Conference Agenda

Persistent inequalities in European education systems remain a major political concern – despite decades of reform efforts (Campos et al., 2025; Nurse & Melhuish, 202). Not only the publication of the first PISA results in 2000 but also major events such as COVID-19 and large-scale refugee movements in Europe have intensified attention to educational inequalities and accelerated the diffusion of equity-oriented policies (Cairney & Kippin, 2022).

Current equity policies in Europe redefine how inequality is addressed and consequently reshape the conditions under which knowledge about inequality is legitimised and translated into action (Chapman & Ainscow, 2019).

From a whole system change perspective, national educational equity policies can be understood as deliberate attempts to intervene in the deep structures of education systems rather than as isolated policy instruments (Fullan, 2012). Whole system change emphasises coherence across policy, practice, professional cultures, and accountability mechanisms, implying that equity-oriented reforms necessarily engage with the institutional conditions that stabilise existing patterns of inequality. Fullan distinguishes between first-order change, referring to incremental improvements within existing structures and practices, and second-order change, which entails more fundamental transformations of the underlying assumptions, norms, and institutional logics of education systems. Accordingly, institutional change may occur at different points and unfold with varying transformative depth, reflecting the extent to which new logics become embedded in existing institutional arrangements (Fullan, 2016; Argyris & Schön, 1996).

Drawing on institutional theory, education systems can be conceptualised as institutional fields structured by regulative rules, normative expectations, and cultural-cognitive frames that shape actors’ perceptions and actions (Scott, 2014). Equity policies therefore do more than redistribute resources or introduce pedagogical measures; they institutionalise particular understandings of educational (in)equity by embedding them in regulations, professional norms, and dominant narratives about fairness, merit, and responsibility. Equity policies thus reflect specific constellations of ideas, interests, and identities that define what counts as legitimate equity-oriented action within national contexts.

Against this background, three questions arise:

(3) Which aspects of inequity in education are regarded as a challenge to be tackled through policies?

(3) How do national equity policies translate dominant framings of educational inequity into policy instruments and institutional practices?

(3) What kind of change do these policies aim for – and do these approaches foster transformative whole-system change or stabilise existing problem framings and practices?

The symposium adopts a comparative perspective by examining three selected national contexts.

The first contribution examines the Hungarian approach to educational equity within a national strategic framework implemented through multiple, centrally coordinated, often EU-funded programmes. It explores how educational inequality is framed, translated into interventions, and evaluated within a highly centralised governance context, and what this implies for the potential of whole-system change.

This contribution from Germany analyses the national Startchancen Programme as a case of how educational equity is shaped through policy design. Focusing on state-level social indices used to identify eligible schools, it examines how socio-economic disadvantage is operationalised, which forms of redistribution and recognition are prioritised, and how transparent these processes are. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s concept of social justice, the study shows substantial cross-state variation and highlights the predominantly compensatory, rather than transformative, orientation of current index-based approaches.

The third contribution to the symposium examines Norway’s approach to educational equity, focusing on policy-driven efforts to promote inclusive education. It analyses how legal frameworks, cultural values, and professional practices interact to shape the institutionalisation and implementation of equity policies. Drawing on document analysis of key policy texts and research, and using a comparative case study approach, the contribution highlights intended outcomes such as participation and equitable access, as well as challenges arising from the interplay of collective norms and accountability pressures.

The Hungarian education system has faced long-standing structural problems, most notably early selection mechanisms and the resulting inequalities in educational performance and equity. National and international research consistently shows that student achievement in Hungary is strongly shaped by social and structural factors (Horn et al., 2016; Paksi et al., 2023). Recent OECD and EU reports continue to highlight the close link between family background and educational outcomes, as well as persistent regional disparities (European Commission, 2025; OECD, 2023). From an institutional perspective, the presentation examines how equity-oriented interventions in Hungary are framed, operationalised, and evaluated, asking whether centralised governance and dominant policy framings foster first-order improvement or enable transformative whole-system change (Scott, 2014; Fullan, 2016). National equity programmes differ not only in their objectives, but also in the policy instruments through which they are governed, such as indicators, action plans, and funding mechanisms (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007). In contrast to contexts where equity is promoted through long-term, institution-focused capacity building and research-informed system-level learning (Chapman & Ainscow, 2019; Fullan, 2012), Hungarian education policy relies mainly on short-term, fragmented, project-based interventions. These are combined with centralised monitoring and accountability tools, most notably the National Assessment of Basic Competencies, which requires low-performing schools to develop action plans, and a national early warning and pedagogical support system aimed at preventing school dropout. Within EU education policy, early school leaving (ESL) is a key indicator of overall system performance and equity. In Hungary, ESL rates have remained above EU targets despite extensive EU-funded interventions, whose evaluations have often been methodologically limited (Molnár & Németh, 2022). The analysis draws on document analysis of national strategies and action plans as well as secondary analysis of programme evaluations. At the strategic level, the Public Education Strategy 2021–2030 and its 2025–2028 action plan partly build on the EU-funded EFOP-3.1.5 project, which applied the School Dropout Prevention Supporting Pedagogical System. This approach combines early identification, personalised support, and professional capacity development, complemented by equity plans of school district centres. A quasi-experimental evaluation of the EFOP-3.1.5 programme shows that while dropout risk decreased and student competences improved in participating schools, territorial inequalities and segregation did not change substantially (Molnár & Németh, 2022). The Hungarian case illustrates how centralised, project-based equity governance can strengthen institutional capacity at the school level while largely stabilising the underlying system-level institutional logics that reproduce structural inequalities.

Chapman, C., & Ainscow, M. (2019). Using research to promote equity within education systems: Possibilities and barriers. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 983–1001. European Commission. (2025). Education and Training Monitor 2025: Hungary. Publications Office of the European Union. Fullan, M. (2012). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson. Fullan, M. (2016). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press. Horn, D., Keller, T., & Róbert, P. (2016). Early tracking and competition – A recipe for major inequalities in Hungary. In H.-P. Blossfeld, S. Buchholz, J. Skopek, & M. Triventi (Eds.), Models of secondary education and social inequality (pp. 129–148). Edward Elgar Publishing. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. Molnár, L., & Németh, S. (2022). Evaluation of EU-funded educational programs to reduce school dropout without a qualification (Executive summary). KOPINT–TÁRKI Zrt. https://www.palyazat.gov.hu/vgzettsg-nlkli-iskolaelhagys-cskkentse-rdekben-lefolytatott-unis-finanszrozs-oktatsi-programok-rtkelse OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. Paksi, B., Széll, K., & Fehérvári, A. (2023). Empirical testing of a multidimensional model of school dropout risk. Social Sciences, 12(2), Article 50. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Sage Publishing.

The German case illustrates how educational equity is shaped at the level of policy design. Since 2024, the Startchancen Programme has been implemented as a large-scale national initiative aimed at reducing the link between social background and educational success. It involves 4,000 schools in socio-economically disadvantaged contexts across all 16 federal states, a novel scope in German education policy. Central to the programme is the use of social indices to e.g. identify eligible schools. While often framed as technical and evidence-based instruments (OECD, 2018), such indices are not neutral but embed normative assumptions about educational (in)equity and institutionalise specific problem representations (Hultqvist et al., 2018; Berkemeyer et al., 2019). Given the autonomy of the federal states, no uniform social index is prescribed; instead, all federal states develop their own indices, leading to differing operationalisations of equity already at the design stage. The paper draws on Nancy Fraser’s three-dimensional conception of equity, encompassing redistribution, recognition and representation (Fraser, 1995, 2010). Redistribution refers to allocating additional resources to socio-economically disadvantaged schools, recognition addresses the visibility of marginalised groups, and representation concerns participation in defining legitimate claims for support. Social indices operationalise these dimensions by translating normative conceptions of equity into administrative categories and institutionalising particular understandings of disadvantage and entitlement. In addition, the analysis draws on Fraser’s distinction between affirmative (compensatory) and transformative (structural) strategies of social justice, examining whether the Startchancen Programme extends beyond compensatory interventions (Berkemeyer & Hermstein, 2023). On this basis, the paper examines 1. how socio-economic disadvantage is operationalised in state-level social indices, which forms of redistribution are legitimised, 2. which marginalised groups are prioritised, 3. how transparent and publicly contestable index design and resource allocation are, and 4. whether these indices entail any potential for transformative structural change. The study draws on a document analysis (Morgan, 2022) of publicly available administrative and policy-related materials from all 16 federal states (n= 47). Using a qualitative content-analytic approach, inductive-deductive analytical categories (e.g. indicator compositions, purposes) were developed for systematic comparison (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2024). Results show considerable variation across states. While poverty- and migration-related indicators are included nationwide, their operationalisation differs substantially. In particular, “migration” is defined in diverse ways, often via language-related sub-indicators, leading to varying constructions of marginalised groups. Transparency also varies markedly, as some states provide comprehensive documentation while others lack key information. Overall, the indices predominantly reflect affirmative, compensatory logics rather than transformative approaches.

Berkemeyer, Nils, Hermstein, Björn, Meißner, Sebastian, & Semper, Ina. (2019). Kritische Schulsystementwicklungsforschung. Ein normativ-analytischer Forschungsansatz der schulischen Ungleichheitsforschung. Journal for educational research online 11(1), 47-73. DOI: 10.25656/01:16787 Berkemeyer, N., & Hermstein, B. (2023). Warum Schulentwicklung(sforschung) und Bildungsverantwortliche eine klare Vorstellung von sozialer Gerechtigkeit benötigen. Die Deutsche Schule, 115(3), 262–273. Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-socialist’ age. New Left Review, 212, 68–93. Fraser, N. (2010). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hultqvist, E., Lindblad, S., & Popkewitz, T. S. (Hrsg.). (2018). Critical Analyses of Educational Reforms in an Era of Transnational Governance (Bd. 7). Springer International Publishing. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz (6. Auflage). Juventa Verlag. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a Qualitative Document Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044 OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing.

This study examines Norway’s approach to educational equity as a case of policy-driven, system-wide efforts to foster inclusive education and reduce persistent inequalities. Drawing on an institutional framework (Scott, 2014), the study investigates how legal entitlements, cultural values, and professional practices shape intervention logics and potential for sustainable systemic change. The study addresses the following research question: How are educational equity policies institutionalized in Norway, and how can this system-wide policy approach be reflected upon in light of this institutionalization? Norwegian policy conceptualizes equity through comprehensive schooling and the integration of (special) education support within mainstream classrooms. Key measures include early identification and intervention, individualized learning adaptations, and legal guarantees of participation and belonging (Opplæringslova, 2023; Meld. St. 6, 2019–2020). The design and implementation of these measures draw on evidence from international monitoring, national assessments and surveys, which shape professional practices and inform policy adjustments in response to possible student inequalities. By linking policy measures to continuous evaluation, Norway seeks to ensure that equity strategies are both adaptive and effective in practice (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2025). This study considers how these practices can be critically reflected upon and evaluated, focusing on the links between policy design, institutional embedding, and observed outcomes. While Norway’s strong alignment between legal frameworks and cultural-cognitive values, such as collective responsibility and participation, facilitates systemic implementation, potential tensions arise when international and national accountability pressures, combined with an emphasis on individual outcomes, risk undermining the traditional Norwegian collective orientation within differentiated inclusive structures (Aasen, 2025; Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2025). Using document analysis (Bowen, 2009) of three policy papers, the Education Act, and relevant research on educational equity, this study systematically examines the design, framing, and implementation of national equity policies. Subsequently, these findings are compared using Bartlett and Vavrus’s (2017) comparative case study approach, enabling comparisons across institutional levels. This approach highlights not only whether intended effects, such as enhanced participation, equitable access, and collective inclusion, are realized, but also how policies might be iteratively adapted based on evaluative insights and institutional embedding. The results of this study illustrate how the interaction between legal entitlements, cultural values, and professional practices produces path-dependent outcomes. This contribution demonstrates how system-wide, legally grounded policies can advance educational equity when norms and mandates are mutually reinforcing. The study emphasizes the importance of critical reflection on policies and their institutional embedding for understanding implementation challenges and informing sustainable policy development.

Aasen, P. (2025). Inkludering i et utdanningspolitisk perspektiv. In H. Bjørnsrud, & Nilsen, S. (Eds.), Den inkluderende og ekskluderende skolen – felleskap eller utenforskap? (pp. 44–62). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1). 5–17. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Bjørnsrud, H., & S. Nilsen (2025). Inkludering og en skole for alle – intensjoner og utfordringer. In H. Bjørnsrud, & Nilsen, S. (Eds.), Den inkluderende og ekskluderende skolen – felleskap eller utenforskap? (pp. 15–41). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020). Tett på – tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-6-20192020/id2677025/ Nilsen, S. (2025). Inkluderingsutfordringer i skolens møte med elever med rett til individuelt tilrettelagt opplæring – skolelederes erfaringer. In H. Bjørnsrud, & Nilsen, S. (Eds.), Den inkluderende og ekskluderende skolen – felleskap eller utenforskap? (pp. 162–187). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Opplæringslova. (2023). Lov om grunnskoleopplæringa og den vidaregåande opplæringa (LOV-2023-06-09-30). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2023-06-09-30 Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage.