Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:18:26 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 02 C: Leadership and Collaboration
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Inclusive School Leadership Across Contexts: Perspectives from Principals and Teachers in China, Switzerland, and the United States 1: Wenzhou-Kean University, China, People's Republic of; 2: Beijing Institute of Technology, People's Republic of; 3: Kean University, The USA; 4: University of Teacher Education Bern, Switzerland Presenting Author:Inclusive school leadership has been recognized as a critical factor in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in a diverse student population (Bhowmik et al., 2023; White et al., 2025). Although inclusive leadership has been strongly promoted in policy agendas, its implementation in practice has been found to vary and depend on contextual factors (Bellibaş et al., 2025). The present study aims to explore, through a qualitative comparative study, how inclusive school leadership is understood, implemented, and experienced in mainstream schools in three unique education systems, namely China, Switzerland, and the USA. The research aims to address the following research queries: What are the perceptions and understandings of inclusive leadership from the perspectives of school leaders and teachers? What core themes of inclusive school leadership emerge from the perspectives of school leaders and teachers? The study employed an inclusive school leadership framework, proposed by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2018), that recognizes three core functions of school leadership, namely, setting direction, organizational development, and human development (Óskarsdóttir et al., 2020). Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with school principals and teachers from a sample of mainstream schools in China, Switzerland, and the USA. Instead of preparing case descriptions of each country, thematic comparison was employed, highlighting universal leadership principles while acknowledging contextual variations. Data analysis was conducted through reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The results showed similarities and differences in the implementation of inclusive school leadership within the three contexts. In all contexts, the leaders emphasized a student-centered approach, balancing high expectations and holistic approaches to student well-being, including the social, emotional, and psychological aspects (Jarvis, 2011). This was realized through differentiated learning expectations, a strength-based approach, and leadership styles emphasizing the significance of student well-being to learning, rather than as an "add-on" to learning. Inclusive pedagogy was also a focus, including a range of approaches such as flexible curricula, growth-oriented assessment, data-informed individualized approaches, and collaborative teaching approaches, which resonates with current research on coordinated student support (Paccaud et al., 2021; Testa, 2023). Teacher growth and development was also a focus within the contexts, including mentoring, teacher observation, and using data and feedback in a developmental manner, which resonates with past research on teacher growth within inclusive contexts (DeMatthews, 2015). In addition, leaders developed a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility among teachers, families, and community members, emphasizing the significance of collective responsibility within inclusive school cultures (Coburn, 2003; Dorczak, 2013). Notable differences were also identified in the context of enactment. For example, leadership practices in China were marked by structural differentiation, clear role differentiation, and support structuring (e.g., shadow teachers, resource classrooms) and monitoring. Leaders in Switzerland focused on developmentally responsive and relational leadership practices for diverse classrooms, with a strong emphasis on dialogic communication, flexibility, and community integration. Leaders in the United States emphasized inclusive leadership practices within standards-based accountability systems, which included multi-tiered systems of support, and cultural responsiveness, identity affirmation, and student voice. The study underscores that inclusive school leadership is a complex and dynamic process that is maintained through the integration of student values, organizational alignment, continuous capacity building, and collaborative ecosystems. Although the processes of direction setting, organizational development, and human development are apparent across the different contexts, their implementation is highly influenced by national policies, cultural beliefs, and organizational structures. This study has made significant contributions to the body of knowledge on the processes involved in inclusive leadership implementation across different systems, providing a more nuanced perspective on its role as a critical driver of inclusive outcomes. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a qualitative approach to examine the phenomenon of inclusive school leadership in China, Switzerland, and the United States. The analytic approach was comparative, focusing on the similarities and differences in the experiences in the three countries, rather than providing a distinct narrative for each country. Participants consisted of 15 principals and 28 teachers drawn from mainstream schools with established inclusive education practices across the three national contexts. In China, participants included seven principals and nine teachers from primary and secondary schools in six cities. In Switzerland, four principals and twelve teachers were recruited from four schools spanning urban, suburban, and rural settings, covering grades Kindergarten through nine. In the United States, four principals and seven teachers participated from four public schools in New Jersey, which served elementary, middle, and high school levels. The sampling was done using a purposive sampling method to ensure that the schools had inclusive practices, and the sample size was based on data saturation (Carter et al., 2014). Data collection was carried out using a method of semi-structured interviews via video-conferencing tools such as Tencent Meeting and Zoom. An interview protocol was created following the three key functions of the conceptual framework: setting direction, organizational development, and human development (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2018). The interview protocol was refined. The interviews lasted approximately one hour. The interviews were carried out using either Chinese or English, according to the interviewees’ preferences. The interviews were recorded using audio recordings. The researcher also took field notes. The interview questions focused on interviewees’ experiences, perceptions, and leadership decision-making processes concerning inclusive education. The questions allowed for flexibility to explore interviewees’ experiences. The interview questions allowed for flexibility to explore interviewees’ experiences, perceptions, and leadership decision-making processes concerning inclusive education (Mertler, 2018). The process of data analysis included the six-step procedure of reflexive thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2021). This included familiarization with the data, coding of the data, and development of themes. The process of reflexive thematic analysis included the use of analytic memos to record the reflexive process. Themes were developed through constant comparison and then placed into the three broad domains of the inclusive leadership framework as described by Braun and Clarke (2021). This helped to ensure that the data analysis was grounded in the data while also allowing for theoretically informed interpretation of the data. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This comparative analysis sheds light on the intricacy involved in inclusive school leadership practices in China, Switzerland, and the USA. The findings suggest that, although the basic functions of inclusive leadership, such as setting direction, developing the organization, and developing people, are relevant across diverse contexts, their practice is heavily influenced by national policies, cultural factors, and school structures. The major findings suggest that inclusive leadership in schools can be an effective practice that balances high academic expectations with an unrelenting commitment to holistic student well-being and equity (Jarvis, 2011; Leithwood, 2021). Moreover, the findings suggest that inclusive education can be achieved through a collective approach that emphasizes responsibility through collaboration, communication, and decision-making among teachers, families, and community stakeholders (Coburn, 2003). Teacher development and data use are found to be an integral part of inclusive leadership practice, as professional development becomes a relational and data-informed practice for teachers (DeMatthews, 2015). For European countries, this study has specific implications. The study found that European countries could improve inclusion through: (1) formalizing distributed leadership and teacher-led professional learning communities to further develop shared responsibility; (2) investing in continuous professional development that links pedagogic differentiation with holistic student well-being; and (3) improving data systems that go beyond accountability measures to support diverse learners through relational and instructional support. The comparison, especially in terms of support structures and relational support, encourages European countries to consider how to strike a balance in terms of policy coherence and adaptability. References Bellibaş, M. Ş., Karaferye, F., & Walker, A. (2025). How cultural context shapes school leadership and its effectiveness: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 57(3), 437–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251396683 Bhowmik, M. K., Walker, A., & Bryant, D. (2023). Reconceptualizing inclusive leadership to address diversity in schools. Multicultural Education Review, 15(2), 139–156. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032006003 DeMatthews, D. (2015). Making sense of social justice leadership: A case study of a principal’s experiences to create a more inclusive school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.997939 Dorczak, R. (2013). Inclusion through the lens of school culture. In G. Mac Ruairc, E. Ottesen, & R. Precey (Eds.), Leadership for Inclusive Education (pp. 47–57). Springer. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2018). Supporting inclusive school leadership: Literature review. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/SISL_Literature_Review.pdf Jarvis, J. M. (2011). Promoting mental health through inclusive pedagogy. In R. H. Shute, P. T. Slee, R. Murray-Harvey, & K. L. Dix (Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing: Educational perspectives (pp. 237–248). Shannon Research Press. Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11(8), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377 Mertler, C. A. (2018). Introduction to educational research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Óskarsdóttir, E., Donnelly, V., Turner-Cmuchal, M., & Florian, L. (2020). Inclusive school leaders – their role in raising the achievement of all learners. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(5), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-10-2019-0190 Paccaud, A., Keller, R., Luder, R., Pastore, G., & Kunz, A. (2021). Satisfaction with the collaboration between families and schools – the parent's view. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646878 Testa, D. (2023). Interprofessional collaboration: How social workers, psychologists, and teachers collaborate to address student wellbeing. Australian Social Work, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2023.2256703 White, R., Lowery, C., & Johnson, J. (2025). Enhancing high-quality education through systemic school leadership: a systematic review. Quality Education for All, 2(1), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/qea-09-2024-0096 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Teacher Perspectives on Inclusive School Leadership: A Qualitative Multiple Case Study in Switzerland. 1: Bern University of Teacher Education, Switzerland; 2: Wenzhou-Kean University, China Presenting Author:Inclusive education has become a core principle of education systems worldwide, anchored in international agreements such as the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD, 2006), and further reinforced by the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). In Switzerland, this international commitment has been translated into national initiatives, including the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, 2002) and the Special Education Concordate (EDK, 2007). Despite these legal and policy frameworks, recent observations by the (United Nations, 2022) indicate that Switzerland continues to lag behind in the implementation of inclusive education, with many students with disabilities still facing substantial barriers to participation. This persistent gap between policy intentions and school-level realities reflects the tension between knowing and acting. Inclusive education is widely established as a policy principle, yet it is inconsistently enacted in everyday school practice. Its implementation depends critically on how inclusive principles are interpreted, enacted, and sustained at the school level, where formal knowledge must be translated into professional action. School principals occupy a pivotal mediating position in this translation process. Whereas principals’ roles were traditionally administrative within centrally controlled systems (Schratz, 1998), increased school autonomy (Altrichter et al., 2016) has transformed their responsibilities. Principals are now expected to function as educational leaders who actively shape school development by adapting policy expectations to local contexts in collaboration with teachers (Rahm & Schroeck, 2008). Crucially, teachers, as the primary enactors of inclusive education, experience and interpret principals’ leadership directly in their daily practice. Their perspectives are therefore essential for understanding how leadership bridges the gap between policy knowledge and professional action. This study conceptualises inclusive school leadership through the Model of Inclusive School Leadership (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2019), which identifies three core leadership functions: setting direction, organisational development, and human development. Inclusive school leaders are guided by a vision that aims to ensure equitable, high-quality educational opportunities for all learners within their local community (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2015). They set direction by articulating and communicating shared values for inclusion, foster organisational development by creating collaborative structures and inclusive school cultures, and promote human development by strengthening teachers’ professional capacity and commitment. Building on this framework, the study addresses the following research question: How do teachers perceive and experience inclusive leadership practices of their principals across the three core leadership functions? The study employs a qualitative multiple case study design, analysing semi-structured interviews with N = 12 teachers from four Swiss schools recognised for their established inclusive practices. By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives, the study provides insight into how inclusive leadership is experienced and interpreted in everyday school practice. It provides new insights by illuminating the role of school leadership in mediating between policy expectations and professional action, and by identifying conditions that can support the sustainable enactment of inclusive education at school level. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a qualitative multiple case study design (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2018), which is particularly suited for understanding complex phenomena within real-world contexts and for identifying patterns across cases while respecting contextual particularity. The four schools were purposively selected based on their established inclusive practices. Selection criteria included documented commitment to inclusive education over at least three years, organisational structures explicitly supporting collaborative teaching and learner support, and willingness to participate. The schools represent diverse organisational contexts, with two urban and two rural schools, as well as two small schools with fewer than 200 students and two medium-sized schools. At the same time, they share structural similarities in grade levels and organisational models, enabling analytical comparison. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with N = 12 teachers, three per school, purposively sampled to represent diverse roles including classroom teachers, special education teachers, and teacher specialists, as well as different career stages ranging from five to 25 years of experience. Interviews lasted between 60–90 minutes and followed a flexible interview guide structured around the three core leadership functions. Open-ended questions invited teachers to describe principals’ leadership practices, decision-making processes, and collaborative structures. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed according to predefined transcription rules (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). All participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality through pseudonymisation. Data analysis followed a combined deductive and inductive approach in line with qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022; Mayring & Fenzl, 2019). The three core leadership functions served as overarching deductive categories. Within these categories, inductive open coding was applied to identify patterns, variations, and emergent themes grounded in teachers’ experiences. Two researchers independently coded all transcripts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Finally, cross-case analysis systematically compared patterns across schools, examining convergences and divergences. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicate that teachers across all four schools perceive the three core dimensions of inclusive leadership as being inextricably linked, with setting direction, organisational development, and human development mutually reinforcing one another. Teachers consistently identified principals’ openness as a foundational value for setting direction, shaping their sense of agency, belonging, and engagement in collaborative problem-solving. Openness manifested in receptiveness to teachers’ concerns (“she always has time to listen”), willingness to experiment with new approaches (“he encourages us to try things”), and transparency in decision-making processes (“we understand why decisions are made”). Regarding organisational development, internal and external collaboration functioned as both a response to emerging challenges and a strategic resource for capacity building within Switzerland’s decentralised education system. Teachers highlighted how principals facilitated collaborative structures such as grade-level teams or interdisciplinary working groups. Collaboration extended beyond individual schools to include networks with cantonal authorities, special education services, and other schools. Human development involved professional learning opportunities balancing individual growth with collective capacity building. Teachers valued principals who supported both formal professional development (e.g., workshops, further education) and informal learning through collaborative reflection and shared problem-solving, fostering a culture of continuous improvement aligned with inclusive values. The study makes three key contributions to research and practice on inclusive school leadership. First, it extends and refines the European Agency’s model by demonstrating how the three core leadership dimensions are perceived by teachers and identifying additional aspects they consider important. Second, it highlights principals’ openness as both a personal orientation and an organisational principle enabling inclusive school cultures. Third, it illustrates how inclusive leadership operates within decentralised systems through strategic collaboration, offering insights relevant across European contexts where autonomy and accountability intersect. These findings can inform inclusive leadership development and practice in Switzerland and beyond. References Altrichter, H., Rürup, M., & Schuchart, C. (2016). Schulautonomie und die Folgen. In Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 107–149). Springer VS. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/RES/61/106 (2006). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities DDA. (2002). Federal Act of 13 December 2002 on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities (Disability Discrimination Act, DDA). https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2003/667/en EDK. (2007). Interkantonale Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Sonderpädagogik vom 25. Oktober 2007—Kommentar zu den einzelnen Bestimmungen. https://edudoc.ch/record/87689?ln=de European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2015). Agency Position on Inclusive Education Systems. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2019). Inclusive School Leadership: Exploring Policies Across Europe (Edda Óskarsdóttir, V. J. Donelly, & M. Tuner-Cmuchal, Eds). Odense Denmark. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Datenaufbereitung und Datenbereinigung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 501–516). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37985-8_32 Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 633–648). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42 Rahm, S., & Schroeck, N. (2008). Wer steuert die Schule? Zur Rekonstruktion dilemmatischer Ausgangslagen für Schulleitungshandeln in lernenden Schulen. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Schratz, M. (1998). Neue Rollen und Aufgaben für Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht. In A. Dobart, Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht (pp. 93–116). Studien Verlag. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 United Nations. (2022). Concluding observations on the initial report of Switzerland. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th edn). SAGE. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper A Policy-Practice Dilemma: School Leaders’ Perceptions of Challenges in Implementing the German Language Support Program in Austria Center for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, Austria Presenting Author:Austria’s educational landscape has seen an increase in linguistic diversity in the past years driven by the increasing number of children with refugee biography (Statistik Austria, 2024). Based on Austria’s official school statistics, about 26% of students spoke a language other than German in their everyday life in the school year 2023/2024 (Statistik Austria, 2024). Research indicates that students who face barriers in the language of instruction experience academic difficulties (Alkatbi Chami, 2024), which in turn contribute to persistent achievement gaps between students with and without a migration biography (OECD, 2023). To address such disparities and ostensibly facilitate the integration of students who lack proficiency in German into the Austrian school system, policymakers introduced a pull-out model of German language support. It was provided in either six weekly hours of German language support courses (GLSCO) or 15-20 hours of German language support classes (GLSC), based on students’ German results from a standardised language screening instrument (Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research [BMBWF], 2019). The implemented program received criticism as it has created a “policy-practice” mismatch stemming from the conflict between the mandated guidelines and school-level realities (Schwab et al., 2024). In this context, school leaders, acting as frontline stakeholders, are responsible for upholding those rigid guidelines while managing the resulting constraints, such as staff and recourse shortages. This paper sheds light on school leaders’ experiences with the language support program and explores the tension they face between the need to comply to governmental mandates and the duty of ensuring educational equity that speaks to the needs of all students. Finally, the paper identifies the necessary reforms that Austrian leaders think needed for the program. Objectives and research questions: The current paper aims at examining and providing insights into the perspectives of school principals on the implementation of German language support program in Austria, namely German language support courses (GLSCO) and German language support classes (GLSC). It addresses the following research questions:
Theoretical framework: The study is grounded in several key conceptual foundations. One fundamental theory is Lipsky's (1980) concept of street-level bureaucracy which explores how frontline workers or street-level bureaucrats, such as school leaders in the context of this paper, navigate the often-broad ministerial guidelines on ground particularly when faced with constraints like limited funding, staffing or other challenges. In essence, they rely on their discretionary decisions and practical judgments to put policies into action at the local level. This street-level concept is situated within the broader literature on policy implementation which distinguishes between two major conceptual approaches: the top down (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973) and bottom-up approaches (Lipsky, 1980). Within this framework, the regulations mandated by the government (top-down) stand in contrast to the nuanced, micro-level realities, where policies are adapted in accordance with the local circumstances (bottom-up). In the GLSCO/GLSC context, school leaders must interpret strict guidelines across diverse bottom-up realities in different school contexts and dynamics, which in turn creates “complications at lower systematic levels” (Arar et al., 2024). Another key theory in this context is standard language ideology (SLI) and Bourdieu’s (1991) concepts of linguistic capital and symbolic power. These concepts are drawn upon in this paper to illustrate how certain policies confer privilege and priority to the dominant language and social group over others, which can be observed in GLSCO/GLSC where linguistic diversity is treated as a deficit, reinforcing inequalities through segregation. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research design This paper is part of a multi-perspective project on the German language support program in Austria and uses an online survey for data collection. It employs a mixed-methods approach to capture the experiences of school principals regarding the implementation of German language support program. Participants/ setting A total of 194 school leaders (163 female, 27 male, 4 missing) took part in the study, ranging in age from 28 to 65 years (M = 54.00, SD = 6.54). They also had an average of 29.3 years of professional experience and roughly 9 years of experience as school leaders. Participants were included from schools throughout all nine federal states of Austria, primarily in primary schools (n=148) and middle schools (n=25). Data collection Methods An online questionnaire administered via LimeSurvey, taking approximately 15 minutes to complete was conducted. A set of seven self-developed 4-point Likert scale (e.g., 'We have sufficient spatial resources at our school for the German support classes') items on the implementation of German language support, the availability of resources (personnel and spatial), and the teaching qualifications of the staff for the program were formulated for this purpose. Additionally, school leaders responded to two open-ended questions asking about 1) the specific challenges posed by the ministerial guidelines and 2) the changes they consider necessary to the GLSC/CO. Data analysis approach The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, with means (M) and standard deviations (SD) calculated in SPSS. For the analysis of qualitative data, derived from the two open questions in the online questionnaire and comprising text written voluntarily by the school leaders- reflective thematic analysis was applied using an inductive, semantic, and latent approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). MAXQDA software (VERBI Software, 2021) was used for coding. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Quantitative findings showed varying levels of agreement among participants regarding program implementation and resources. A high variation was found in most items, which denotes the diverse implementations between schools and highlights the need for increased school autonomy. In fact, one third of school leaders reported not implementing the program according to ministry guidelines- a way of adapting to the constraints that the implementation of the program imposes. Resources were generally found to be insufficient reinforcing the impracticality of the program in daily school life. Principals also reported the highest agreement for the item on their collaboration with the mainstream teachers, yet the lowest agreement was for the item on the different organisation of the support classes. This gap reinforces the structural limitation of the support classes that forces leaders to maintain a “uniform character” irrespective of the school needs. Analysing the qualitative data derived from the two open-ended questions helped identify five main challenges that school leaders face when implementing language support across different schools. The first set of challenges is inherent to the program itself, which is viewed by leaders as “not practical” and not aligned with the best interests of children. The second relates to everyday school life, where the anticipated class homogeneity is affected due to factors like varying ages and language proficiency of students. The third category relates to limited resources, like staff shortage, large group sizes, and insufficient classrooms. Finally, the program was criticized for neglecting students’ backgrounds and fostering a deficit-oriented mindset that frames programmatic challenges as shortcomings of students and families. Regarding necessary changes, shifting the concept of language support models towards research-guided, inclusive models was prominent. Moreover, participants expressed the need to grant greater autonomy to school leaders, particularly on resource use, class composition, and grade promotion of students attending the program. References Alkatbi Chami, M. (2024). Learning poverty when schools do not teach in children’s home language: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 105, 102975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102975 Arar, K., Örücü, D., & Gümüş, S. (2024). Educational leadership and policy studies in refugee education: A systematic review of existing research. Educational Review, 76(4), 1032–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2066632 Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.; J. B. Thompson, Ed.). Polity Press. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung [BMBWF]. (2019). Deutschförderklassen und Deutschförderkurse: Leitfaden für Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter (2. Auflage). https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:f0e708af-3e17-4bf3-9281-1fe7098a4b23/deutschfoerderklassen.pdf Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results – Country note: Austria. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/austria_69ba01bc-en.html Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Schwab, S., Resch, K., Gitschthaler, M., Hassani, S., Latzko, D., Peter, A., & Walczuch, S. (2024). From policy to practice: how schools implement German language support policy in Austria. Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2269726 Statistik Austria. (2024). Statistisches Jahrbuch Migration & Integration 2024: Zahlen, Daten, Indikatoren. https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Migration_und_Integration_2024.pdf | ||