Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:01 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
14 SES 05 A: Rural Schools.
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper Do After-School Services Create New Urban-Rural Educational Inequalities?An Empirical Analysis of Data from 10 Chinese Provinces 1: East China Normal University, China; 2: Central China Normal University, China Presenting Author:Globally, the expansion of ‘Extended Education’ or ‘After-School Programs’ (ASP) is championed as a critical strategy to mitigate social inequality and support work-life balance for families. This policy trajectory resonates deeply with the Ganztagsschule (all-day school) movement in Europe and comparable initiatives across OECD countries. Within this global context, the Chinese government initiated the ‘Double Reduction’ policy in 2021 as a massive, state-led intervention designed to restore schools as the primary locus of education, thereby alleviating the dual academic and economic burdens placed on students and families. However, drawing upon theories of educational equity and cultural capital, existing scholarship points to a persistent structural contradiction: despite policy intent to narrow gaps through standardized provision, stratification continues to be reproduced in differentiated forms. In terms of family context, urban households typically leverage superior cultural capital to provide systematic educational support, whereas rural families face ‘dual limitations’ regarding educational orientations and resource investment (Fang & Yang, 2023). Regarding school capacity, rural schools continue to suffer from structural deficits in teacher quality, pedagogical research efficacy, and leadership compared to their urban counterparts (Teng & Zhang, 2021). Consequently, without targeted intervention, after-school services may paradoxically exacerbate the urban-rural divide through differentiated Implementation Quality, despite their original mandate to function as compensatory mechanisms for narrowing developmental gaps (Fu & Guo, 2024). Despite preliminary recognition of this emerging divide, current research remains predominantly focused on county-level case studies with limited representativeness and single-dimensional measures (often restricted to infrastructure or service quantity). Addressing this gap, this study employs a multidimensional analytical framework covering ‘Content–Governance–Effectiveness"’ and conducts a systematic empirical analysis drawing on large-scale data from ten provinces across Eastern, Central, and Western China. The study addresses the following core research questions: Under a unified national policy discourse, what distinct characteristics do urban and rural schools exhibit in the organization of extended education? How do these differences shape the realization of educational equity? Beyond elucidating the implementation dilemma within the Chinese context, this study offers insights for the international dialogue on extended education by underscoring a shared global challenge: how to ensure that state-funded after-school programmes move beyond mere formal access to guarantee substantive quality equity, thereby preventing the reproduction of social stratification within public education systems. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a mixed-methods research design, prioritising large-scale quantitative analysis supplemented by qualitative data for triangulation. Empirical data were collected in the latter half of 2024 across ten provinces in Eastern, Central, and Western China to ensure broad geographical and socio-economic representativeness. In total, the valid sample comprises 64,824 participants from 91 compulsory education schools, consisting of students (N = 31,749), parents (N = 29,638), teachers (N = 3,359), and principals (N = 78). To complement the quantitative data, semi-structured interviews and on-site observations were conducted in eight selected schools (e.g., in Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces) to provide micro-level qualitative evidence. A structured questionnaire was designed based on national policy texts and existing literature on extended education. The instrument consisted of distinct modules for the four stakeholder groups, and participants were asked to respond to items formatted as single-choice, multiple-choice, and Likert scales relating to governance structures, teacher and student workload, household educational expenditure, and student competency development. All instruments underwent rigorous reliability and validity testing. Permission for data collection was obtained from relevant educational authorities, and the voluntary nature of participation was emphasised and anonymity guaranteed in accordance with international ethical standards. Data analysis was conducted using STATA 18.0. Adhering to the ‘Content–Governance–Effectiveness’ framework, the analysis first employed descriptive statistics and difference tests (Chi-square and t-tests) to map patterns of service provision; subsequently, multiple linear regression models were constructed. By controlling for key variables such as family socioeconomic status (SES) and parental educational expectations, the analysis systematically identifies net urban–rural differences in service implementation and explores their underlying institutional and social mechanisms. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study aims to shed light on the intricate dynamics of after-school service implementation under China’s ‘Double Reduction’ policy, exploring the interplay of resource allocation, family demand, and service efficacy. Data analysis reveals a scenario of structural differentiation: although strong administrative mobilisation has produced superficial convergence in service coverage between urban and rural schools, this apparent equality conceals deep inequalities in service quality. Specifically, urban schools strategically utilise locational advantages and social capital to develop developmental service systems centred on technology and arts; this strategy starkly contrasts with the situation in rural schools, which, constrained by persistent resource deficits, are largely limited to custodial models focused on homework supervision. Such divergence implies that services may implicitly widen gaps in students’ cumulative development rather than compensating for disadvantage. Moreover, a notable discord exists regarding satisfaction: while rural students often report higher satisfaction reflecting adaptive preferences, rural parents express significantly lower satisfaction than their urban counterparts due to unmet aspirations for upward social mobility, highlighting a structural misalignment between standardised supply and substantive needs. Institutionally, this dislocation is attributed to inequalities in funding and incentives, where rural schools remain hindered by single-source dependency. In conclusion, the findings underscore the need for a policy paradigm shift from standardised coverage to differentiated compensation, paving the way for the construction of an urban-rural resource community (Ruan & Zhang, 2024) and refined teacher incentives (Yin & Wang, 2025), while offering the international community a clear implication: only a commitment to quality equity can prevent public education from functioning as an instrument of social stratification reproduction. References Fang, G., & Yang, J. (2023). New dilemmas of rural education development and differential justice approach from the perspective of high-quality urban-rural balance. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (3), 130–141. Fu, W., & Guo, S. (2024). The implementation of "Double Reduction" policy and new educational inequity: A survey based on 30 counties (cities, districts) in 6 provinces. Modern Education Management, (4), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.16697/j.1674-5485.2024.04.005 Gong, X., Liang, Y., & Gao, W. (2025). Cost sharing of after-school services in compulsory education schools: International experience, policy analysis and optimization path. Journal of The Chinese Society of Education, (2), 68–74. Liu, L., Long, A., & An, M. (2023). Research on the innovative path of "Double Reduction" after-school service empowered by National Smart Education Platform for Primary and Secondary Schools. China Educational Technology, (7), 78–84. Shi, D., Li, L., & Zhao, S. (2022). Research on primary school after-school service under the background of "Double Reduction" policy: Status, problems and countermeasures—Based on the survey analysis of nine counties and one district in H City, Yunnan Province. China Educational Technology, (11), 17–22, 31. Teng, Y., & Zhang, J. (2021). The urban-rural gap in student academic achievement and its influencing factors: An analysis based on PISA 2015 data. Education and Economy, 37(2), 58–67. Wen, J., & Gu, C. (2017). Urban-rural differences in the distribution of basic education resources and their social consequences: An analysis based on China’s education statistics data. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 35(2), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2017.02.004 Yin, Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). How to reduce the burden on teachers caused by after-school services: Analysis based on survey data from 28 cities in 7 provinces (autonomous regions, municipalities) across the country. Elementary and Secondary School Management, (2), 48–51. Yuan, C., & Mu, X. (2018). Discussion on the differentiation of urban and rural primary school science education under educational equity. Theory and Practice of Education, 38(23), 13–16. Zhao, Y., & Wang, X. (2025). Broad view and concise selection: After-school services in a global perspective and their policy implications. Global Education Outlook, 54(2), 145–160. 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper Capital, Context and Literacy Work in Rural and Coastal Schools in England University of Nottingham School of Education, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Low literacy levels are estimated to cost the UK economy at least £20 billion annually (EEF, 2018, p.2). The attainment gap between economically disadvantaged students and their peers is well established, with disparities in reading ability identified as a major contributing factor (Lawton & Warren, 2015). Recent survey data show that in 2025 only one in three (32.7%) children aged 8–18 reported enjoying reading “very much” or “quite a lot,” with daily reading declining with age and lower among pupils receiving Free School Meals (FSM) (Clark et al., 2025). Extensive research underscores the value of early intervention and sustained whole-school approaches to literacy (EEF, 2021). While primary schools in England have prioritised literacy teaching for nearly three decades, secondary schools have historically given less attention to identifying literacy needs and developing disciplinary literacy (Howell et al., 2021, p.2). This is now changing, with improving literacy in secondary education increasingly recognised as a national priority, especially for disadvantaged students. This paper examines how secondary schools in remote, rural and coastal contexts enact whole-school and disciplinary literacy in ways that address persistent equity gaps. While literacy interventions often emphasise programme fidelity, our analysis foregrounds system fit—how leadership, institutional conditions, and place mediate the effectiveness and transfer of evidence-informed approaches. The study contributes to European and international debates on rurality, social inequality, and educational opportunity, where rural–urban disparities in attainment and reading engagement remain a policy concern across many OECD and EU systems. Drawing on case studies of four secondary schools in Cumberland, England, we ask:
We conceptualise literacy improvement as a relational process shaped by the interaction of three forms of capital. Professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) encompasses the human expertise, collaborative relationships and informed judgment that enable teachers to adapt evidence‑informed programmes such as Reciprocal Reading into meaningful, discipline‑specific practices in secondary subjects. Social capital, drawing on Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993; 2000), refers to the networks, norms and bridging ties that broaden students’ aspirations, motivation and access to future opportunities an especially important dimension in rural and coastal communities marked by economic disadvantage and limited horizons. Institutional capital, informed by Bourdieu’s institutional forms and implementation scholarship, captures the organisational structures, governance arrangements, staffing, timetabling and data systems that support coherence, scalability and cumulative organisational learning. Together, these interdependent capitals shape how literacy initiatives are interpreted, enacted and sustained within schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Data were collected as part of a wider mixed methods evaluation of the Western Excellence in Learning and Leadership (WELL) programme aimed at enhancing educational outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged pupils in west Cumbria. From 18 school case studies across west Cumbria, we purposefully selected four secondaries (coastal/rural; varying disadvantage and performance) that implemented Reciprocal Reading (RR) at Key Stage 3 with whole school literacy ambitions. The schools served distinct but overlapping communities: the two coastal schools had higher Free School Meal rates and longstanding socio-economic disadvantage; the two rural schools had more dispersed intakes and historically stronger performance. Data collection combined several sources and methods. We conducted document analysis of school websites, Ofsted inspection reports, and the schools’ annual WELL implementation plans developed using the EEF model. Each case study involved semi structured, school based interviews with headteachers or deputy heads and with teachers or middle leaders, including literacy leads, with two researchers present during each visit. To capture change over time, follow up interviews with senior leaders were carried out between May and June to explore progress and emerging evidence of impact. In addition, we undertook interviews with 20 local and national system leaders such as Multi- Academy Trust (MAT) CEOs, local authority leaders, Ofsted and DfE regional leads, partnership chairs and the WELL programme Director conducted via Microsoft Teams across the three year period. Fieldwork occurred in Spring 2023 (School 1) and Spring 2024 (Schools 2–4), with subsequent follow-ups. Interviews were transcribed (auto + manual clean), imported to NVivo 14, and coded using dual codebooks (system leaders; school participants). We combined deductive coding (capital/implementation frameworks) with inductive theme generation, triangulating across documents, interviews, and follow-ups. Each case was written up individually, then subjected to cross case thematic analysis to identify commonalities, contrasts and contextual contingencies. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper extends current understandings of disciplinary literacy by showing that programme strength without system fit risks shallow uptake and limited transfer beyond intervention groups. Where leaders align institutional structures (staffing, timetabling, assessment), build professional capital through practice-proximal CPD with subject exemplars, and intentionally cultivate bridging social capital (mentoring, employer links, university exposure), literacy strategies are more likely to become normalised across classrooms and to influence post-school trajectories. The paper offers actionable guidance for European systems facing similar demography and geography: select few high-leverage routines; stage implementation; invest in cross-subject coherence; and connect literacy to students’ imagined futures through sustained, place-conscious enrichment. By tracing how knowledge about effective literacy practices is interpreted, adapted and enacted within shifting institutional and place-based conditions, the study illuminates how education research can better bridge the gap between knowing and acting in contexts marked by persistent inequities. References Clark, C., Picton, I., Cole., A. (2025). Children and young people’s reading in 2025. National Literacy Trust. Report. https://nlt.hacdn.io/media/documents/Children_and_young_peoples_reading_in_2025_bqtGfIs.pdf Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95–S120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243 CofE (Church of England Education Office). (2018). Embracing Change: Rural and Small Schools. London: CofE Education Office Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, education (2nd ed.). MIT Press. DfE (Department for Education). (2021). The reading framework: Teaching the foundations of literacy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-reading-framework-teaching-the-foundations-of-literacy EEF (Education Endowment Foundation). (2021). Improving literacy in secondary schools. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/literacy-ks3-ks4 García-Marirrodriga, R. (2024). Social capital in action for strengthening rural schools. Prospects 54, 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-024-09682-z Greany, T., Adkins, M., Hudson, G., Cordingley, P., and Crisp, B., (2024) WELL Project Evaluation Report: Year 2 – 2022-2023. University of Nottingham Greany, T., Adkins, M., Yakavets, N., Cordingley, P., and Crisp, B., (2025) WELL Project Evaluation Report: Year 2 – 2023-2024. University of Nottingham Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Healy, T. (2002). Social Capital: The Challenge of International Measurement -Paper The Measurement of Social Capital at International Level. Paris. Retrieved June 20, 2025. Moloi, M.N. & Dlomo, S.S. (2024). Revitalizing rural areas by boosting educational advancement through social capital integration. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 5(4), 112-135. https://doi.org/10.53378/ijemds.353116 Mukeredzi, T. G. (2021). Developing professional capital in rural South African schools: A cohort-based teacher preparation model. In White, S., & Downey, C. (Eds.), Rural education across the world: Models of innovative practice and impact (pp. 145–160). Springer. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225 Ovenden-Hope, T. and Passy, R. (2019). Educational Isolation: a challenge for schools in England. Plymouth: Plymouth Marjon University and University of Plymouth Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospects, 13, 35–42. Sharples, J., B. Albers and S. Fraser (2018), Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation, Education Endowment Foundation, London, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/implementation Wyse, D., and A. Bradbury (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education. 10(1), 1-53 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper Preventing School Closure in Rural Areas: A Scottish Case Study 1: University of St Andrews, United Kingdom; 2: University of the Highlands and Islands, United Kingdom; 3: James Hutton Institute, United Kingdom Presenting Author:*Please note that the exploration phase of this research was presented at ECER2023. This contribution will present its latest findings. As a result, the ECER2026 proposal is similar to the proposal submitted in 2023.* Proposal Information We examine the impact of the regulatory framework introduced to safeguard Scottish schools in 2010, focusing specifically on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act (2010). Using Scottish state school datasets, we analyse changes in both the number and geographic distribution of schools between 2013 and 2024, and we consider the future distribution of small schools over the next two years. Our comparison allows us to highlight that (1) school closures have affected both primary and secondary schools, (2) closure is not only a “rural” feature, and (3) by 2024, “small” has become predominantly a rural characteristic. School closures have long been controversial, and the closure process has been widely documented internationally, particularly in Europe. In rural contexts, small schools are often closed due to financial pressures linked to low enrolment numbers and difficulties in attracting and retaining staff (Fargas-Malet & Bagley, 2021; Gristy et al., 2020; Kvalsund & Hargreaves, 2009). The consequences of closures for pupils and communities are well established. For example, longer travel times can negatively affect pupils’ wellbeing, and the viability of rural communities can be undermined (Cannella, 2020; Beach et al., 2018; Kvalsund, 2009). More recently, however, deficit narratives have been challenged, and small schools have been shown to possess distinctive strengths associated with their scale. Literature highlights their capacity to enable high-quality learning experiences, innovative pedagogical approaches, and curriculum creativity (Raggl, 2020; Schafft, 2016; Gristy et al., 2020). In Scotland, the increasing number of school closures at the turn of 2010s and how these closures were decided raised deep concerns among the public and rural communities (Redford, 2013). Safeguarding rural schools and communities became a key education policy in Scotland by the end of 2000s. Between 1995 and 2013, 467 schools closed or merged in Scotland with the largest number of closures taking place in 2007, 2010 and 2011. The Act (2010) which details the consultation process which must be followed when a local authority proposes to close a school came into force and was amended in 2012 after consultations (Kidner, 2013). According to recent data, more than 200 schools closed between 2013 and 2024. Our paper seeks to enhance understanding of (1) the regulatory system designed to safeguard schools, and (2) the effects of the Act on the closure of rural schools over the past decade. We conclude by discussing the lessons that Scottish communities—and rural communities elsewhere in Europe—can draw from this regulatory model. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our exploration rests on two concepts: ‘small’ and ‘rurality’. As ‘small schools’ are not defined in the current Scottish Government policy documents, we adopt the maximum size threshold for primary or secondary schools proposed by Dowling (2009) and Kidner (2013) in their examination of the challenges faced by small schools in Scotland prior to the introduction of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act (2010). Our rurality framework builds on the methodology developed by Lasselle and Johnson (2021) and Lasselle (2021), based on official Scottish Government statistics and definitions. This allows us to compare and contrast two complementary approaches to measure rurality. The first approach considers the traditional urban/rural divide. The school is then considered either in an urban area, or a rural area. The second approach considers a more disaggregated divide in which remoteness is introduced alongside rural and urban. By combining these two approaches with the school-size thresholds, we can construct an indicator that captures schools’ characteristics in both dimensions. We can then compare and contrast the distributions of primary schools and secondary schools according to their size and their location in 2013 and in 2024. Our work is data-driven and Scottish-based. However, it can be replicated in many countries with standard rural/urban classification and schools statistics collection including their location and size. The choice of Scotland as a case study is motivated by two reasons. First, the location spectrum of school location is large. It includes remote island, large remote rural areas in the mainland, town in a remote areas allowing us to distinguish various types of communities. Second, school attainment in rural and remote areas is unusual compared to those observed in the rest of the UK and Europe. Indeed, in Scotland, attainment in remote areas can be lower than that observed in more urban areas, following the pattern pointed out by Echazarra and Radinger (2019). However, attainment in rural areas is unusually higher (Lasselle & Johnson, 2021; Scottish government, 2021). Closure in rural areas in terms of educational benefits may become debatable. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our analysis of school closures in Scotland between 2013 and 2024 lead to three main findings. First, closures have proportionally affected secondary schools more than primary schools, with secondary schools in urban areas experiencing the greatest impact. This contrasts with the common assumption that small rural primaries are most vulnerable to closure. Second, by 2024 the category of “small” has become almost exclusively a rural characteristic for both primary and secondary schools. Third, our findings suggest that the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act (2010) has played a role in reducing the closure rate of rural schools, contributing to their greater protection over the past decade. However, the evidence also raises important questions about the role of the COVID pandemic and the ongoing role of communities in terms of their responses to proposed closures, the extent of their influence within the statutory consultation process, and the differential capacity of rural and urban communities to participate effectively. References Beach, D., Johansson, M., Öhrn, E. et al. (2019) Rurality and education relations; Metro-centricity and local values in rural communities and rural schools. European Educational Research Journal, 18(1), 19-33. Cannella, G. (2020) Globalizing the local and localizing the global: The role of the ICT in isolated mountain and island schools in Italy. In Gristy et al. Dowling, J. (2009) Changes and challenges: Key issues for Scottish rural schools and communities. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 129-139. Fargas-Malet, M., & Bagley, C. (2021) Is small beautiful? A scoping review of 21st-century research on small rural schools in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 1-23. Georghiou, N. (2006) School Closures Update. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Georghiou, N. (2009) Schools Consultation (Scotland) Bill 2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/SPICeResources/Research%20briefings%20and%20fact%20sheets/S B09-29.pd Gristy, C., Hargreaves, L. & Kučerová, S.R. (2020) Educational Research and Schooling in Rural Europe: An Engagement with Changing Patterns of Education, Space and Place. Information Age Publishing. Kvalsund, R. (2009) Centralized decentralization or decentralized centralization? A review of newer Norwegian research on schools and their communities. International Journal of Educational Research 48(2), 89–99. Kvalsund, R. & Hargreaves, L. (2009) Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: Analytical perspectives and a new agenda. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 140–149. Kidner, C. (2013) Children and young people (Scotland) Bill: School Closures. SPICe Briefing 13/77. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament. Lasselle, L. & Johnson, M. (2021) Levelling the playing field between rural schools and urban schools in a HE context: A Scottish case study. British Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 450-468. Raggl, A. (2020) Small rural primary schools in Austria. Places of Innovation? In Gristy et al. Redford, M. (2014) The Political Administration of Scottish Education 2007 – 2012. In Bryce T, Humes W, Gillies D. & Kennedy A. (eds) Scottish Education 4th ed., Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Roberts, P. & Fuqua, M. (2021) Ruraling Education Research: Connections between rurality and the disciplines of educational research. Springer. Schafft, K.A. (2016) Rural education as rural development: Understanding the rural school–community well-being linkage in a 21st-century policy context. Peabody Journal of Education, 91:2, 137-154. | ||