Conference Agenda

Teachers often face the challenge of addressing the diverse needs of their students. A common practice in secondary education worldwide is ability grouping, where students are divided based on perceived ability and offered different instruction levels. This approach, used for over a century, aims to match curriculum difficulty to students' preparedness and expose them to appropriate material. However, as Hallinan (2003) notes, while ability grouping intends to maximize learning, it often falls short.

Research shows that ability grouping contributes little to overall achievement and tends to reinforce educational and social inequalities (Gamoran, 2010; Slavin, 1987, 1990). High-ability groups usually receive more in-depth instruction, partly due to teacher expectations and students’ abilities, but also because of motivational challenges faced by low-ability students, which complicate teaching. The effects extend beyond cognitive outcomes; students in low-ability groups often experience reduced self-esteem and develop negative attitudes toward learning, while high-achieving students may suffer from reduced confidence due to peer comparisons (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2018; Francis et al., 2017; Trautwein et al., 2006).

In Israel, ability grouping, particularly in middle school mathematics and English, plays a critical role in the transition from elementary to high school. Placement in ability groups affects students' self-esteem, aspirations, and access to advanced courses, especially in science and technology, acting as a gatekeeper for selective programs (Ayalon, 1995; Feniger et al., 2021). Studies indicate that social background influences grouping decisions, with parental education significantly predicting placement, beyond academic achievement (Cahan et al., 1996; Feniger et al., 2021).

Despite its drawbacks, changing pedagogical practices in heterogeneous classes remains difficult. Such change involves shifting beliefs about ability among educators, students, and the community, as well as reforming curricula and instructional strategies to create supportive learning environments (Gamoran, 2010; Novotná et al., 2021). This study considers the potential of a research-practice partnership (RPP) approach to facilitate a systemic shift from tracked to ambitious heterogeneous mathematics teaching in middle schools, benefiting all students regardless of social or academic background. The partnership brings together experts in sociology of education, teacher learning, and math education, along with an Israeli educational organization managing several public secondary schools

Like other countries, Germany has seen an increase in the number of disabled students in recent years. From 2012 to 2021, the proportion of students reporting that an impairment had negatively impacted their study experience increased from 5% to 16% (Steinkühler et al., 2023; Poskowsky et al., 2018). During this period, the proportion of students reporting mental health issues increased by 12 percentage points (Steinkühler et al., 2023). This development has been accompanied by growing social interest in neurodivergence and mental health.

Like universities in other countries, German universities are responding to growing numbers by implementing accessibility measures and reasonable adjustments to facilitate the inclusion of students with impairments (Nieminen, 2022; Gattermann-Kasper & Schütt, 2022). These principles are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by Germany in 2009 (Article 1, United Nations, 2024), and have influenced the Higher Education Framework Act (Hochschulrahmengesetz [HRG], 2019). The latter urges the federal states to ensure that universities are accessible to disabled students, so that they are not disadvantaged in terms of admission or education.

Alongside individual adjustments and accessibility measures, German universities have introduced new counselling services and expanded existing offerings. While it is evident that existing counselling services in Germany are provided by universities themselves and by non-university actors such as Students' Services (Studierendenwerke), there is currently a lack of empirical analysis of the specific design of counselling services, their partnerships, and how they are interconnected. This raises questions about how different counselling services for students function, the understanding of the 'problem' underlying their approach, and how they collaborate when consulting disabled students. Furthermore, given that the increasing number of students with neurodivergence and/or mental health issues poses new challenges for universities and student counselling services, it is important to consider how well these services meet the needs of such students (Salzmann et al. 2020).

In relation to educational leadership for teaching and learning, research practice partnerships (RPPs) designed to expand the role of research in improving educational practice are on the rise in European education (cf. Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Sjölund et al., 2023). Through RPP’s, academic knowledge is made accessible to and further developed in collaboration with practitioners, while simultaneously turned into practice as leadership strategy and action. Further, political-ideological interests expect new knowledge to be produced, considering the outcomes of these strategic actions. That is, RPP in educational leadership comprises ‘complex inter-solidarity of problems, antagonisms, crises, and uncontrolled processes’ (Morin & Kern, 1999, p. 74), which often constitutes localised effects within political-societal realms, all in the interest of this study. The significant diversity in educational leadership practices in Europe means there is a lot to learn from improvement efforts in different countries.

Research is clear about the important role of educational leadership in initiating and sustaining school improvement, and in that schools and local educational authorities (LEAs) work jointly toward a shared vision. That is, contribute to capacity-building cultures in the overall educational organisation and the local schools (e.g., Day & Leithwood, 2007; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016). However, occasionally, educational providers, schools and principals lack the capacity to improve, needing external support over fairly long periods of time to change their culture towards capacity-building (e.g., Poekert et al., 2020; Youngs & King, 2002).

This study turns its focus to an RPP in Sweden, aimed at developing whole-community research-based improvement capacity to consolidate pedagogical leadership to direct, challenge and develop teaching and learning practices. Such an effort needs to be based on sincerity, authenticity, and trust in academic knowledge, academic practices and collaborative structures and relations. Although there is awareness in Sweden of the importance of principals’ supporting teaching development work, principals have had difficulty finding their pedagogical leadership role and might lack legitimacy for teaching-related leadership (Jerdborg, 2022; Leo, 2015). This has led to principals failing to improve schools. As a consequence, LEAs have needed to strengthen their capacity to support principals and schools (Liljenberg & Jerdborg, 2026). In this context, this study aims to explore an RPP model, directed to develop interconnected learning communities through a Whole Community Approach with the purpose to engage principals and middle leaders in directing, challenging and developing scientifically based teaching and learning practices.

Stein and Nelson (2003) established a theoretical model for interconnected learning communities supported by empirical studies. They argue that core knowledge about teaching practices and student learning is important for decision-making in schools to benefit student learning in all grades and subjects. Principals, therefore, need to be involved in contexts where teachers develop professional knowledge and their teaching. Similarly, leaders at the LEA need to be close to schools and principals to organise for improvement at their level (Stein & Nelson, 2003). Robinson (2010) shows how educational leaders can use this sort of knowledge to solve complex problems in schools, generating professional trust. Trust is important for capacity building (Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016). However, trust is a fragile variable functioning both positively and negatively self-reinforcing. A negative distrust spiral can lead to a social trap where improvement efforts are rejected because one party cannot be confident that all parties will make improvement efforts (Rotstein, 2018, 2005; Sitkin & Stikel, 1996). What contributes to the creation of trust or distrust in different organisational and societal contexts, however, are empirical questions. In this line, this study asks the research question: How can an RPP model for reciprocity and enhanced improvement capacity promote educational leaders’ interconnected learning for teaching development to be supported in schools?