Conference Agenda

Public debates about education shape policy agendas, yet these debates are characterised by inequalities in whose voices are heard and whose perspectives gain influence (Ball, 1993; 2012; Fraser, 2007). As a result, policymakers often rely on simplified stories that dominate public discussion, rather than engaging with robust research evidence (Oliver & Cairney, 2019). These dynamics influence which understandings of education disadvantage are more likely to gain visibility, and which interpretations are treated as credible within policy debates.

Understanding what topics are being discussed, by whom, and how they are being framed is essential for researchers seeking to engage meaningfully with key stakeholders and position their own work within ongoing debates. However, tracking public discussions in education is challenging, given the large number of actors and outputs circulating across multiple arenas. This presents a significant problem for researchers attempting to understand the landscape of policy debates and position their work effectively within them.

This paper addresses the challenge of understanding whose voices matter in shaping public debates about education disadvantage and inequality. It examines how unequal distributions of voice shape framings of education disadvantage across three contexts: England, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

The research asks: Who participates in public debates about education disadvantage? How are these issues framed by different actors? What inequalities exist in whose knowledge is privileged in policy discussions? How do these patterns differ across the three contexts?

The research draws on scholarship examining whose voices gain influence in policy debates (Ball, 1993; 2012; Fraser, 2007) and the relationship between research evidence and policy (Oliver & Cairney, 2019). It recognizes that political cultures, governance arrangements and knowledge flows differ across education systems (Ozga, 2018), creating different conditions for whose voices are heard and whose perspectives shape policy agendas.

The comparative design examining England, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland enables analysis of how these contextual factors influence patterns of voice and framing. While broadly comparable, the three contexts provide opportunities to identify both common patterns and important differences in how education disadvantage is discussed and whose knowledge is privileged in public policy discussions.

This research addresses questions about how education research can meaningfully influence policy in an era where the conditions of knowledge production are in flux. By making visible who participates in public debates and how education disadvantage is framed across different contexts, it offers researchers a systematic way to track public debates and inform their own research agendas and engagement strategies. This is particularly significant given the challenge policymakers face in engaging with robust research evidence rather than relying on simplified stories that dominate public discussion.

Research at both international and national levels demonstrates that students with a refugee background are frequently overlooked or marginalised in educational policymaking and practice. Icelandic research by Eva Harðardóttir (Harðardóttir et al., 2021), alongside international studies (e.g.Block et al., 2014; Cerna, 2019), highlights the limited and inconsistent attention given to refugee students’ learning, social, and emotional needs. These findings are reinforced by the OECD (2024), which notes that weak data infrastructure in Iceland leaves policymakers “navigating somewhat blind in immigrant integration policy making” (p. 13), increasing the risk of superficial or ineffective policies.

A persistent challenge is the uneven implementation of existing policies. Although Icelandic schools are required to develop welcome plans for immigrant students (Ministry of Education Science and Culture, 2021), research shows considerable variation in how municipalities and schools organise and deliver support (Ragnarsdóttir & Gunnþórsdóttir, 2024). Harðardóttir’s (2021) analysis of educational policy reveals gaps in how young refugees are represented, mirroring international findings on the crucial role of schools as institutions in successful refugee resettlement (Taylor & Sidhu, 2012).

At the school level, limited resources, time constraints, and lack of experience present significant barriers. Schools often lack appropriate assessment tools to evaluate newly arrived students and to provide them with suitable education subsequently, particularly those with interrupted schooling or non-Latin alphabet literacy backgrounds. Likewise, teachers frequently report working without clear guidelines and describe inclusive education as an added burden rather than an integral part of their role (Gunnþórsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014; Ragnarsdóttir & Gunnþórsdóttir, 2024). Thus, interviews with teachers consistently point to a need for clearer direction and stronger institutional support from authorities (Gunnþórsdóttir & Óskarsdóttir, 2025).

Another concern lies in the limited means available to identify learning difficulties among refugee students. Language proficiency is often used as the primary indicator of academic ability, increasing the risk that learning difficulties remain undetected among students who are not fluent in Icelandic. This is particularly troubling given evidence from the Counselling and Diagnostic Center of Iceland that students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds are overrepresented in special education services (Gudmundsdottir et al., 2025). Delayed identification of learning needs can have long-term consequences for students’ educational trajectories.

This article forms the third part of a three-article based PhD research project and focuses specifically on the relationship between policy and practice related to refugee education and services. Building on findings from the first two articles (forthcoming), it examines how current educational policies shape the support structures and learning conditions of refugee students in Icelandic schools.

Research question:How do Icelandic education and immigration policies construct and address the educational needs of refugee youth in compulsory and upper secondary education?

Theoretical framework:
The analysis is guided by critical multiculturalism in education, drawing on Banks’ (2020) view of schools as complex systems requiring holistic reform. Particular attention is given to the specific vulnerabilities of refugee children and youth related to disrupted schooling, trauma, and linguistic and cultural diversity, which necessitate targeted support beyond that typically provided to other students with diverse backgrounds (Cerna, 2019).

The spatial turn in social sciences and humanities (Massey, 2005; Soja, 2010; Freytag et al., 2022) has re-opened the debates on how educational research, policy, and practice align in reaching educational goals. Recently, the policy agenda has been attracted to measurable performances of learners and institutions (Biesta, 2009; Gorur, 2016; Grek, 2024), calling for more efficient and scalable instruments that can improve the quality of learning outcomes and reduce the number of school dropouts. The paper departs from the observation that spatial issues in the “construction” of learning outcomes have a significant impact on the quality of learning and living and need to be considered more carefully in policy provision and professional practice at various governance levels. Spaces are understood and enacted differently by different actors involved in the construction of learning outcomes – professionals, policymakers, educators, trainers, employers, and young people. They also entail various meanings that either open or close the opportunity structures for learners, be it due to their symbolic and cultural significance (homeland, the foreign), economic performance (thriving or declining regions), or educational chances (central vs. peripheral sites). Against this background, the paper aims to problematize and address the spatial (mis)matches in the construction of learning outcomes by comparing regional and urban contexts in selected Europe’s regions. The paper is based on research findings of the EU-funded research project Constructing Learning Outcomes in Europe: A multi-level analysis of (under)achievement in the life course (CLEAR) and unfolds in three steps: first, we provide an overview of the conceptual underpinnings and potential of the spatial perspective to re-address educational issues and identify the variety of spatial understandings in the construction of learning outcomes; second, we analyse the spatial (mis)matches in the policy provision and practice in selected sites and regions in Southern and Central Europe – the regions include Kentriki Makedonia (Greece), Marche (Italy), and Comunitat Valenciana (Spain), the urban sites include Barcelona (Spain), Lisbon (Portugal), Hamburg (Germany), and Vienna (Austria); third, we juxtapose and contrast the findings from regional and urban sites to unveil how spaces interact with various levels of local/regional policymaking and different opportunity structures of young people.