Conference Agenda

Although the social dimension of inclusion has increasingly become a focus of educational research, little is known about how it is actively promoted in the context of compulsory education. Social participation can be defined using four key themes: (a) social friendships/relationships between students with and without disabilities, (b) positive social interactions between students with disabilities and their classmates, (c) self-perception of students with disabilities regarding social relations, and (d) acceptance of students with disabilities by their classmates. Research clearly indicates that primary as well as secondary school students with special educational needs (SEN) are at higher risk of low social participation than their classmates without SEN in at least three out of four key aspects: on average, they (a) have fewer friends and (b) fewer social interactions with peers but more interactions with teachers and (c) are less accepted by their classmates (Avramidis et al., 2018; Bossaert et al., 2013; Koster et al., 2009; Schwab, 2015).

Behaviours that violate social norms, such as aggressive, disruptive or avoidant behaviour, and that cause difficulties with emotion regulation, social perspective-taking, social problem-solving, and communicating with others, are considered a major reason for peer rejection (Avramidis et al., 2018; De Leeuw et al., 2018; Woodgate et al., 2019). In this light, students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties (SEBD) are particularly at risk of social exclusion as insufficiently developed social-emotional skills and related difficulties in social matters are a key characteristic of their disabilities (Schwab, 2015; Woodgate et al., 2019).

In this context, teachers can be seen as key actors in fostering their students´ social participation. Through their (daily) interactions with students, they can significantly impact the social-emotional development of their (SEBD) students´ and shape their social-emotional experiences at school. Positive contributions can be made by e.g., developing supportive and trusting teacher-student relationships, adopting an empathetic and non-judgemental attitude towards students and creating an accepting and appreciative learning environment (Gaitas et al., 2024; Llorent et al., 2024). However, many Austrian teachers feel inadequately prepared for teaching students with SEBD, and they often express a need for further training in this area (Schmich & Itzlinger-Bruneforth, 2019). Given this, it remains unclear whether teachers are in a position to prioritise the social participation of this group of learners.

Although evidence suggests that students with SEBD become less socially included as they grow older (Guillemot et al., 2024), research on strategies that teachers´ employ in their everyday school life to promote their SEBD students´ social participation is currently only available in the primary school context. The present study aimed to address this gap in research and (a) to shed light on Austrian secondary school teachers´ perspectives, experiences and interpretations of SEBD students´ social participation, and (b) to describe the strategies they applied to promote social participation among these learners. Our study thus addressed the following research questions:

(1) What are the perceptions of secondary school teachers concerning the social participation of their SEBD students?

(2) What strategies do they apply in their daily practice to promote their SEBD students´ social participation?

This paper presents the outcomes of the project Learner Participation in Inclusive Education (LPIE), that was implemented between 2024 and 2025 by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) in close cooperation with five participating member countries: Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Portugal and UK Scotland. The project is situated within a broader European and international effort to strengthen inclusive education systems by improving the generation and use of meaningful data on learners’ experiences. More specifically, the LPIE project addresses the persistent challenge of how to capture and use qualitative insights into learners’ socio-emotional participation to inform policy development and support more effective inclusive education policy implementation.

Inclusive education is fundamentally concerned with ensuring equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities for all learners, irrespective of their individual abilities, backgrounds or needs (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022). While considerable progress has been made in establishing legislative and structural frameworks for inclusion, less attention has been paid to understanding learners’ lived experiences—particularly their social and emotional participation in school settings.

Against this backdrop, the LPIE project formulates a central research question: How can meaningful qualitative data on learners’ socio‑emotional participation be gathered and used to inform and improve inclusive education policy implementation across European countries?

Three sub questions guide the inquiry:

(1) What data is required to give policy‑makers meaningful insights into learner participation?

(2) What current challenges, gaps or barriers limit the collection and interpretation of relevant qualitative data?

(3) How can stakeholders and policy‑makers build capacity to collect, understand and apply such data to reduce implementation gaps?

To respond to these questions, participating countries collaborated with the EASNIE team to identify and develop an appropriate theoretical and methodological framework. The starting point was the need for a shared and operational definition of ‘participation’ in education. Early discussions revealed substantial gaps in existing data collection systems concerning socio-emotional participation, prompting the project’s deliberate focus on this dimension. Participation was understood not merely as presence or engagement, but as the degree to which learners experience a sense of belonging, emotional safety and meaningful involvement in groups and activities that are valuable to them.

The project drew on several established theoretical perspectives in the international literature. Among these, the capability approach (CA), developed by Sen (2009), emerged as the most suitable conceptual foundation. The CA is particularly advantageous in a European and international context because it centres on learners’ real opportunities (capabilities) and their actual choices and actions (functionings). It shifts the analytical focus from what policymakers assume learners need to what learners themselves identify as valuable in their daily experiences of schooling.

By emphasising lived experience, agency and meaningful choice, the capability approach provides a nuanced lens for interpreting socio-emotional participation. It helps illuminate whether learners genuinely have the possibility to participate in ways that matter to them, rather than merely appearing included according to institutional metrics. Furthermore, its international relevance allows for meaningful comparison and shared learning across diverse European education systems, supporting convergence with wider global frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN General Assembly, 2006) and UNESCO’s commitments to inclusive, equitable education (UNESCO, 2017).

Overall, the LPIE project contributes a theoretically grounded and practically oriented framework that can contribute to improving how European countries gather, interpret and use qualitative data on learner participation. By placing learners’ voices and lived experiences at the centre of evidence-informed policy-making, it supports the development of more responsive, equitable and inclusive education systems across Europe.

Participation is a foundational element of inclusive education (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2020; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2025; Ramberg & Watkins, 2020). It goes beyond being there, taking part and contributing. At its core is an involvement in decision-making processes and taking responsibility for the results (Oser et al., 2000; Reichenbach, 2006). Learning bureaus (Guthöhrlein et al., 2020) accompanied by coaching conversations (Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024) embedded in Peschel’s (2023) theory of open teaching promise a more adaptive approach to addressing heterogeneous learning prerequisites. Above that, the approach also foregrounds self‑determination and co‑determination as core characteristics of open learning cultures, thereby offering a pertinent approach to school‑wide participation (ebd.). Implementing learning bureaus cannot resolve the structural asymmetry between teachers and students, which is due to the teachers' training- and age-related advantage in knowledge, skills, and experience but also to unequal formal rights, decision-making and sanctioning powers (Helsper, 2012). Neither can it resolve the tension between the demand to teachers that they should promote student autonomy and an organizational framework, which subjects students to abstract rules, constraints and heteronomy (Frankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). Yet, introducing learning bureaus allows for exploring new ways of navigating these tensions – both for students and for teachers.

Previous research has explored interaction norms and practices in learning bureaus and coaching conversations (e.g., Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). The findings show that the IRF-scheme, known from traditional teaching (Sinclair & Coulthart, 1975) is also present in coaching conversations within learning bureaus and that the proportion of speaking time of teachers is high (Fankhauser & Hangartner, 2024). Fankhauser and Hangartner (2024) further have worked out how the ability and will to self-lead and self-regulate become a strong norm and a requirement through coaching in schools. Little is known, however, on how teachers and students themselves perceive the opportunities for and limits to participation in learning bureaus. This is the focus of the present study. It aims at examining, which opportunities for involvement and co‑determination in learning bureaus and, in particular, during coaching conversations, students and teacher perceive, and how they evaluate and reflect upon these observations.

Regular school attendance is fundamental to children’s learning, social relationships and health (Kearney & Graczyk, 2020). Problematic school absenteeism has far-reaching consequences and is associated with reduced opportunities for learning, participation and social inclusion, as well as mental health difficulties, increased risk of school dropout and later unemployment (Gubbels et al., 2019). Despite legal requirements in Sweden for schools to promptly investigate student absence (Education Act, SFS 2010:800), there is limited evidence that current practices systematically support students’ participation in attendance-related practices. National mapping shows that a substantial proportion of lower secondary students have unauthorized absence exceeding 15 %, and that guidelines for follow-up are often experienced as unclear and unevenly applied (Swedish National Agency for Education, SNAE, 2024). Inspections further point to recurring shortcomings, including fragmented and poorly coordinated organizational attendance practices, delayed interventions, and limited attention to students’ and parents’ participation in attendance-related decision-making processes (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, SSI, 2016). Student support services are used inconsistently, and parents are often expected to assume responsibilities that formally lie with the school provider (SSI, 2016; SFS 2010:800). Taken together, this points to a need for practice-based knowledge about how attendance-related practices unfold in everyday school settings, and relational and collaborative approaches at individual, group and organizational levels can strengthen students’ participation, sense of belonging and meaningful school attendance, while supporting students’ rights to accessible learning environments and families’ opportunities to be recognized as partners in attendance work.

International research shows that absenteeism tends to increase during transitions between school stages (Schmid, 2020), and that schools often rely on short-term and individualized solutions, rather than developing sustainable organizational structures and interactional formats over time. School attendance is shaped by factors at the individual, family and school levels, calling for coordinated and context-sensitive responses (Daraganova et al., 2014; Kearney & Childs, 2023). Proactive and relational approaches, where students’ participation and their role in everyday school activities are central, are highlighted as crucial for promoting attendance (Chockalingam et al., 2023). Research further indicates that professional boundaries within schools can complicate coordination, as different actors interpret absenteeism through distinct institutional roles, mandates and governance logics (Hjörne & Säljö, 2019). Normative tensions between documentation demands, individual support and time for relationship-building may result in unclear interactional roles, minimal student participation and fragmented systems for attendance work (London et al., 2016).

Against this background, the project aims, in collaboration with school staff, students and parents, to explore attendance-related practices in everyday school life, with particular attention to schools’ internal governance and how norms, values and everyday practices shape participation, collaboration and shared responsibility between home and school. The project is theoretically informed by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological perspective, where school attendance is understood as emerging through interactions between microsystems (e.g. classrooms, home, peer relations), mesosystems (relations and collaboration between home and school), exosystems (organizational structures, student health services and leadership) and macrosystems (policy and legislation).

The project has been carried out through collaboration between the school authority, school leadership, school staff, students and researchers, and examines key factors in the municipality’s work to promote school attendance among students at three compulsory schools. The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How do student support services, school staff and school leadership organize and enact organizational and relational practices to identify and respond to student absence?

1. How are students’ experiences to participating within the social, pedagogical and physical learning environment related to school attendance?