Conference Agenda

In response to global shifts toward knowledge-based economies and changing labor market demands (Pham & Jackson, 2020), vocational education and training (VET) systems have become increasingly central to national education strategies. It has long been recognized as a pivotal mechanism for fostering socioeconomic development across diverse national contexts (Pilz & Regel, 2021). Empirical evidence suggests that the competencies of a nation’s population largely influence its long-term GDP growth (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2021). This situation has consequently led to a resurgence of interest in vocational education and training (VET) in a growing number of nations (World Bank, 2023a).

This study shed light on the low- and middle-income nations that have redirected their educational focus back to VET with increased investments to attract youth to attend higher vocational education. China, a case nation for this research, is experiencing an economic slowdown (World Bank, 2023b) with a paradox between a shortage of skilled talents for 30 million manufacturing vacancies by 2025 (Ma, 2024) and an oversupply of fresh bachelor’s graduates (Bloomberg, 2021). In response, the government has initiated a strategic shift from a traditional academic focus to higher vocational education by introducing reforms to upgrade the undergraduate level and adopting successful international models (The State Council, 2019). China's vocational higher education model adapts elements of models in Western Europe (e.g., Germany, Switzerland) that strive to combine the rigour of advanced academic studies with a more applied form of training aligned with the labour market (Powell et al., 2012; Wang & Jiang, 2013).

However, transferring curriculum frameworks across national systems involves complex processes of negotiation, adaptation, and reinterpretation. Germany’s VET system is deeply embedded in European educational, political, and economic traditions, including its alignment with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and decentralized governance structures. China's educational system is highly centralized, with policy implementation typically following a top-down, government-led model. These contrasts pose challenges to the adaptation of the German model in China’s VET system (Hummelsheim & Baur, 2014) and raise questions about how European models are interpreted and recontextualized in non-European environments and what this tells us about the global influence and limitations of European education policy.

Theoretical Framework

This study examines the challenges in transferring the German framework curriculum into China’s undergraduate vocational programs through the lens of reference societies (e.g., Steiner-Khami, 2022; Waldow, 2019). Reference societies serves as the theoretical framework to understand how nations adapt educational policies and models from others. Originating in sociology, reference societies theory has been widely applied in comparative education research, particularly in the study of policy borrowing and educational system transfer.

When a nation borrows elements of another education system, the process is not merely direct replication but rather selective adaptation—wherein economic, political, cultural, and educational contexts shape the implementation. The effectiveness of system transfer is influenced by factors such as institutional structures, the role of government, the involvement of industries, and existing educational traditions (Waldow, 2019). This study applies the reference society theory to analyse the adaptation of Germany’s VET model in China’s undergraduate vocational education, identifying both barriers and strategies used to mitigate challenges.

Research Questions

The following research questions were sought to be addressed:

RQ1: What challenges arise in the transfer of Germany’s VET framework curriculum to China’s undergraduate vocational institutions?

RQ2: How do Chinese universities and stakeholders adapt and reinterpret the framework curriculum in light of local governance, institutional, and labor market conditions?

This study examines the construction of the best interests of the child as part of the objectives of the legislative reform of support for learning and school attendance in Finland from the perspective of special education and education policy. The best interests of the child, originating from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), is an interpretative concept (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013), that functions as a right, guiding principle, and procedure (Välijärvi, 2019). The primacy of the best interests of the child (Act on Amendments to the Basic Education Act 163/2022) was added to the Finnish Basic Education Act in 2022, requiring its consideration when planning, implementing and deciding on teaching (Government proposal 212/2024).

In Finland, the legislation on support for learning and school attendance in pre-primary and basic education was reformed in 2025 following Prime Minister Orpo’s Government Programme (2023). The objectives of the reform include strengthening early identification of support needs, clarifying support at the national level, ensuring equality and timeliness in access to support, and reducing the number of pedagogical documents related to support measures. The three-tier support model (general, intensified, special) was replaced by group-specific and individual support (Act on Amendments to the Basic Education Act 1090/2024). Group-specific support includes remedial teaching, remedial teaching in the language of instruction and teaching provided by a special educational needs teacher. Individual support is provided when group-specific support is deemed insufficient and is based on an assessment of the pupil’s need for support, a plan, and an administrative decision. It may include teaching provided partly in a small group, teaching in a special needs class where necessary, as well as interpretation and assistant services.

This qualitative study examines the reform of support for learning and school attendance and the construction of the best interests of the child through educational policy objectives using Fraser’s (2003; 2008) theory of justice (redistribution, recognition, representation). Redistribution is based on the idea in which structural resource disparities and injustice must be dismantled. Recognition refers to acknowledging learners as different individuals whose characteristics must be considered, while non-recognition prevents participation on equal terms. Representation refers to the political dimension of justice, addressing who is included in decision-making processes, at what levels decisions are made, and whose voices are marginalized or excluded. The research approach is critical, examining how the primacy of the best interests of the child functions in relation to educational policy objectives.

The research question is:

1. How are the best interests of the child structured in relation to educational policy objectives in legislation and preparatory materials?

Based on the data, educational policy objectives are generally aligned with the best interests of the child. From the perspective of Fraser’s redistribution, equality is pursued through primary, group-specific support measures provided to all students, requiring at least 0.122 hours per week per student. The documents emphasize that schools are responsible for identifying students’ needs in a timely manner. Interpreted through the dimension of representation, decision-making and accountability are primarily located at the local level. Individual support must be provided immediately if group-specific support is found not to be sufficient, corresponding to Fraser’s dimension of recognition. Overall, the findings indicate that while educational policy objectives and the best interests of the child are generally aligned, the open-ended nature of the concept poses a risk to the consistent implementation of educational policy objectives.

OECD’s International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS) is an international large-scale assessment directed at measuring five-year-olds. The study has been described as an important step in the OECD’s expanding portfolio of large-scale assessments, as it extends international comparison to five-year-olds. IELS is often framed as a complement to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), since it enables countries to construct a more comprehensive picture of their educational systems, spanning from preschool age to fifteen-year-olds (Phair, 2021; Sousa et al., 2026). In this way, IELS is also presented as a guidepost, both for countries in the development of their early childhood education (ECE) systems and for future international assessments (Phair, 2021).

At the same time, IELS has met a great deal of criticism. It is described as not contributing knowledge that was not already known, and as an initiative in which the OECD has not sufficiently involved the preschool community in the development of the assessments (Moss & Urban, 2024). Furthermore, the assessment has been criticised for bringing forward a normative image of the child and of what counts as good education, thereby marginalising and reducing the complexity of ECE across different national contexts (Delaune, 2019). IELS has also been described as contributing to the datafication and commercialisation of ECE systems (Roberts-Holmes, 2019).

Earlier research has mainly focused on IELS as a policy instrument and on its implications as a governing tool for ECE (e.g. Auld & Morris, 2019; Carr et al., 2016; Delaune, 2019; Roberts-Holmes, 2019; Sousa et al., 2026; Urban, 2019; Urban & Moss, 2020). Fewer studies have focused on how IELS is done and on what makes the assessment possible. That is, which actors are involved in its development, execution, and legitimisation, how these actors are positioned, and what knowledge about the ECE sector is mobilised, or marginalised, in the process.

With this in mind, the proposed study aims to examine how IELS is constituted through a network of human and non-human actors, and how forms of expertise and knowledge about early childhood education are produced and stabilised within this network. Rather than viewing IELS as an already produced and coherent policy tool, the study analyses IELS as an ongoing sociomaterial process (Fenwick & Edwards, 2019). The proposed study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What actors appear as central in the development, execution and communication of IELS?
2. How are these actors enrolled, and what roles, responsibilities and forms of expertise are inscribed to them.
3. What knowledge about ECE is evident among different actors, and what forms of expertise are presented as most important?

Theoretically, the study takes actor-network theory (ANT) as its point of departure, with particular attention to the concepts enrolment and translation (Fenwick & Edwards, 2019; Latour, 1987; Law & Hassard, 1999). From this perspective, policy and assessments are not understood as fixed entities that can be implemented linearly, but as outcomes of relational processes through which heterogeneous actors, such as documents, technologies, experts, technicians and institutions, are connected and held in place (Fenwick & Edwards, 2019). Actors are not simply involved; they are positioned, authorised and mobilised through particular relations (Fenwick & Edwards, 2019). Enrolment and translation are used to examine how actors are mobilised and assigned different roles within IELS and how their knowledge, interests and responsibilities are transformed as they move across different sites (Fenwick & Edwards, 2019; Latour, 1987; Law & Hassard, 1999). These perspectives make it possible to analyse how legitimacy and authority are produced relationally and how certain forms of knowledge are prioritised in the construction of international assessments in ECE.

The purpose of this study is to clarify, through comparative analysis of policy documents, the learning assumptions underlying children’s participation in activities during the transition from early childhood education and care (ECEC) to primary education. Specifically, this study examines Finland’s National Core Curriculum for ECEC and Japan’s policy guidelines on the “Bridging Period” (Kakehashi-ki) to investigate how children’s participation is structured based on learning assumptions.

In recent years, as international emphasis on academic achievement and standardized assessment has intensified, reconsidering the nature of education and the meaning of children’s participation during transitional periods has become an important issue (Kangas & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2021; Biesta, 2015). Biesta (2008, 2015) argues that educational decision-making inevitably involves value judgments concerning what is educationally desirable, and that what ought to be done cannot be logically derived from factual information alone. In other words, no matter how abundant measurement data and empirical evidence may be, they cannot determine educational direction by themselves; normative judgments are always involved. Furthermore, Biesta conceptualizes this issue as “normative validity,” questioning whether we are truly measuring what matters.

This perspective suggests that educational policies and curricula are not formed solely on the basis of objective facts but are shaped by particular values, views of children, and conceptions of learning. Accordingly, policy documents can be understood not merely as technical guidelines for institutional design and practice, but as normative texts reflecting socially preferred images of children and learning. Based on this perspective, this study conceptualizes “learning assumptions” through three dimensions: (1) views of children, (2) conceptions of learning, and (3) justificatory logics of participation.

The transition from ECEC to primary education constitutes a critical period for children’s lifelong learning and development. In Finland, this transition has been conceptualized as a flexible continuum, supported by institutional reforms (Harju et al., 2024). At the same time, practical challenges such as imbalances in professional collaboration and ambiguities in role distribution have been reported (Väätänen, 2025; Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017). Harju et al. (2024) conceptualize transitions as processes in which continuities and discontinuities overlap within children’s everyday experiences. Kangas and Ukkonen-Mikkola (2021) further note that the extension of the transition period has generated tensions related to “schoolification” and to the balance between viewing children as “being” and “becoming.”

In Japan, Saito and Muto (2022) demonstrate how knowledge about transitions has been constructed through interactions among policy, research, and practice. Yamaguchi et al. (2025) report that enhanced dialogue during curriculum development has promoted mutual understanding between early childhood educators and primary school teachers. Ashida (2024) shows that deeper understanding of play-based practices contributes to stronger perceptions of continuity between early childhood and primary education. At the same time, weaknesses in continuity in daily life and care have been identified (Noro, 2008), and National surveys conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2010, 2013, 2025) indicate that many initiatives remain superficial and have not led to shared educational philosophies or coherent curriculum alignment.

While Japanese studies have provided important insights into institutional and practical challenges, relatively few have systematically analyzed the learning assumptions embedded in policy documents. Although institutional arrangements and practical research on transitions have progressed in both Finland and Japan, comparative studies focusing on underlying value assumptions remain limited.

In light of these issues, this study addresses the following research question:

How is children’s participation during the transition period represented in policy documents, and how do these representations differ between Finland and Japan, based on particular Learning Assumptions?

Studies worldwide (Ball & Bronwen, 2023; Ball, 2017, 2020; Kronqvist Håård, 2025) indicate that neoliberal reforms, implemented through gradual processes, are profoundly transforming education. These reforms are turning education into a competitive market system that prioritizes human capital over the public good. Characterized by competitive market forces, privatization, standardized testing such as PISA, and accountability mechanisms, these reforms are fundamentally reshaping the role of school principals. They are transforming principals into entrepreneurial managers who focus on school marketing, competition for students and resources, and performance measurement. This shift is accompanied by accumulating workloads, psychological stress, changes in their professional identity, and a reduced ability to promote democratic values.

Nevertheless, as Jones and Ball emphasize (Jones & Ball, 2023), neoliberalism is not a unidirectional and unstoppable force. Despite its power, it creates spaces of “wriggle room” in which educational actors, and particularly school principals as active interpretive agents, can interpret, translate, adapt, or partially resist neoliberal logic. Principals are not passive “performativity” implementers; rather, they act as mediators between policy directives and the everyday reality of the school (Ball et al., 2010, 2012; Braun et al., 2011; Davidovitz & Schechter, 2024).
In Israel, as in many other countries, this trend is manifested in reforms that promote decentralization of authority and school autonomy, which have been heavily influenced by global neoliberal models (Volansky, 2020b; Berkovich, 2019). The peak of this trend emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis with Government Decision 226 of 2021, which led to the implementation of the Geffen Policy. This policy aims to expand the pedagogical and administrative flexibility of school principals and local authorities by transferring significant resources for their direct management through the Geffen system — a digital platform designed to enhance pedagogical and administrative flexibility. The system provides principals with visibility of the flexible budget available to them and enables the formulation and management of a school work plan, budget planning, user-friendly procurement of tailored educational services, and performance reporting (Government Decision 226, 2021). This policy clearly reflects neoliberal principles of efficiency, accountability, and competition, while directly transferring resources and authority to schools through the digital Geffen system (Bar-Tov, 2024; Volansky, 2025).

The present study focuses on neoliberal perceptions from the viewpoint of 41 elementary and secondary school principals. It follows up on a previous study I conducted, which examined the Geffen Policy from the perspective of policy designers (Bar-Tov, 2024). The current research gives voice to school principals, the central actors who serve as active interpretive agents. These principals shape policy implementation and function as mediators between policy directives and their actual enactment in the school system (Ball et al., 2010, 2012; Braun et al., 2011; Jones & Ball, 2023).

The research question is: How are neoliberal characteristics in the Geffen Policy manifested in the perceptions of school principals as active interpretive agents who shape the implementation of the Geffen Policy?

The present study explored how neoliberal characteristics are expressed in the perceptions of Israeli school principals, viewed as active interpretive agents who shape the enactment of the Geffen Policy. Data were collected from a diverse sample of 41 principals working in schools that differ in socio-economic background, size, and educational level. The analysis was conducted during the fourth year of the Geffen Policy’s implementation, a period in which the policy has yet to be examined through a neoliberal lens from the viewpoint of school principals.

In many European education systems, social inequality is increasingly governed through programmes that combine evidence-informed targeting, preventive intervention, and enhanced school autonomy (Bellmann & Müller 2011; Bellmann 2016; Altrichter & Heinrich 2020). In these approaches, social indices, monitoring systems, and performance indicators play a central role in defining needs, priorities, and legitimate policies (Heinrich 2015; Niesyto 2024).

While these approaches are frequently presented as progressive responses to persistent educational inequality, they simultaneously transform how inequality is problematised and governed. In doing so, they relocate responsibility for structural challenges to individual schools. This shift occurs despite the fact that these organisations remain embedded in hierarchical dependency relations vis-à-vis higher-level institutional frameworks, thereby producing a tension between expanded decision-making autonomy and continued structural constraint.

For the poster, the contribution takes a close look at a newly introduced nationwide programme in Germany aimed at reducing educational inequality. The programme targets approximately 4,000 schools located in socio-spatially disadvantaged areas across all federal states. A core element is the allocation of a dedicated budget to each school, obliged them to design and implement context-specific measures tailored to their local needs. This policy design entails a relocation of responsibility: rather than being understood primarily as a structural outcome of socio-economic stratification, labour markets, housing policies, or migration regimes (Fraser 1995; Cremer 2021), inequality increasingly appears as a developmental risk to be mitigated through early intervention, targeted funding, and school-based improvement strategies.

Drawing on theories of social inequality (Fraser 1995, 2010) and critical research on educational governance and economisation (Ball 2007; Biesta 2016), the paper conceptualises the reconfiguration of preventive education policy as a shift in how inequality is understood and governed. From a Fraserian perspective, social inequality encompasses not only maldistribution and misrecognition, but also limitations of participatory parity—the capacity of affected groups to take part in decisions that shape their lives. When responsibility for tackling inequality is relocated to the level of individual schools, this participatory dimension becomes constrained. The negotiation of social and educational justice moves from the political arena, where distributive conflicts and policy priorities can be publicly contested, into administrative and organisational domains. In this sense, the local governance of disadvantage entails a depoliticisation of inequality.

Building on insights from critical governance research, this dynamic can be understood as part of a broader process of economisation in education (Ball 2007; Biesta 2016). Decentralisation, accountability, and outcome orientation have introduced economic rationalities into domains previously conceived as social or pedagogical. Within this paradigm, autonomy and responsibility are redefined in managerial terms: schools are expected to act as self-steering organisations that plan strategically, allocate resources efficiently, and document measurable improvement. Yet, this shift in governance does not democratise educational decision-making. Rather, it transforms structural and political issues into technical tasks of organisational optimisation. School leaders—positioned at the intersection of professional and bureaucratic demands—assume responsibilities for social problems without equivalent decision-making legitimacy or redistributive power. Consequently, the economisation of prevention rearticulates inequality as a matter of calculable risk management and institutional performance, narrowing the scope for democratic debate and political contestation.

Against this backdrop, the study investigates three main questions. First, how does the introduction of school budgets within this national programme reconfigure the governance of social inequality? Second, how is the programme’s guiding rationale enacted in practice, as illustrated by the example of a specific federal state? Third, how can this programme approach be critically discussed in light of broader tendencies towards economisation within education systems?

This study examines higher education policy reform in Armenia as a politically negotiated process occurring at the intersection of European policy influence and nationally defined priorities. While Armenia has formally aligned many elements of its higher education system with European frameworks—most notably through participation in the Bologna Process and engagement with EU-supported reform instruments—the translation of these commitments into domestic policy and institutional practice has been uneven and contested.

The central research question guiding this study is: How are European higher education policy norms interpreted, negotiated, and reshaped within Armenia’s national policy-making processes?

This overarching question is further elaborated through three interrelated sub-questions:

-What European and international policy ideas, instruments, and governance models have influenced higher education reform in Armenia since the mid-2000s?
This includes policy references linked to the Bologna Process, European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance, institutional governance reforms, and performance-based funding narratives.

-Which national actors shape higher education policy reform in Armenia, and how do their interests, power relations, and institutional positions mediate European policy influence?
Particular attention is paid to the roles of government ministries, quality assurance agency, universities, academic elites, and international donors.

-How do tensions between Europeanization pressures and domestic political, economic, and institutional priorities affect policy outcomes and implementation?
This question explores reform selectivity, implementation gaps, and policy layering as outcomes of political negotiation rather than technical failure.