. While teachers attempted physical and environmental adaptations to foster an classroom environment for all needs, they frequently perceived their efforts as insufficient. In the context of collaboration, teachers unanimously affirmed the importance of partnering with families and specialists. They reported that successful collaboration with families led to effective, co-created solutions that benefited the child. Conversely, they perceived their efforts as impeded when families were resistant to acknowledging their child's developmental differences. A recurring theme was the expressed need for greater support from both specialists and families, with teachers highlighting a need for parent education while also voicing concerns about excessive administrative paperwork and the potential for misdiagnosis. These findings underscore the complexities teachers face in translating the principles of inclusive education into consistent practice and highlight the need for enhanced systemic support, professional development, and inter-professional collaboration. References Boat, M. B., Dinnebeil, L. A., & Bae, Y. (2010). Individualizing Instruction in Preschool Classrooms. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 38(1). Bredekamp, S. (2015). Effective practices in early childhood education. (H. Z. Inan & T. Inan, Eds.). Nobel. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/013) Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (9th ed.). Mc Graw Hill Education. Jumiaan, I., Alelaimat, A., & Ihmeideh, F. (2020). Kindergarten teachers' knowledge level of developmentally appropriate practice in Jordan. Education 3-13, 48(8), 1000-1011. Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., Whiren, A. P., & Rupiper, M. (2019). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education. Pearson Education. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. NAEYC. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf Paro, K. M. L., McKoy, M. C., & Scott-Little, C. (2024). Teacher educators as interpreters: the role of faculty in guiding student learning of DAP within sociocultural, institutional, and individual contexts. International Journal of Early Years Education, 32(3), 758. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2024.2353593 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Contributing to Equity, Inclusion, and Social Transformation in Schools through Welcoming Protocols for Immigrant Families: Strengths and Blind Spots 1: University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada; 2: University of Quebec in Trois-Rivières, Canada Presenting Author:Topic: Immigration is a global phenomenon and shapes societies worldwide. For families who immigrate with school-aged children, school quickly becomes part of the family's migration journey (Charette, 2016). While schools should play a decisive role in ensuring equal opportunities for all (Kanouté & al., 2023), research shows that, on the contrary, they can also be the scene of discrimination and the reproduction of inequalities (Dhume, 2019; Suárez-Orozco & al., 2015). For example, a growing number of studies denounce the erroneous placement of immigrant students in special classes rather than regular classes (Collins & Borri-Anadon, 2021; Cotán et al., 2023), or the difficulty for some parents to challenge school decisions and assert their rights due to a lack of knowledge about the school environment (Borri-Anadon & al., 2023). Immigrant families' first steps into the school system of their host society are seen as a strategic moment to counteract situations of inequality that are likely to persist throughout their path in the school system (Conus & Ogay, 2018). In Quebec, the only predominantly French-speaking province in Canada, in response to a growing number of immigrant students and recognizing the importance of initial contact with parents, several schools have developed welcoming protocols. Welcoming protocols are defined as an official document that detail, structure, systematize, and guide the actions to be taken to welcome students and their families into the school environment (Charette, 2016). They generally encompass various dimensions, such as administrative (e.g. student ranking) and social (e.g. assessment of psychosocial needs) (Valdés & al., 2022). It may also include : steps for supporting parents when enrolling their children in school, an initial meeting with the student and their family, language and math assessments, and referrals to community resources (Charette, 2016). The implementation of welcoming protocols could potentially contribute to reduce inequalities for immigrant families, at the very beginning of their path through the school system. Research question: How do welcoming protocols help reduce inequalities that immigrant families may encounter when they first enter the school system of the host society? Conceptual framework: While it initially concerned the field of special education, inclusive education now encompasses all types of diversit Magnan, & al., 2021). Unlike other perspectives that preceded it (e.g., segregation, integration), it aims to identify in advance the inequalities that may be (re)produced by the system itself and seeks structural transformations at all levels of the school system (Magnan et al., 2021). The literature review highlights three fundamental goals of inclusive education: equity, inclusion, and social transformation (Gosselin-Gagné, 2018; Magnan, & al., 2021). Potvin (2020) defines inclusive education goals as follows: “a goal of differentiation, equity, and non-discrimination, centered on the student [...] and a goal of participation, empowerment, and social, relational, and collective transformation” (p.12, free translation). To operationalize these goals, an analytical framework was created during a previous research project (Charette & Audet, 2025). Equity is thus considered through two criteria: a) considering the diversity of backgrounds, realities, and needs of students and their families, and b) providing resources, conditions, and means adapted to their needs. Inclusion is considered through the following two criteria: c) enable genuine participation of immigrant students and families, and d) combating discrimination. Social transformation is considered through e) basing actions on collective responsibility, and f) stimulating collective reflection on structural issues. Objectives: This paper aims to: 1) Document the content of welcoming protocol implementing in Quebec’ elementary and secondary schools. 2) Analyze how welcoming protocols promotes or hinders the achievement of the goals of inclusive education for immigrant families (equity, inclusion, social transformation). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology : Our research approach is qualitative and interpretative (Miles et Huberman, 2003). Data collection was carried out in four school board in the province of Quebec (Canada), two of them were in urban settings, one in a peri-urban setting, and one in a rural setting. School board in Quebec organize educational services in a specific geographical area. They also ensure that “human, financial, and material resources are distributed equitably across their schools, taking into account needs and social and economic inequalities, in order to promote the success of all students’’ (CSSDM, 2025, free translation). 64 welcoming protocols, including 5 elementary schools and 8 secondary schools were collected. First, the data collected from the welcoming protocols has been subjected to thematic content analysis, using mixed coding in NVivo software, based on our reference framework (administrative and social dimensions, assistance offered to parents, etc.) and emerging data (Blanchet & Gotman, 2013). Next, the data highlighted from the protocols were compared with the six dimensions of our conceptual framework on inclusive education (considering background, offering adapted resources, enable genuine participation, basing on collective responsibility, etc.). This allowed us to identify the strengths and blind spots of the protocols collected relating to equity, inclusion, and social transformation. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Analysis of the protocols revealed significant variation in their content. Some protocols begin with an introduction explaining the purpose of the protocol, its objectives, or the values that underpin it. Many do not mention it, generally going straight to the practical steps to be taken, such as helping parents complete the registration paperwork for their child. The following dimensions are addressed, sometimes several of them, sometimes all of them: administrative, educational, informational, or collaborative. Some welcoming protocols focus on the first few days of the family's arrival in the Quebec school system. Others take place over weeks or months. Regarding the achievement of the goals of inclusive education for immigrant families (equity, inclusion, social transformation), our analyses have highlighted a greater investment by welcoming protocols in the dimension of equity, particularly in relation to considering the context experienced by families. However, when it comes to offering them tailored resources, many welcoming protocols tend to be one size fits all, without adjusting the steps according to the family's immigration status, for example. The dimension of inclusion is addressed unevenly, with some protocols emphasizing the importance of using interpreters when meeting with parents to ensure their full participation in the meeting, some not addressing it at all. However, none clearly recognizes the need to pay attention to the possible reproduction of inequalities during this initial contact with families. Furthermore, very few of the protocols analyzed mention sharing with parents their rights regarding their child's schooling. Finally, while many welcoming protocols are based on collective responsibility involving numerous members of school staff, none explicitly mention encouraging their review to identify structural inequalities that could result from their application. References Blanchet, A. et Gotman, A. (2013). L’enquête et ses méthodes. L’entretien. Armand Colin. BORRI-ANADON, C., HIRSCH, S. ET MAYNARD, C. (2023). La diversité ethnoculturelle, religieuse et linguistique au Québec : pour une prise en compte des spécificités régionales [communication orale]. Dans le cadre de la semaine québécoise des rencontres interculturelles, Québec. CHARETTE, J. (2016). Représentations sociales sur l’école et stratégies déployées par des parents récemment immigrés pour soutenir l’expérience socioscolaire de leurs enfants : regards croisés de parents et d’ICSI [thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal]. Charette, J. & Audet, G. (2025). Les intervenantes et intervenants école-famille immigrante : quelle contribution aux finalités d’équité, d’inclusion et de transformation sociale pour les familles immigrantes ? Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 34(2), 1–20. Collins, T. et Borri-Anadon, C. (2021). Capacitisme et (néo)racisme au sein des processus de classement scolaires au Québec : interprétations par les intervenants des difficultés des élèves issus de l’immigration. Recherches en éducation, (44), 43-56. Conus, X. et Ogay, T. (2018) Quand l’enseignant s’imagine collaborer avec le parent. Étude de cas autour de la confiance, La revue internationale de l'éducation familiale, 2(44), 45 à 65. Cotán et al. (2023) Overrepresentation of Students from a Migrant Background in Special Education: Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Education, Education sciences, 13(12), 1233; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121233 Dhume, F. (2019) Pour une reconnaissance du racisme et des discriminations raciales à l’école, Union rationaliste - Raison présente, 3(211), p.17-25. GOSSELIN-GAGNÉ, J. (2018). L’éducation inclusive comme perspective pour comprendre la mobilisation d’écoles primaires montréalaises qui conjuguent défavorisation et défis relatifs à la diversité ethnoculturelle [thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal]. Papyrus. KANOUTÉ, F. & al. (2016). Points de vue d’acteurs scolaires et d’intervenants communautaires sur les besoins d’élèves immigrants et de leur famille dans des écoles défavorisées à Montréal. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 19(1), 141-155. MAGNAN, M.-O., AUDET, G. ET CONUS, X. (2021). Inclusion en contexte de diversité ethnoculturelle : pratiques institutionnelles et points de vue des apprenants sur leurs expériences scolaires. Recherches en éducation, 44.https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.3272 Miles M.B. et Huberman, A.M. (2003) Analyse des données qualitatives. De Boeck et Larcier. POTVIN, M. (2020). La centralité de l’éducation inclusive, pour une école « capacitante ». Bulletin du CREAS, 7, 9-22. Suárez-Orozco, C. & al. (Eds.). (2015). Transitions: The development of children of immigrants. New York University Press. Valdes et al. (2022) Contribuciones y limitaciones de los protocolos de acogida para estudiantes extranjeros: Recomendaciones para su mejoramiento, Psicoperspectivas, 21(1). | ||