Conference Agenda

Inclusive education is a central principle of education policy and reform across Europe and internationally, underpinned by commitments to equity, participation, and the rights of learners. International frameworks such as the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD; United Nations, 2006), and UNESCO’s Education 2030 agenda position inclusion as both a rights-based imperative and an indicator of educational quality. Across many education systems, these commitments have driven sustained efforts to increase the participation of students with disability in mainstream settings, alongside growing expectations that inclusive education should contribute to improved academic, social, and wellbeing outcomes for all learners.

Previous research indicates that inclusive education is associated with positive outcomes for both students with and without disability (Dalgaard et al., 2022; Holzer & Moser Opitz, 2025; Szumski et al., 2017). Less frequently examined in the literature, however, is a fundamental issue underpinning this evidence base: what is actually being evaluated when the effectiveness of inclusive education is assessed. Much of the existing research infers effectiveness primarily through placement-based comparisons, typically comparing outcomes for students placed in mainstream versus specialist or segregated settings. While such analyses are important for understanding system-level patterns and policy effects, they offer limited insight into the pedagogical and instructional practices that may be responsible for observed outcomes.

Scholars have increasingly drawn attention to this gap in the evidence base underpininning inclusive education practices. Koutsouris et al. (2023) argue that inclusive pedagogies are often fragmented and under-theorised, particularly in secondary school contexts, while Norwich (2013) highlights the dominance of “thin” empirical accounts. Similarly, systematic reviews of inclusive education approaches such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and co-teaching demonstrate substantial variation in how practices are defined, operationalised, and reported, limiting the interpretability and transferability of outcome findings (Ok et al., 2017; Vembye et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024).

In response to these concerns, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesise and assess empirical evidence on the effectiveness of inclusive practices in school settings, with a focus on their reported impact on student outcomes.This review examines how inclusive practices are defined, operationalised, supported, and evaluated across studies, and how these practices are linked to learner outcomes.Although much of the empirical literature on inclusive practices continues to focus on students with disability, this review adopts a broader conceptualisation of inclusion concerned with educational practices that support participation, learning, and engagement for all students. Disability status was therefore not used as an inclusion or exclusion criterion. Instead, studies were selected based on their explicit engagement with inclusive practice and their reporting of student outcomes, allowing the review to examine how inclusion is enacted and evaluated across diverse learner groups and school contexts.

Drawing on a systematic review and appraisal of empirical studies published since 2015, the review synthesises research conducted in primary and secondary school contexts that explicitly reports learner-related outcomes associated with inclusive practices. By identifying patterns, gaps, and limitations in the existing evidence base, this review contributes to international debates about how inclusive education can be more effectively conceptualised, researched, and enacted, and how evidence on inclusive practices can better inform educational policy, professional learning for educators, and school improvement across diverse educational contexts.

Inclusive education in Croatia, as a member of the European Union, has a decades-long history. During this period, Croatia was among the first countries in the world to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Nowadays inclusion extends to all children, including, for example, those belonging to cultural minority groups, children at risk of poverty, and children in alternative care systems, among others. In Croatia, the legislative framework ensures that students with special educational needs (SEN) receive curricular and professional support, as well as pedagogical and didactic accommodations. Approximately 85% of students with SEN in primary schools are included in inclusive educational settings in Croatia (School e-Repository, 2025).

Today, inclusive education is an indispensable topic in teacher education. The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2012) states that the core competencies of teachers in inclusive education include: valuing student diversity, providing support to all learners, collaborating with others, and engaging in professional development. The teaching process should be flexible, through the use of diverse instructional materials, techniques, and teaching strategies that can address the wide range of students’ educational needs. What’s more, teachers are expected to apply Universal Design for Learning, that is, a curriculum design approach that accommodates learners with diverse needs equally well, regardless of SEN status, gender, abilities, cultural or linguistic background. For such a heterogenous population, it is necessary to implement inclusive teaching practices, such as differentiation and personalization (Lindner & Schwab, 2020).

Personalized instruction is a teaching approach in which instruction – including content, pace, methods, assessment – is tailored to the unique needs, abilities, and interests of each student (Shemschack & Spector, 2020). Differentiation is, on the other hand, a didactic strategy that enables teachers to respond to the diverse needs of heterogenous student groups (Nusser & Gehrer, 2020). It can be implemented through various approaches, including co-teaching, instructional methods, and provision of individualized feedback and support.

Research show that teachers feel more prepared to teach SEN students and differentiate their instruction when they hold positive attitudes toward inclusive education (Savolainen et al., 2020). However, teachers in mainstream inclusive classrooms often work with highly diverse groups of students, meaning that differentiation may become an additional source of stress if they do not feel adequately prepared (Pozas et al., 2023). Nevertheless, when students perceive teaching as more inclusive, their perception of school wellbeing and social inclusion is more positive, as well as academic self-concept (Alnahdi et al., 2022). Yet, studies exploring students’ perceptions of inclusive teaching in mainstream classrooms are lacking (Lindner et al., 2019).

There have been found some differences between Maths and German teachers with students’ perception of Maths teachers being that they more frequently use inclusive teaching practices (Schwab et al., 2019). One study found that female students, younger students and SEN students perceive inclusive teaching practices as being more frequent (Durán-Martinez et al., 2024).

This study aimed to validate the Croatian ITPS-S and to investigate how SEN and typical students perceive teachers’ inclusive practices across gender, grade level, and subject.

We asked:

1. Does the Inclusive Teaching Practices Scale – Students’ version (ITPS-S) retain its two-factor structure in the Croatian context, and does this structure demonstrate measurement invariance across students with and without SEN, across students’ gender, grade and teachers’ subject?

2. Do students’ SEN status, gender, and grade level influence their perceptions of teachers’ inclusive practices?

3. Does the subject taught by the teacher (Croatian vs. Maths) affect students’ rating of inclusive teaching practices?

By identifying strengths and gaps in inclusive teaching, the study supports evidence-based improvements in education aligned with European principles.

This paper presentation addresses the question of which professional competences are currently considered essential for inclusive education professionals across Europe, based on the results of an international e-Delphi study undertaken to update the European Profile for Inclusive Education Professionals. The presentation focuses on the outcomes of the consensus process and their implications for research, policy, and professional education, rather than on the study protocol itself.

The central research question guiding the study is: What core and emerging competences should define the professional profile of inclusive education professionals in contemporary European education systems? This question reflects the need to revisit existing competence frameworks in light of significant changes in European and international educational contexts, including increasing learner diversity, expanded inclusion agendas across educational sectors, digitalisation of teaching and learning, and growing attention to wellbeing and mental health.

The paper is situated within a theoretical framework of inclusive education as a rights-based, systemic, and dynamic process. Inclusion is conceptualised as extending beyond individual learner support to encompass institutional cultures, inter-professional collaboration, and policy-level action. The competence concept is understood as an integrated combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and professional values, aligned with competence-based approaches to professional learning and teacher education widely adopted across Europe. This framework draws on international human rights instruments, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as European policy commitments to equity, participation, and lifelong learning.

From a methodological perspective, the study employed an international e-Delphi design involving experts from multiple European countries and diverse professional roles, including researchers, teacher educators, policy representatives, and practitioners from different educational sectors. The Delphi process consisted of multiple iterative rounds combining quantitative rating of competence statements with qualitative feedback. Participants evaluated the relevance of proposed competences using a nine-point scale, with consensus determined through predefined statistical criteria based on median scores and interquartile ranges. Levels of agreement across rounds were examined using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, while qualitative comments were analysed thematically to identify emerging themes and areas of conceptual refinement.

The paper presentation foregrounds the results of the Delphi process, presenting the final set of agreed competence domains and highlighting key areas of continuity and change compared to the original European Profile. Particular emphasis is placed on competence areas that gained strong consensus across countries, as well as on newly articulated or substantially strengthened domains. These include working systemically for inclusion, addressing learner and professional wellbeing, responding to digital transformation including the use of AI, and extending the competence profile to contexts such as higher education and lifelong learning.

The intended purpose of the presentation is to contribute to international scholarly and professional debates on inclusive education by offering an empirically grounded, consensus-based competence framework with clear European relevance. The paper aims to demonstrate how international expert agreement can support shared reference points for professional development while remaining sensitive to national and local contexts. By presenting results derived from cross-national collaboration, the paper highlights both common priorities and contextual diversity in understandings of inclusive professionalism, thereby supporting future research, policy development, and professional learning initiatives at European and international levels.