Conference Agenda

Contemporary urban schools are often sites of profound social, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity. In these environments, teachers are increasingly called upon to cultivate pedagogical approaches that not only acknowledge the heterogeneity of their classrooms but also enable children to navigate, question, and make meaning from the complex realities they inhabit and experience daily. This paper explores these issues by asking: What pedagogic principles and practices are most effective for (a) teaching in highly socially diverse schools and (b) enabling students to grapple with the complex, yet crucially important concepts of belonging, identity, and diversity?

Pedagogically, issues of diversity have long been taken up in the field of education, prominently within the bodies of knowledge associated with Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) and Intercultural Education (IE). The former has been influential in foregrounding students’ cultural identities and ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al. 1992) as critical learning resources to be integrated in curricula and pedagogy, arguing that representation and identity affirmation enhance engagement, belonging and achievement (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2014). IE, while sharing many of CRT’s features, also emphasises the importance of communication across cultural differences and the development of ‘intercultural competence’ (Otten, 2003; Deardorff, 2006) – skills increasingly viewed as essential for social cohesion. Yet as valuable as these approaches have been, the realities of highly diverse urban schools increasingly expose their limitations. We argue, first, that neither seems to adequately ‘break down’ cultural barriers and tap into the immense possibilities of diverse education settings; and, second, that neither sufficiently enables children and young people to explore and grapple with the vexing questions of difference that shape their everyday experiences: questions involving fairness, identity, discrimination and marginalization, belonging, and conviviality.

We propose to address these limitations through the concept of ‘living diversity’ (Gholami & Costantini, 2025) and its pedagogic possibilities, which we explore in this paper. These informed and were honed by our project “Does Birmingham Belong to Me?”, carried out in collaboration with The Play House (TPH) theatre in education, and six primary schools in Birmingham, UK, between 2023-2025 with funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Through this project, we sought to support primary-school children in exploring questions of belonging, identity, and diversity through immersive, drama-led approaches, that could re-signify and engage diversity not as a set of pre-defined cultural traits or competencies to be acquired, but as a dynamic, and relational lived reality.

Through immersive drama-led classroom practice and iterative cycles of data collection, analysis and evaluation, we have identified four overarching principles for a living diversity pedagogy. These are:

1. Embodied, dialogical and collaborative learning
2. Local-global connections: recognising the transnationality of belonging and self-making
3. Community-engagement
4. Art/drama-led methods

The WERA International Research Network (IRN) “Researching (In)Equity in Primary Education – Social Practices and Institutional Structures in the Light of Current Dynamics” brings together scholars from around the globe who examine how (in)equity are constructed in everyday primary schooling, e.g., through policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, assessment practices and peer/group relations that shape children’s opportunities to participate and learn. The network’s core idea is that primary school is a crucial educational stage: it is an early point at which patterns of belonging, inclusion and exclusion become visible, and children’s understanding of (in)equality is actively formed.

This paper presents a cross-country, theory-guided synthesis of how (in)equity is (re)produced in everyday primary schooling based on selected activities of the WERA research network and aims at reflecting on educational practices and policies on (in)equity in primary education in three different countries: Italy, Germany, and Austria.

Our shared theoretical orientation approaches (in)equity not only as a matter of redistribution of resources (Rawls, 1971/1999), but also as a matter of recognition (Taylor, 1995; Honneth 2007; Fraser & Honneth 2003), i.e., how learners are seen, heard, respected and valued within relationships and institutional cultures. Recognition theory highlights that educational experiences are shaped by whether children encounter (a) empathic attention to their needs and vulnerabilities, (b) respect as rights-bearing members of the school community, and (c) social esteem for their abilities, languages, and further individual differences. This lens enables us to study (in)equity as a lived and relational phenomenon, not only as an outcome measured by attainment.

Positioning recognition at the center also clarifies the limits of equating educational equity with broader theories of social justice focused primarily on autonomy and distributive fairness. Classic accounts of justice emphasize the fair distribution of goods and equal opportunity under conditions of meritocratic competition. Yet in schools, especially primary schools, individual autonomy cannot simply be assumed; the development of autonomy is also an educational aim that institutions are tasked to cultivate. For that reason, disparities in participation or attainment cannot be straightforwardly justified as the product of “choice” or personal responsibility. Educational equity thus requires conceptual treatment in its own right: it concerns how schools create conditions under which children can become autonomous, while being protected from discrimination and from institutional processes that naturalize unequal outcomes (Stojanov, 2011).

In our paper we address the overarching research question of how (in)equity in primary education is constructed through practices of recognition (i.e., empathy, respect, social esteem) within policies, institutional arrangements and everyday school interactions in Italy, Germany, and Austria.

This two-phase project begins with a systematic literature review on developing intercultural competence (IC) for children aged 6-14. Preliminary findings confirm a significant research gap: while IC development is well-studied in higher education, it remains critically underexplored for this age group, despite evidence of a sensitive period for cultural learning (Heine, 2012). Empirical immigration research further validates this focus. Böhlmark's (2009) seminal study on immigrant integration in Sweden identifies early educational experiences as a primary determinant of long-term integration, underscoring primary schools as pivotal sites for developing the intercultural competence essential for societal cohesion. This review maps existing models, pedagogical approaches, and assessment tools, setting the stage for the second phase.

This conference presentation focuses exclusively on the second phase: a comparative critical analysis of national primary curricula. The core research question is: How do the national core curricula of Hungary, Poland, Austria and Sweden conceptualize, position, and integrate intercultural competence as an educational goal for young learners? This question is particularly pressing in contexts like Hungary, where the educational discourse powerfully emphasizes patriotic education—a focus that aligns with scholarly observations of Hungarian school education prioritizing national identity formation, thereby often relegating intercultural education to a marginal role, primarily within foreign language teaching (Langerné Buchwald, 2017). This focus is further reinforced by the specific challenges inherited from the post-socialist transition. For countries like Hungary, the late 20th-century shift towards democratic, pluralistic societies required a fundamental transformation of education systems—from closed, ideologically rigid structures to ones embracing openness and diversity. This rapid reorientation presented unprepared challenges for teachers and institutions alike (Bleszynska, 2011; Gordon Győri, 2014). It is within this historical context that the critical tension embedded in today's Hungarian curriculum must be examined: how it navigates between the imperative to strengthen national identity and the need to promote openness to diversity.

Furthermore, genuine cultural pluralism requires supportive societal values and practices (Stanley, 1996; Grant & Ladson-Billings, 1997). Teachers are pivotal in shaping these conditions. Yet, their potential contrasts sharply with research showing Hungarian teachers often feel unprepared for this role (Gordon Győri, 2014), creating a central tension this study investigates.

The curriculum analysis is guided by two foundational models. Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) informs age-appropriate goal-setting for primary education. Byram's model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) provides a multidimensional framework (attitudes, knowledge, skills, critical awareness) for analysing how IC is operationalized in curricula. This combined framework enables a critical assessment of whether curricula foster deep intercultural learning, not just mention diversity. The policy demand for these competences stems from their historical evolution. Emerging in 20th-century Europe, intercultural pedagogy has shifted its focus from minorities to the majority, now claiming general pedagogical status in pluralistic democracies (Gogolin, 2002; Walton et al., 2013). This European normative shift contextualises national curricula like Hungary's.

Directly informed by the ongoing systematic review, the analysis uses its key insights as evaluative criteria. Thus, it critically assesses how well formal curricula align with research on effective childhood IC development.

This study engages with Network 7's 30-year legacy of examining social justice in education. By analysing national curricula, it traces the persistence of national identity narratives in post-socialist contexts and their interaction with intercultural education. Connecting historical insights from diverse national pathways, it critically examines how European intercultural competence discourses are adopted, adapted, or resisted in local policy documents. This reveals epistemic tensions between dominant national narratives and more inclusive frameworks, contributing to the network's mission of fostering dialogue amidst Europe's complex educational landscape.

This study examines encounters with social class in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). It is situated within the Swedish‑speaking ECEC in Finland, where the educare model emphasise accessibility, quality and equity. Although equality and diversity are highlighted in steering documents, social class is rarely explicitly addressed. This risks normalising middle‑class standards and delaying recognition of widening inequalities (EDUFI, 2022; Harju‑Luukkainen et al., 2022). This study´s research question is: How does social class appear among children and staff in ECEC?

Children use material artefacts and everyday routines as status markers, using them to structure inclusion and exclusion within peer culture (Donner et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2015; Alm & Odenbring, 2019). At the same time, staff report a need for more tools to critically engage with and deconstruct the concept of social class (Mikander & Mansikka, 2023).

The study applies Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital, economic, cultural, social and symbolic, to illuminate how resources and recognition appear in the ECEC field. Habitus explains the automatic and, in many cases, unconscious actions and ways of thinking that are shaped by our life experiences and social background (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2013), while the concept of field positions ECEC as a structured space in wich certain capitals are valued. Reproduction clarifies how systems committed to equality can nevertheless legitimise middle‑class norms through everyday assessments (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). To complement this, the notion of institutional habitus is used to illustrate the collective norms, values, and expectations that characterise particular institutions (Vuorisalo, 2013; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2013).

Lareau’s (2003) distinction between concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of natural growth further clarifies how children’s competencies and expectations shape institutional encounters. While some children approach institutions with a sense of entitlement, others do so with a sense of constraint that encourages constraint. These patters become visible in peer interactions, where economic and symbolic capital are either leveraged or deflected.

In Finnish ECEC, the absence of social class from equality discourse mirrors broader European trends in which diversity is emphasised, yet social class remains unspoken.