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, 21:28:40 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 11 D: Accountability and Institutional Frameworks for Inclusion
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper The Workings of Accountability in Inclusive Education: An Institutional Study of SEN Inclusion University of Bergen, Norway Presenting Author:This paper applies an institutional approach to accountability (Bovens, 2007, 2008) to illuminate how schools navigate their daily efforts to achieve stated goals of including students with special education needs (SEN). Drawing on an empirical study of interdisciplinary collaboration in upper secondary education in a Norwegian county municipality, we examine the complexity of accountability relations in inclusive practices. Our objective is to explore how this theoretical lens can support a more precise understanding of the mechanisms that enable or hinder SEN inclusion. Accordingly, we ask: How can an institutional approach yield a clearer understanding of the workings of accountability for the inclusion of SEN students in upper secondary schools? The study is based on qualitative interviews with school leaders, counsellors, teachers, and special needs advisors. The findings reveal how ambiguities in the legal framework for SEN education, combined with administrative routines that are difficult to implement in practice, challenge professional collaboration. These insights demonstrate how the institutional perspective helps clarify the accountability dynamics at play.
Inclusive education is increasingly positioned as a foundation of equitable and democratic societies. Despite shared policy goals (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2024), students with special educational needs (SEN) continue to underachieve or leave upper secondary education without a diploma, revealing a persistent gap between political aspirations and educational realities (Ferguson, 2008; Haug, 2024; OECD, 2022; Vogt et al., 2020).
Inclusive education for SEN students addresses both how inclusion should be organised and how it should be enacted in teaching practice (Fasting et al., 2024). One widely recommended approach is the inclusion of students with special needs in regular classes, with targeted, tailored support to meet their individual needs (Nada, 2025). However, the meaning of the term 'inclusion' and how it can be realised in practice remain ambiguous in both research and policy documents (e.g., Uthus & Qvortrup, 2024). Consequently, accounting for inclusive education for students with special needs constitutes a complex undertaking.
Against this background, we explore how an institutional perspective on accountability (Bovens, 2007) can offer a theoretical lens for evaluating how inclusive practices are shaped in everyday school life. Accountability is understood as a relational process in which actors are required, or feel obliged, to explain and justify their conduct before a forum that evaluates these accounts and may impose consequences (Bovens, 2007; Bovens et al., 2008). Such accountability arrangements vary in formality, power relations, and timing, and multiple accountability forums may coexist, giving rise to distinct accountability regimes within the same organisational context.
Institutional perspectives on accountability provide frameworks to analyse interactions among key actors within and between institutions and governance systems (Bovens, 2007). We argue for the relevance of such perspectives as research on inclusion of SEN students emphasises the necessity of extensive collaboration and interdisciplinary efforts (Donohue & Bornman, 2014; Patana, 2020; UNESCO, 2020). Effective inclusion requires continuous, multi-level engagement from all stakeholders (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). Recognising these complex demands, we explore how accountability works – or could work – in these collaborative processes, in dynamic, real-world settings.
In our data, we find that Bovens (2007, 2008) conceptions of legal, administrative, and professional accountability regimes are particularly salient. While legal and administrative accountability are anchored in formal regulations and organisational hierarchies, professional accountability in interdisciplinary SEN work primarily unfolds in everyday interactions, where professionals alternately act as actors and forums for one another (Lipsky, 2010). Following Bovens et al. (2008), we adopt a learning-oriented approach to accountability, focusing on whether accountability processes foster meaningful dialogue, feedback, and institutional learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study draws on qualitative group interviews with school leaders, teachers, and counsellors from the counselling services (CSs) in a Norwegian county municipality. The county municipality comprises 58 upper secondary schools, serving approximately 22,000 students and apprentices and employing around 3,000 teachers. The CSs provide special educational and psychological counselling and are organised into four regional offices, employing 111 counsellors. The study is part of an ongoing professional development project (Tolo, Hagatun & Hesjedal, 2021), in which researchers and practitioners collaborate to improve inclusion practices. Informants were recruited strategically to ensure strong organisational anchoring and to capture perspectives from different professional positions and levels. In an initial step, the first author and representatives from the county municipality jointly decided which informant groups to include, aiming to generate "thick descriptions" of contexts and social practices. Three groups were selected: (1) school leaders, (2) teachers, and (3) counsellors from the CSs. The county municipality administration selected schools and CSs to ensure variation across geography and organisational contexts. School principals and CS leaders then identified potential informants, who were subsequently contacted by the first author and invited to participate. The group interviews were conducted via Zoom in November–December 2021. In total, 43 informants participated across 19 homogeneous groups, each consisting of 2–5 participants holding similar positions. The semi-structured interviews lasted approximately one hour and followed a thematic interview guide. Informants were asked about their professional responsibilities, experiences of collaboration, and how expectations, procedures, standards, and regulations were perceived to support inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The material, consisting of approximately 250 pages of transcripts, was analysed using an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Bovens' (2007) and Bovens et al.'s (2008) conceptual frameworks on accountability guided the analysis. NVivo was used to organise the material in a two-step process: first, identifying descriptions of accountability situations across legal, administrative, and professional regimes; second, assessing these situations from a learning perspective. Based on this mapping, one illustrative case was selected for deeper analysis because it demonstrates how multiple accountability regimes operate simultaneously. Throughout the project, preliminary findings have been continuously discussed with practitioners, contributing to ongoing validation and refinement of the analysis. The study followed NESH ethical guidelines, with particular attention to voluntary participation, informed consent, and anonymisation, given the project's organisational context. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings By applying Bovens' (2007) and Bovens et al.'s (2008) frameworks to map and assess accountability in a specific case, we identified nuances in the complex, real-life interplay between formal and informal practices. Once identified, these practices can be examined, brought to light, and improved. The findings show that in our case, various accountability regimes – legal, administrative, and professional – function simultaneously in a hybrid form (Benish & Mattei, 2020). In certain accountability situations, we observed informal and inconsistent practices, and the absence of clear accountability mechanisms was particularly evident. However, we also identified a high-trust culture, which fosters opportunities for democratic dialogue and organisational learning (Bovens et al., 2008). While these conditions provide a solid foundation for accountability that enhances institutional learning, there remains potential for a more systematic and consistent application of accountability practices and for the development of relevant instruments. In line with an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), we critically engaged with Bovens' (2007) theory of accountability. While Bovens' framework is well-suited for analysing existing accountability arrangements, we repurposed it to highlight gaps and shortcomings in accountability practices within a particular field. Our analysis revealed multiple mechanisms through which accountability either does or could operate within institutions and broader governance structures. We refer to these mechanisms as potential accountability workings. This term encompasses the diverse, implicit regimes that shape how responsibility for including SEN students is managed in practice. These workings function independently of formal performance-based accountability (PBA) systems and are frequently overlooked. By describing these dynamics, our approach provides a more nuanced understanding of who is responsible for what, and the prerequisites for how diverse actors handle their responsibilities. Consequently, our approach is also normative, proposing how accountability systems could be improved to better support professional work on the inclusion of SEN students in schools. References Benish, A., & Mattei, P. (2020). Accountability and hybridity in welfare governance. Public Administration, 98(2), 281–290. Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & ’t Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225–242. Donohue, D., & Bornman, J. (2014). The challenges of realising inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–14. Fasting, R., Haug, M., & Hausstätter, R. (2024). Approaches to inclusive education: A review of the literature on inclusive education for children and youth with disabilities in low-income countries in Africa and Asia. NIBR. Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109–120. Haug, P. (2024). 30 år med inkluderende opplæring i norsk skole. Paideia, 28, 15–24. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. Munday, B. (2007). Integrated social services in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing. Nada, C. (2025). Special educational needs – a careful balance between targeted support and inclusion. European School Education Platform. European Union. OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. Patana, P. (2020). Inclusive education and cross-sectoral collaboration between education and other sectors. UNESCO. Qvortrup, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 803–817. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. Tolo, A., Hagatun, K., & Hesjedal, E. (2021). Kartlegging av samhandling mellom skular, rettleiingsteneste, lærebedrift og anna støtteapparat i Vestland fylkeskommune. Universitetet i Bergen / Vestland fylkeskommune. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2024). The Salamanca statement anniversary: 30 years of progress? Celebrating inclusion in education. UNESCO. Uthus, M., & Qvortrup, A. (2024). Lessons learned from Norway: A values-based formulation of inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 40(2), 244–258. Vogt, K. C., Lorentzen, T., & Hansen, H.-T. (2020). Are low-skilled young people increasingly useless, and are men the losers among them? Journal of Education and Work, 33(5–6), 392–409. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Structural and Procedural Benefits of the Step by Step Program from the Perspective of Teachers 1: Masaryk University, Czech Republic; 2: Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Czech Republic Presenting Author:The Step by Step (SbS) program was established in the early 1990s as part of a broader effort to reform education systems in post-communist countries. The aim was to support the emergence of open, democratic, and child-centered pedagogy to replace the authoritarian and centralized models of education typical of the previous régime (Klaus, 2004; Krywko, 2010). Step by Step now offers comprehensive education based on constructivist pedagogy, a friendly approach to children, and close cooperation with families. This approach to education inherently includes inclusive values. The program has been operating in the Czech Republic for 32 years. Currently, more than 160 kindergartens and elementary schools are registered in the Start Together program network (the Czech name for Step by Step), and nearly 20,000 teachers have been trained (Šíp & Denglerová, 2025). In previous research surveys (Denglerová et al., 2024), we answered the question of what the Step by Step program brings to students educated within its framework. We used a quantitative survey among students to examine the so-called soft skills that contribute primarily to the formation of knowledge and skills and their long-term use, in which students are developed and supported in the program. This survey focused on measuring students' self-perception, classroom climate, emotional abilities, and creative and metacognitive abilities. Furthermore, within the framework of a qualitative research paradigm, we used ethnographic inputs into the classroom and subsequent situational analysis to try to understand the teaching environment and all its specifics that enable students to develop these soft skills above the standard (which was reflected in higher values in the quantitative part of our research). Looking at the school environment through the benefits for pupils with heterogeneous needs is an important factor (Beronilla & Natividad, 2025). We also recognized that, in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation and, in particular, to capture their underlying dynamics, it was essential to examine the perspectives, attitudes, and motivations of teachers who enter the SbS program and choose to work within its pedagogical framework. Therefore, this paper focuses primarily on the statements of experienced primary school teachers who describe the benefits of the SbS program for their personal and professional growth. The main research question was to find out what motivates teachers to join the SbS program, what benefits the program brings them, and how they assess their overall personal and professional development within the program. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data was collected in 2023 among teachers of the SbS program in three different ways. 1. Focus group interview with SbS program lecturers and experienced teachers – nine informants participated. All of them had many years of experience in education and had started teaching at least ten years ago (including breaks from the profession due to maternity and parental leave). Most of them also work for Step by Step ČR as SbS program lecturers during summer schools and ongoing seminars. The informants were therefore convinced of the program's usefulness and its benefits for them personally and were willing to share this conviction. 2. Free statements from class teachers of classes involved in the quantitative survey among pupils – as part of this survey, we always communicated with the teacher in charge of a specific class in schools. Usually, it was a class teacher, in one case it was a substitute teacher, and in one case it was two paired teachers. We asked these teachers to fill out an unstructured questionnaire in which they freely expressed their opinions on four questions. There was no time limit for completing the questionnaire, and the informants usually sent it to us a few days after we contacted them at their place of work. In this way, we obtained statements from 18 informants. 3. Individual interviews with teachers – in two schools where the qualitative part of the previous research took place, we also collected interviews with teachers. The interviews lasted between 52 and 100 minutes. The presented analysis is based on interviews with three informants. All of the above-mentioned data sources support each other and describe the positive motivation of all participants in the ZaS program. For the data analysis phase, we used situational analysis procedures, which emphasize the systematic capture of relationships that influence the specific forms of the environment under study (in our case, the environment of classrooms and schools). Situational analysis (SA) was essential for us for several reasons. First, the ethnographic approach is included in the very foundations of SA; second, it is consistent with the interactive systemic nature of Bronfenbrenner's model; third, the construction of the so-called elements, it is based on an abductive approach to scientific research, and finally, it emphasizes the participation of the actors themselves in refining the meanings of the processes and events under investigation (Clarke, 2005; Clarke, Friesse, & Washburn, 2015). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis showed that the key elements that motivate teachers to work within the SbS program can be described by the terms STRUCTURE and PROCESS. A solid STRUCTURE is essential; we can view it as a "skeleton" around which the "body" of a functioning learning community grows organically. The skeleton provides stability and predictability. At the same time, it is not rigid. It can change without losing its stabilizing function. For example, the rules are constantly updated, negotiated, and their list changes. The most significant PROCESS reported by the respondents was the transformation of the teacher into a competent professional and their personal growth. For the informants, the term "competent" expressed a situation in which a teacher becomes a professional. It does not matter how many years the person has been teaching, but rather the quality of the processes of personal and professional growth they are undergoing. The ability to reflect is a reference to a key transformation of the teacher. This occurs when they realize that they are "still-on-the-path" and that they cultivate and moderate this path through constant self-reflection. The interviews most emphasized changes in planning, in the organization of teaching, and changes in their own psychological attitude (building self-confidence, accepting mistakes as opportunities for growth, focusing on their own growth). The informants also agreed that DEMOCRACY and the possibility of developing it are central values for them. That is why they remain in the SbS program. According to the respondents, rules play an important role in creating a respectful, democratic environment (referring back to structure). Rules create space for freedom, in which students are guided toward responsibility. Democratic values were repeatedly evident in the interviews in the way teachers want to guide students toward conflict resolution or encourage them to express their different opinions. References Beronilla, J. M., & Natividad, L. (2025). Heterogeneous over homogenous grouping in the classroom: An argument for inclusive education (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5085926). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5085926 Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postomodern turn. Thousands Oak, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Clarke, A., Friesse, C. & Washburn, R. (2015). Situational analysis in practice: Mapping research with grounded theory. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. Denglerová et al. (2024). Benefits of the Start Together program. Research report. Available at: www.zacitspolu.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/vyzkumna-zprava_benefity-zas_2024.pdf Klaus, M. (2004). Stepping into the Future: A History of the Step by Step Program. [online] [2024-07-30]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264896027_Stepping_into_the_Future_The_History_of_the_Step_by_Step_Program Krywko, K. K. (2010). Policy Transfer in the Post-Socialist Region: The Open Society Institute and the Step By Step Initiative. Dissertation Thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University. Šíp, R. & Denglerová, D. (2025). Proč vyučující realizují program Začít spolu: Strukturální a procesuální přínosy programu. Pedagogika, 75 (2-3), 219-250. https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2025.4954 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Reproduction of Social Inequalities in Schools Through Legal Frameworks? A Comparative Analysis Between Cologne, Hamburg and Calgary University of Siegen, Germany Presenting Author:The results of the first PISA study marked a turning point in the German education debate by highlighting the strong correlation between socioeconomic status and educational achievement, triggering a series of educational policy reforms. Despite numerous reform efforts, the influence of social background on educational opportunities in Germany remains well documented empirically and continues to be prominent (Busemeyer et al., 2023; OECD, 2023; Scharf et al., 2020). While this correlation has been researched extensively, less attention has been paid to the institutional mechanisms through which inequalities are (re)produced in the everyday structures and practices of the school system. Organizationally embedded regulations and procedures in legal and administrative documents can create differentiation processes that systematically disadvantage certain groups of students and perpetuate existing disparities (Böhmer, 2025). One theoretical perspective that has been used only rarely to date but offers great analytical potential for investigating such mechanisms is the concept of space as a product of social action (Kessl et al., 2016; Riveros & Nyereyemhuka, 2023). In a large part of educational research, space is assumed to be a neutral container concept that serves primarily to describe locational conditions (Berkemeyer et al., 2019). However, this view ignores the space-constituting mechanisms through which school systems, schools, and school actors actively, albeit unintentionally, create social orders through administrative requirements, school organizational structures, or practices of differentiation (Stočić, 2015). A relational understanding of space, on the other hand, conceives of space as a product of social actions and structures (Löw, 2016; Löw & Sturm, 2019) and makes it possible to analyse legal and administrative regulations not only as control instruments, but also as active producers of segregated educational spaces. The organization of the school system plays a central role here. International comparative studies show that education systems with early institutional stratification exhibit greater educational inequalities than those that educate students together as far as possible. The multi-tiered German school system contrasts sharply with single-tier systems such as the Canadian (Busemeyer et al., 2023; OECD, 2023). At the same time, both Germany and Canada are federally organized, resulting in a wide variety at the subnational level in terms of governance logics, legal requirements, and administrative structures. This similarity in governance, coupled with differences in the institutional logic of the organization of education, provides a particularly suitable framework for revealing mechanisms of differentiation. Given this, the PhD project looks at how differences based on students' socioeconomic status are created through institutional structures and practices, and how this leads to segregated educational spaces. The project includes three complementary sub-studies, each focusing on the macro, meso, and micro levels of the school system (Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2016; Fend, 2008). The first study, which is scheduled for presentation at the ECER conference, focuses on the macro level and examines the legal and administrative frameworks that structure the conditions under which school actors operate. The following research questionis central to this study: How are differences between students based on their social background created by legal and administrative regulations in Hamburg, Cologne, and Calgary, thereby (re)producing segregated educational spaces? The following two sub-studies of the dissertation then examine how these macrostructural guidelines are taken up, interpreted, and reconstructed in practice by school actors at the meso level of the school and the micro level of teaching, and whether further mechanisms of difference production become apparent in the process. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer the research question, the cities of Hamburg and Cologne (Germany) and Calgary (Canada) were selected as case studies based on statistical indicators and the results of national comparative studies. Socio-spatial segregation is particularly pronounced in urban agglomerations with a wide range of schools, which is why it is particularly interesting to compare large cities (Fölker et al., 2015; Stošić, 2012). Despite above-average results in terms of the fairness of the education system, the international comparison with Calgary should not simply serve as a blueprint by compiling existing findings on Canadian education and translating them to the German context. Instead, German and Canadian primary sources are analysed equally. However, the comparison opens up the possibility of overcoming blind spots in a purely national perspective and questioning researchers' views on what is known. In addition to school-related legal and administrative documents, the German Basic Law, the state constitutions of the two German states of Hamburg and North Rhine-Westphalia, the Canadian Constitution, and the Constitution of the Province of Alberta were also included. This resulted in a data corpus of around 1000 documents, which was evaluated using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA). RTA is a variant of thematic analysis whose evaluation process is particularly open and interpretative, and which was further developed and described as a method by Braun & Clarke in particular. Unlike in English-speaking countries, it is not yet widely used in German-speaking countries and aims to develop reflexive themes in a six-step, iterative analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The necessary familiarity with the data requires restriction to documents relevant to research, which is why, in an initial review based on exclusion criteria (no reference to state-run general education schools, such as private schools or vocational schools), those documents that are not formally relevant to research are currently being sorted out. In a second review, documents that are relevant to the RTA are then selected based on inclusion criteria (reference to space, e.g. structural requirements; to difference, e.g. distinctions between students based on their support needs; to social background, e.g. the financial resources of their parents or guardians). Only then is the actual RTA carried out. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The evaluation process is currently still in its early stages but will be sufficiently advanced by August 2026 to produce initial results. Nevertheless, it is already clear that in all three case studies, the participation of all students is explicitly formulated as a goal in various legal texts. In the operationalization, however, in German legal documents social background is hardly mentioned directly as a dimension that contributes to inequality, in contrast to, for example, migration history, special education needs, or the gender of the students. It is expected that social background is implicitly effective in legal and administrative texts in Cologne and Hamburg but remains systematically underrepresented compared to other categories of difference. It is particularly interesting to compare the findings from Germany with the Canadian documents, as the spaces become visible. It is precisely this gap that proves to be central to understanding institutionally produced educational inequality. Initial findings indicate that social background, as well as other categories of difference among students, is a key category in the formulation of Canadian legal and administrative documents and is repeatedly placed at the centre of laws and administrative regulations. Furthermore, no passages have been found to date that point to the responsibility of schools or teachers in reproducing or combating social inequalities. This makes it clear that not only explicit regulations are relevant for the analysis, but also those aspects that are systematically omitted from legal texts. Especially interesting is comparing the results of Germany with the Canadian documents as the blank spaces become visible. In particular, the question of what differences can be seen between the individual case studies at the macro level and whether the patterns in the interviews can be found at the meso and micro levels forms a central starting point for the subsequent sub-studies. References Altrichter, H., & Maag Merki, K. (2016). Steuerung der Entwicklung des Schulwesens. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Hrsg.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (S. 1–27). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18942-0_1 Berkemeyer, Nils, Hermstein, Björn, & Manitius, Veronika. (2016). Auf dem Weg zu einer raumorientierten Schulsystemforschung. Was können raumsensible Sozialtheorien für empirische Analysen regionaler Bildungsdisparitäten leisten? https://doi.org/10.25656/01:16705 Böhmer, A. (2025). Soziale Ungleichheit und Bildung: Eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Einführung (1. Auflage). UTB. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838562339 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Busemeyer, M., Garritzmann, J., & Garritzmann, S. (2023). Bildungspolitik. In G. Wenzelburger & R. Zohlnhöfer (Hrsg.), Handbuch Policy-Forschung (S. 657–682). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34560-0 Fend, H. (Hrsg.). (2008). Schule gestalten: Systemsteuerung, Schulentwicklung und Unterrichtsqualität. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90867-0 Fölker, L., Hertel, T., & Pfaff, N. (2015). Brennpunkt(-)Schule: Zum Verhältnis von Schule, Bildung und urbaner Segregation. B. Budrich. Kessl, F., Reh, Sabine, Glaser, Edith, & Thole, Werner. (2016). Raum und Räumlichkeiten in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung. Eine Einführung. 62(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:16701 Löw, M. (2016). The Sociology of Space: Materiality, Social Structures, and Action. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-69568-3 Löw, M., & Sturm, G. (2019). Raumsoziologie. Eine disziplinäre Positionierung zum Sozialraum. In F. Kessl & C. Reutlinger (Hrsg.), Handbuch Sozialraum: Grundlagen für den Bildungs- und Sozialbereich (Bd. 14, S. 3–21). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19983-2 OECD (Hrsg.). (2023). PISA 2022 Ergebnisse: Lernstände und Bildungsgerechtigkeit (1. Aufl.). wbv Media GmbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.3278/6004956w Riveros, A., & Nyereyemhuka, N. (2023). Conceptualizing space in educational administration and leadership research: Towards a spatial justice perspective. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(4), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1842509 Scharf, J., Becker, M., Stallasch, S. E., Neumann, M., & Maaz, K. (2020). Primäre und sekundäre Herkunftseffekte über den Verlauf der Sekundarstufe: Eine Dekomposition an drei Bildungsübergängen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 23(6), 1251–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-020-00981-7 Stočić, P. (2015). Horizontale Segregation im deutschen Schulsystem. In L. Fölker, T. Hertel, & N. Pfaff (Hrsg.), Brennpunkt(-)Schule Zum Verhältnis von Schule, Bildung und urbaner Segregation. B. Budrich. Stošić, Patricia. (2012). Lokale Bildungsräume zwischen Struktur und Handlung. 18(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:24492 | ||