Conference Agenda

Over the past two decades, the classification systems and categories used to identify and support students with special educational needs (SEN) have undergone significant transformation across Europe and internationally (Köpfer, Powell, & Zahnd 2021). Disproportionality in special education—particularly the over- and under-representation of ethnic minority groups—is a global phenomenon (e.g., Gabel et al. 2009) that persists despite the worldwide ratification of the UN CRPD (2006). Focusing on diversity and migration in Europe, this roundtable will focus on the evolving landscape of classification in relation to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), socio-economic status (SES), gender, race/ethnicity, and language. The country-based and comparative analyses will be situated within a broader context of shifting social and educational policies, increased migration, and growing awareness of intersectionality in educational research and practice. In the different regions of Europe, several key shifts have occurred in the ways that educational systems define and classify as “having SEND”—along culturally-specific characteristics. First, there has been a move away from rigid, deficit-based models of disability and special needs toward more dynamic, context-sensitive frameworks. Many countries have revised their classification systems to better reflect the social and human rights models of disability, emphasizing barriers to participation and learning rather than inherent deficits. This shift is partly a response to international policy frameworks, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), that advocate for inclusive education and the dismantling of systemic barriers. However, other countries, such as Sweden, that previously avoided the stigmatization associated with classification, have increasingly diagnosed and labeled certain differences (e.g., neurodiversity, see Taneja-Johansson & Powell 2024).

Second, the intersection of SEN with other axes of identity and inequality—particularly ethnicity, migration experience, language, and SES—has received increasing attention. Research and policy have begun to recognize that students from minority ethnic backgrounds, those with migrant status, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are disproportionately identified as having SEN or placed in segregated educational settings. This has prompted a re-examination of assessment practices, referral processes, and the potential for bias in the identification of SEN. For example, the so-called “fragility paradox” has been observed in SEN provision for displaced learners (Markowska-Manista et al. 2025), the persistent disproportionality affecting minority ethnic students in Western Europe (here: England), or the disadvantage of non-native language speakers (here: Austria) have led to calls for more culturally responsive and equitable approaches.

Third, the categories themselves have become more nuanced. The expansion from SEN to SEND in many policy contexts reflects a growing recognition of the diversity of needs, including mental health, neurodiversity, and complex co-occurring conditions. Simultaneously, there is greater scrutiny of how gender and language proficiency intersect with SEN identification.

Our main interest in proposing this roundtable is to explore comparatively the intersectionality, especially the nexus of SEND and ethnicity in an era of contested special and inclusive education (UNESCO 2020): how do educational and social policies construct and respond to the needs of students who occupy multiple marginalized positions. We review the main categories in contemporary policies, analyze minority groups most affected, and explore equity implications of country-specific constellations of structures, policies, and cultures. We connect recent empirical data and policy analysis to uncover both progress in recognizing and addressing disproportionality and significant challenges. The persistence of intersectional inequities calls for ongoing critical examination of classification systems (categories), greater investment in inclusive practices, and development of policies responsive to the complex realities of diverse student populations in an era in which principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are threatened or valorized, depending on context. The roundtable contributes to the on-going crucial dialogue on inclusive education in Europe.