Conference Agenda

Increasingly, student agency is treated not only as an educational ideal but also as a policy goal that education systems are expected to monitor and evaluate (OECD 2019; Estonian Education Strategy 2021-2035). As a human capacity for setting and pursuing self-determined goals through conscious deliberation and attention to “affordances and constraints of the environment” (Priestley et al. 2015), agency can be seen as one of the most important life skills (Erss et al., 2024; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998). However, agency can be supported or thwarted by the resources and social network of children and adolescents, particularly by family and school. This is in line with the socio-cultural, relational and ecological understanding of agency as a capacity that can be achieved by combining individual efforts with available resources and contextual factors (Biesta and Tedder 2007).

The achievement of student agency depends on empowering, democratic relationships within society and school (Ratner, 2000), which is why students in different schools and school cultures may perceive their agency differently, regardless of their individual capacities. Previous studies have shown that Estonian students who attended schools shaped by Estonia’s historically language-segregated education system perceived differences in both their capacity for agentic action and in the level of teacher support for their agency (Erss et al., 2024; Erss & Loogma, 2025). This is in line with the findings of the PISA study (Tire et al., 2019), which found that students in Russian instructional language (RIL) schools perceive less support from their teachers, lower school belonging, and more bullying from peers than students in Estonian instructional language (EIL) schools. These differences are unlikely to stem from instructional language itself, but rather from broader cultural and institutional factors, which are likely to persist despite Estonia’s transition to Estonian-language instruction in 2024.

Despite the growing prominence of student agency in educational research and policy, there remains a lack of empirically validated measurement instruments that (a) distinguish theoretically meaningful dimensions of agency and (b) function comparably across culturally and linguistically diverse student populations, thereby limiting the validity of policy monitoring and cross-group comparisons. By empirically distinguishing resistant agency from agentic engagement, this study extends existing agency frameworks and challenges deficit-oriented interpretations of student resistance.

In a previous attempt to establish a short 12-item student agency scale for secondary school students in Estonia, an instrument was developed that was adapted from the constructs “agentic engagement” (Reeve & Tseng, 2011), resistance to perceived injustice (Engestrom, 2014; Mameli et al., 2019), teacher autonomy support (Reeve & Shin, 2020) and perseverance (Dweck, 2006; Vaughn, 2021). Instead of the four separate factors, which were expected based on theory, this large-scale study (n=9060) established a 3-factor structure for the scale (Erss et al., 2024). The factors were called “student agency” or, in the case of the upper secondary students, ”capacity for agentic behaviour” (Erss & Loogma, 2025). Further, these studies contained the subscales for “teacher agency support” and “perseverance”. During the validation process (by using CFA) a partial metric invariance was established between the Estonian and Russian speaking groups, but scalar invariance failed which is rather typical for large-scale cross-cultural studies, i.e., PISA tests also accept a certain amount of non-invariant or culture-specific items (Kankaraš and Moors, 2014).

The current study is seeking answers to the following questions:

RQ1: Can an extended student agency scale empirically distinguish between agentic engagement and resistant agency?
RQ2: Does the scale demonstrate sufficient measurement invariance across Estonian- and Russian-instructional-language schools to allow group comparisons?
RQ3: If so, how do students’ reported agency and perceived teacher agency support differ between these groups?

Educational policies should be evidence-based and contextually responsive in order to ensure equitable access to educational outcomes in a robust and sustainable manner from societal, individual, and economic perspectives. In recent years, scholars and practitioners have increasingly drawn attention to issues of inequality and social justice in gifted education (Chowdhurry, 2017, Sahin, 2025). Gifted individuals and their families often encounter fragmented support systems in which educators, psychologists, health professionals, and researchers operate in isolation from one another. Such fragmentation hinders the effective application of scientific knowledge and limits equal educational opportunities.

In contemporary knowledge-based societies, high-quality and equitable education is a fundamental right of citizens and a core responsibility of modern governments (Jahanian et al., 2019). Current conceptions of giftedness emphasize a multidimensional framework that extends beyond cognitive ability to include socio-emotional, contextual, and developmental factors. This broader understanding necessitates the development of new policy instruments that promote interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Despite the recognized importance of gifted education, teacher training in this field has been largely neglected in most European countries. Scholars argue that a shared terminology, common principles, and agreed-upon professional requirements could enhance coherence and sustainability in gifted education across Europe. Given the substantial variation in gifted education and teacher preparation among European countries, the establishment of common guiding principles, particularly concerning pedagogical approaches and teacher qualifications, has been proposed as a means of supporting the long-term development of gifted learners (Reid & Horvathova, 2016).

In Europe, giftedness as a component of national education policy remains a contested topic, as education systems reflect broader philosophical traditions and political priorities (Kerr, 2009). Unlike North America or the Asia-Pacific region, gifted education in Europe has not evolved as a unified academic discipline or policy domain. Instead, efforts have often focused on raising policymakers’ awareness of gifted students’ specific needs and advocating for legislative recognition (Persson, 2009). By contrast, in the United States, gifted education programming standards have been developed through extensive stakeholder engagement and systematic reviews of research and best practices. These standards emphasize student outcomes rather than teacher practices, aligning gifted education with general education standards and providing a research-based foundation for supporting gifted learners across developmental stages. According to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2025), emerging professionals in gifted education collaborate in culturally responsive ways with families, educators, service providers, gifted individuals, and community organizations to address diverse learning needs.

Against this backdrop, the present study examines the Bridge Teacher Model as a policy proposal aimed at institutionalizing collaboration in gifted education. Bridge teachers are conceptualized as educators equipped with interdisciplinary communication and coordination competencies who facilitate structured collaboration among schools, families, academic institutions, health and counseling services, and local and national authorities. Effective education policy development is typically a systematic, evidence-based process that begins with the clear identification of educational needs and proceeds through agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and continuous evaluation, all of which are shaped by contextual, political, and stakeholder dynamics (Dawson-Amoah, 2023).

The Bridge Teacher Model represents a policy-oriented approach to fostering collaborative teaching practices in gifted education by positioning teachers as intermediaries between professionals, administrators, students, and families. This research seeks to address the question: How should the Bridge Teacher Model be designed in gifted education, and what policy recommendations are necessary for its effective implementation? Accordingly, the study aims to analyze the roles of bridge teachers in the education of gifted students through an evidence-based, solution-oriented lens, drawing on school-based, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary perspectives to formulate actionable policy recommendations.

The relationship between national education systems and global trends represents a critical tension in contemporary education policy, particularly relevant in the European context, where nations increasingly navigate between international standards and national priorities (Piattoeva et al., 2023). As educational systems worldwide face pressures to simultaneously integrate into global frameworks and preserve distinct national identities, understanding how these seemingly contradictory orientations coexist becomes essential. This study addresses this tension by examining Russia’s school-level educational transformation from 1992 to 2025, offering insights into mechanisms of policy adaptation that extend beyond the Russian case to broader questions of educational sovereignty and international cooperation.

This research employs the cosmopolitan nationalism framework (Maxwell et al., 2020; Yemini et al., 2024). The framework suggests that in modern education systems, external and internal policy orientations may coexist and interweave in various ways, recognizing education systems as strategic actors that simultaneously adopt global orientations while reinforcing national identity and interests. Cosmopolitan nationalism captures the paradoxical reality where education systems can simultaneously serve as policy importers and exporters, learning from international ‘best practices’ from different transfer agents while marketing their own approaches as global models. This represents a significant conceptual advance from linear transfer models towards understanding what the authors term ‘multi-directional set of influences that are differently negotiated across different contexts’ (Yemini et al., 2024).

The study addresses three interconnected research questions: (1) How has Russia’s educational system evolved along the cosmopolitan-nationalist spectrum from 1992 to 2025, and what factors triggered shifts in orientation? (2) How do cosmopolitan and nationalist orientations manifest within STEM curricula during periods of ideological transformation? (3) What mechanisms enable educational systems to maintain technical legitimacy and international competitiveness while pursuing ideological reorientation toward national sovereignty?

Russia presents a critical case that challenges assumptions about the inevitability of educational globalization. The system’s conscious shift from active post-Soviet international engagement to contemporary "educational sovereignty" rhetoric offers a unique opportunity to examine how policy borrowing operates under geopolitical pressure. The study focuses on general trends within Russia’s school-level educational system (1992-2025), with a specific deep dive into STEM education policy (2012-2024), as STEM disciplines represent high-stakes domains where technical standards and national priorities intersect most visibly.

This study contributes to international education policy scholarship by demonstrating that "educational sovereignty" need not imply complete isolation, but rather represents strategic compartmentalization where borrowed technical innovations persist as tools for national competitiveness even as broader discourse shifts toward national positioning.

Major societal transformations have profoundly shaped rural areas. Processes of urbanization and the centralization of employment opportunities in cities have accelerated population movements toward urban centers in European countries (van Wissen, & Arnold, 2025). These shifts are closely connected to broader trajectories of modernity, including industrialization, demographic transitions, and the consolidation of governance and services. These trends reflect a wider centralization of welfare provision, which increasingly concentrates services in larger units and disproportionately affects rural regions (Matthies, Kattilakoski, & Rantamäki, 2011; Fargas-Malet, & Bagley, 2021). Despite these structural changes, many people continue to reside in rural areas and regard them as valuable spaces worth sustaining and developing.

These transformations have carried significant implications for the organization of schooling in rural contexts, particularly in sparsely populated and urbanizing countries in Europe. Beyond educational arrangements, these trends influence conceptions of local governance, community belonging, and the perceived viability of rural living. Among the most visible manifestations are rural school closures witnessed around Europe (for instance Autti & Hyry-Beihammer, 2014; Walker, 2010) and the introduction of remote learning solutions to address emerging challenges (Stenman, & Pettersson, 2020). In recent years, small schools have been disproportionately closed in rural areas, resulting in longer commutes for many students. Although such changes are frequently framed as inevitable within rural contexts, social transformations, including those affecting schools, are ultimately products of political decision-making.

Decision-making concerning rural schools is shaped in diverse policy arenas including national governments and municipal spaces and also reinterpreted in the everyday sense-making of citizens. At the same time, local policymakers face a dilemma, balancing the need to gain and maintain voter support with the actual capabilities and resources of the learning environment to provide equal education for the area's students (Aasland & Søholt, 2020; Šūpule & Søholt, 2019). Previous education policy research on rural schools has mainly focused on the consequences of such decision-making, such as school closures (Egelund, & Laustsen, 2006; Lykke Sørensen et. al. 2021; Isaksson, 2023), but the multitude of the arenas shaping and contributing to policy-making of rural school is limitedly addressed in the previous studies.

To develop an understanding of this phenomenon, we employ a Finnish case as an example of understanding how politics in rural schooling is made in the parliament discussion, local newspaper and how the discourses transfer to citizens’ talk. Theoretically, we draw from the conceptualisations of politicisation and depolitisation (Ozga, 2025; Wood & Flinders, 2014) to underline the diverse rhetoric use of knowledge to support diverse interests. Depoliticisation refers to a strategic tool used by different actors in discussions of the future of rural schooling perceived as a natural response to the ongoing development trends. Depolitization refers to a strategic use of tools that undermine the political and agentic natures of policy-making.