Conference Agenda

Research on deviance in schools has shown that teacher reactions, expectations, and institutional decisions shape how student behaviour is interpreted and managed over time. However, existing studies typically focus on single data sources, individual countries, or isolated stages of the process—such as classroom interactions, teacher perceptions, or formal diagnoses—thereby capturing only partial aspects of how deviant careers emerge and stabilize (Lehmann et al, 2017). As a result, we still lack an integrated and internationally comparative understanding of how deviance is progressively constructed across interactional and institutional levels and how similar behavioural phenomena are processed differently across education systems.

Drawing on interactionist research on deviance (e.g., Becker, 1963; Cicourel, 1968), we conceptualize deviant student careers not as outcomes of individual misconduct but as processual sequences of interactions, social attributions (prelabeling), and institutional decisions (labelling) that unfold according to a career-like pattern, in which each achieved stage increases the likelihood of subsequent developments (Thompson, 2014). Deviant behaviour is thus gradually defined as problematic, typified, and formally fixed through successive interpretative and organizational steps. To capture these dynamics, the symposium combines a comparative policy perspective with empirical analyses and draws on different data sources: cross-national institutional analyses (Contribution 1), quantitative classroom observations in two countries (Contribution 2), teacher interviews (Contribution 3), and student files (Contribution 4).

As a first step, the first contribution adopts a comparative and exploratory perspective to examine how institutional configurations shape the processing of deviant behaviour across national contexts (UNESCO 2020). Comparing Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia), France, and Brazil, the authors analyse school laws, regulations, and official statistics on disciplinary practices and special educational needs. The findings indicate converging problem definitions but markedly divergent forms of institutional processing.

At the interactional level, the subsequent contributions analyse how deviant careers are enacted and stabilized within schools. Based on systematic classroom observations in Germany and Brazil, Contribution 2 examines teacher reactions and sanctions as initial markings of deviant behaviour. Disciplinary practices constitute a central element in the formation of deviant careers, as harsher practices may intensify rather than reduce disruptive behaviour (Amemiya et al, 2020). The study investigates how sanctioning practices develop over time and whether changes reflect students’ behaviour or emerging prelabeling dynamics grounded in teachers’ interpretations.

Contribution 3 focuses on prelabeling processes based on longitudinal teacher interviews in Germany, analysing how perceptions and interpretations precede formal labelling decisions on special needs. Over time, attention shifts from concrete behaviour to the person, who becomes typified as “conspicuous” or “problematic,” thereby increasing the likelihood of formal diagnoses (Rafalovich, 2005). Finally, Contribution 4 “examines student files as sites of institutional consolidation and compares the findings with an an analysis of incident reports from French schools (Hilbold & Gavarini, 2022). The creation of a file marks an organizational threshold at which behaviour becomes officially “case-relevant (Trace, 2002)” The findings indicate that in the student files alternative—particularly child-centred—perspectives are increasingly marginalized and pathologizing interpretations are stabilized. The child's deviance appears to be an individual phenomenon with causes that lie solely outside of school.

Taken together, the symposium seeks to stimulate further discussion on how deviant careers are institutionally produced and nationally patterned processes that unfold across interactional, interpretative, and administrative levels. By integrating comparative and multi-source evidence, the symposium offers an initial exploratory approach to examining the trajectories and structural patterns of deviant careers across different countries. As the data currently derive predominantly from Germany, the empirical findings are discussed at the end in light of the different national contexts by Lygia Hryniewicz (Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Brazil).

Theoretical framework: Across many countries, discourses of behavioural difficulties and special educational needs increasingly draw on comparable conceptual frameworks and professional categories (UNESCO 2020), contributing to convergence in how rule-breaking behaviour and special needs are perceived and addressed in schools. At the same time, education systems differ substantially in their institutional arrangements, regulatory frameworks, and professional responsibilities. These differences suggest that similar behavioural phenomena may be processed in distinct ways and result in differently shaped deviant careers across national contexts (OECD 2019). Educational systems contexts play a substantial role in shaping how behavioural incidents are interpreted, sanctioned, and documented over time (Powell et al. 2021). Educational systems vary in how closely deviant behaviour in schools are linked to procedures for identifying special educational needs. Adopting a comparative and exploratory perspective, this presentation examines how such institutional configurations may contribute to the development of deviant careers. Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia), France, and Brazil are selected as contrasting cases because they represent distinct constellations of school-system stratification, regulatory density, and responsibilities in dealing with special needs (Anastasiou & Keller, 2014). Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia) exemplifies a highly stratified system and a continued organisational separation of special education through distinct special schools. France represents an integrated system with centralised regulation, in which students with special educational needs are primarily supported through specialised units (ULIS) located within selected mainstream schools. Brazil combines a formally comprehensive and inclusive school system—where students with special educational needs are mostly enrolled in mainstream schools—with pronounced social inequality and substantial regional and local variation in the provision of additional support. Methods: The study draws on a comparative analysis of school laws, decrees, and administrative regulations, complemented by official statistics, studies and policy reports on deviant behaviour, special education, and disciplinary practices. Results: The comparison points to converging problem definitions alongside markedly divergent forms of institutional processing. While international studies indicate rather high levels of perceived behavioural difficulties—reflected in teacher ratings, student self-reports in surveys, and rising use of medication across countries—the proportion of students formally identified as having special educational needs differs substantially. Formal diagnoses are most prevalent in Germany, less frequent in France, and lowest in Brazil. This suggests that cross-national variation in special educational needs reflects differences in institutional frameworks, diagnostic thresholds, and organisational pathways rather than differences in behavioural prevalence.

Anastasiou, D., & Keller, C. (2014). Cross-national differences in special education: A typological approach. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 347–363). Routledge. Powell, J. J., Pfahl, L. & Blanck, J. M. (2021). Sonderpädagogische Fördersysteme und inklusive Bildung. Handbuch Bildungs-und Erziehungssoziologie. OECD. (2020). Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education - all means all. United Nations.

Theoretical framework and research goals Severe disciplinary practices of teachers can be early drivers of deviant careers. Visible and intensive sanctions increase the likelihood that students are labeled as deviant, narrowing teachers’ behavioral expectations and promoting escalating responses (Perez & Okonofua, 2022; Yang et al., 2018). From an interactionist labeling perspective, deviance arises not only from behavior but from teachers’ interpretations guiding pedagogical responses (Lanas & Brunila, 2019). Disciplinary sanctions can stigmatize students by labeling them as “troublemakers,” shaping future interactions (Caprara & Zimbardo, 1996). Teachers’ practices form a dynamic interaction process in which action options become increasingly constrained. Once students are perceived as deviant, teachers’ expectations narrow, and prior interpretations guide subsequent responses. Consequently, severe reactions may become more frequent even when behavior is stable (H1). Labeling theory also predicts feedback effects on students: sanctions may reduce positive interaction opportunities, increasing further deviance (H2). We assume that the institutional context of different countries has little to no influence on these interactional relationships (H3). Together, these processes create a self-reinforcing dynamic that stabilizes deviant labels across different institutional contexts. Methods The study draws on longitudinal classroom observations from primary schools, followed from Grade 1 to Grade 3 in Germany and Brazil. Across 70 (Brazil: 28) classroom observation occasions, 18,378 (7.453) instances of deviant behavior and 5,861 (2,210) corresponding teacher reactions were recorded. In each class in both countries, three to four consecutive lessons were observed, with an average of 3.5 visits per school year. Classroom disruptions and teachers’ immediate responses were documented with minute-level precision using standardized protocols. Deviant behavior was coded using established instruments (e.g., Shapiro, 2011) and an inductively developed coding system. Semi-structured teacher interviews provided information on formal and exclusionary disciplinary measures and behavioral diagnoses. Analyses used pupil-level proportions per wave, applying multilevel models with lagged dependent variables and propensity score matching to disentangle behavioral differences from labeling processes. Results Descriptively, preliminary results indicate that 53% (Brazil: 69%) of disruptive behavior elicited no teacher reaction, while only 6% (3%) involved severe reactions. Group comparisons show that sanctioned students display higher proportions of disruptive behavior and general teacher reactions than non-sanctioned peers, as well as more severe reactions. Disruption intensity, however, is comparable between groups. These relationships apply to both countries. The findings suggest that differences in teacher responses, rather than behavioral intensity alone, may contribute to the attribution of formal disciplinary measures, regardless of institutional context.

Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1996). Aggregation and amplification of marginal deviations in the social construction of personality and maladjustment. European Journal of Personality, 10(2), 79–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199606)10:2%253C79::AID-PER249%253E3.0.CO;2-6 Lanas, M., & Brunila, K. (2019). Bad behaviour in school: A discursive approach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(5), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1581052 Perez, A. D., & Okonofua, J. A. (2022). The good and bad of a reputation: Race and punishment in K-12 schools. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100, 104287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104287 Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and Intervention. The Guilford Press. Yang, M.-Y., Harmeyer, E., Chen, Z., & Lofaso, B. M. (2018). Predictors of early elementary school suspension by gender: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.008

Research goals and theoretical framework This study investigates the construction of behaviour-related diagnostic labels in schools. It is prompted by the rising numbers of primary school children receiving be-havioural diagnoses across Europe, shown for example by the sharp increase of ADHD diagnoses among children and adolescents across European countries over the past dec-ade (Li et al., 2025) and by the exceptionally high approval rate in Germany of over 95% for formal assessments of special educational needs (Amrhein & Badstieber, 2025), highlighting the need to examine how teachers’ perceptions shape the formalisation of informal diagnostic judgements and how these perceptions are subsequently inscribed in individual students’ records. The analysis is grounded in labeling theory (Bernburg, 2019), with prelabeling (Rafalo-vich, 2005) serving as the key theoretical lens, and on special education research docu-menting the stigmatising effects of diagnostic labels (Franz et al., 2023) and persistent concerns about the quality of diagnostic procedures (Hennes et al., 2024). Methods The study draws on a qualitative longitudinal design, tracking 270 children in 11 classes across the first three years of primary school. Through criteria-based case selection (Mey & Mruck, 2020), we identified 12 pupils for whom behaviour-related special educational needs were formally determined by the end of the third school year. The dataset in-cludes 48 interviews with these pupils’ teachers (N=7) conducted three times a year across three years as well as student records (N=35) used in the formal assessment pro-cess. Both data sources were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2024). Results The analysis conceptualises prelabeling as a multidimensional, longitudinal trajectory of teachers’ perceptions and practices. Prelabeling processes are structured by six core cat-egories: Description of symptoms, causal attribution, prognosis of development, teach-ers’ self-evaluation, allocation of responsibilities and disciplinary measures. Across three school years, symptom descriptions and causal attributions appear early and remain sta-ble, while perceived behavioural intensity increases. Responsibility is distributed more widely and disciplinary measures shift from instructional interventions in class toward sanction- and exclusion-oriented practices, while prognoses deteriorate and teachers report declining self-efficacy. The student-records capture prelabeling primarily in its later-stage form. Analysing teachers’ case representations in the files enables us to trace how their perspective de-velops over time and to compare it across two data sources: interviews and student rec-ords. The close alignment between interview-based perceptions and the content of the student records highlights student records as a key mechanism through which informal diagnostic assessments become formalised.

Amrhein, B., & Badstieber, B. (2025). Systemische Gesamtbetrachtung. In Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Ed.), Gemeinsames Gutachten zum Bedarf an sonderpä-dagogischer Unterstützung – Langfassung (pp. 4-38). https://www.schulministerium.nrw/system/files/media/document/file/langfassung_wissenschaftlicher_pruefauftrag_sonderpaedagogische_foerderung.pdf/ Bernburg, J. G. (2019). Labeling theory. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. Penly Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 179–196). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10 Hennes, A.-K., Philippek, J., Dortants, L., Abel, M., Baysel, K., Dworschak, W., Fabel, L., Hövel, D., Jonas, K., Nideröst, M., Röösli, P., Schabmann, A., Stenneken, P., Wächter, J., & Schmidt, B. M. (2024). Son-derpädagogische Diagnostik im Feststellungsprozess: Eine Ist-Stand-Analyse und der Blick nach vorn. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 75(7), 288–302. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Soft-ware und künstlicher Intelligenz. Juventa. Li, X., Burn, E., & Guo, Y. (2025). DARWIN EU® – Trends in utilisation of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivi-ty Disorder (ADHD) Medications. Study report P3-C1-004 (2010–2023). DARWIN EU® Coordina-tion Centre. Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2020). Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie: Band 2: Designs und Verfahren. Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26887-9 Rafalovich, A. (2005). Relational troubles and semiofficial suspicion: Educators and the Medicalization of “unruly” children. Symbolic Interaction, 28(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.1.25

Question: What is the social reality of a 'case', i.e. a pupil who, in the school's opinion, requires special treatment, as presented in pupils' case files? What is presented and established as social reality? And, in particular, which alternative presentations are omitted, which actors silenced? Different sources of information are compared: (1) the case constellation that can be deduced from interviews with pupils, teachers and parents, (2) the case constellation that can be deduced from pupils’ files, which are used as the basis for initiating a diagnostic procedure. Theoretical foundations: According to Zimmerman and Pollner (1970), the social world is constituted in everyday practices that must be investigated and should not be taken for granted. This approach has proven fruitful when analysing social deviance, particularly mental illness and how society deals with it. It has been applied in what are now considered to be classic studies (Smith, 1978; Cicourel, 1968). Our study aims to systematically compare levels of deviant career development in terms of dominant construction processes and the actors involved. This is linked to the broader objective of raising awareness of children's participation in the construction of the social world (Bühler-Niederberger, 2020; Tisdall et al., 2023). Method – data collection and evaluation: The data is collected through interviews (with teachers, children and parents) and through an analysis of student files. In analysing the data, we draw on Clark's (2005) situation analysis, which specifically seeks out silent voices, and on critical discourse analysis (Wodak, 2013; Wodak & Krzyanowski, 2008). As a relevant line of analysis, we interpret the German data through the lens of an analysis of incident reports from French schools (Hilbold & Gavarini, 2022). Results: In both, the children's and teachers' interviews, the disruptive pupils appeared as 'troublemakers' and as a problem characterised by 'open contradiction' (Goffman, 1959; Bühler-Niederberger et al., 2025). Teachers and children therefore perceive each other as interaction partners who do not take on the assigned roles, making it difficult or impossible for the other side to fulfil their own roles. And this view is confirmed by the parents. Teachers attribute this to the child's family of origin and even to physiologically interpreted illness. In the case files, a largely uniform discourse emerges in which the problems of interaction, as well as the children's perspective and voice, have disappeared. The child's deviance appears to be an individual phenomenon with causes that lie solely outside of school.

Bühler-Niederberger, D. (2020). Lebensphase Kindheit. VS Verlag, Springer Bühler-Niederberger, D., Dittmann, L., & Schuchart, C. (2025). „Being Nice” as Modus Vivendi in Classrooms: A Collective Behavior Approach to Deviant Behavior in Primary Schools. Symbolic Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.70004 Cicourel, A. V. 1(968). The Social Organization of J uvenile Justice. John Wiley Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. London: Sage. Goffman, E. (1959.) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Hilbold, M., & et Gavarini, L. (2022). Ordre et désordres scolaires, les enseignants à l’ère des « incidents » dans la classe. In: Le Normal et le Pathologique à l’école aujourd’hui. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Smith, D. (1978). “K is Mentally Ill” the Anatomy of a Factual Account. Sociological Review 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200103 Tisdall. K., Davis, J., Fry, D., Konstantoni, K., Kustatscher, M., & Maternoswska, C. (Eds.) (2023). Critical Childhood Studies. Global Perspectives. Bloomsbury. Wodak, R. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis. Vol. I. Sage. Wodak, R. & Krzyanowski (2008). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan. Zimmermann, D.H., & Pollner, M. (1970). The Everyday World as a Social Phenomenon. In J.D. Douglas. (Ed.). Understanding Everyday Life. Toward the Reconstruction of Soiological Knowledge (pp. 80-104). Aldine Publishing Company.