The number of people living outside their country of birth, whether as voluntary migrants, asylum-seekers or refugees, is now higher than ever before (EC, 2020). In this paper we consider how equitable education provision is for students with a migration background in three countries that differ in their experiences of neoliberal education reform and their histories and socio-political constructions of migration.

Economisation, marketisation and privatisation in education have increased across Europe in recent years and are strongly connected with neoliberalism as a political project aimed at the extension of competitive market forces while promoting the illusion of individual freedom (Bourdieu, 1998a; Bourdieu, 2003). Schools in Italy and Germany have seen a reorientation from process to output evaluations; more radically, the English school system is subject to a high stakes test and inspection based accountability framework. These countries have, to different degrees, rethought the relationship of education to the state, economy and society, as private or non-governmental actors such as foundations, companies or consulting experts have proliferated and the imperative towards greater digitalisation has increased (Hartong/Hermstein/Höhne 2018). This has been especially observable during the COVID-19 pandemic, rekindling questions about equality and equity in education. Understanding the effects of this development is especially critical during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, above all because of the greater need of disadvantaged students for catch-up support.

We draw on policy and other public documents and media commentaries and reports to identify debates about catch-up and the initiatives that follow in Italy, Germany and England during the 2020-21 school year. Then, using Bourdieu's (1971; 1986) account of the reproduction of inequality, we analyse how economisation discourses construct learning, how economisation processes influence who receives catch-up provision and how the support provided contributes to the configuration of (un)equal opportunities.

To do this, we analyse the catch-up support offered to children with migration status following the COVID-19 school closures. However, it is difficult to make direct comparisons on the basis of migration background because of: national differences in (i) the terminology used in official, public and media discourse and (ii) categorisation frameworks used that affect data collection and analysis (Horvath 2019; Stošić 2017); and the complexity of imperatives and flows that shape national differences in the nature and diversity of migrant populations – in terms of cultural origins and citizenships – and their needs. Instead, we consider the implications of COVID-19 education policy for students with migrant status by analysing provision for those with low socioeconomic status, those who self-identify with minority ethnicities and non-native language speakers. This will give us a partial picture of the potential constraints faced by the most disadvantaged students with migrant backgrounds.

We compare debates in the studied countries between September 2020 and August 2021 on how to compensate students for their missed schooling following school closures and any resulting initiatives. To develop an account of debates between various actors relating to catch-up, we draw on national government guidelines, reports and surveys and news and specialist education media reports divided equally between the three countries. These documents are subject to a thematic analysis (see also Kelly/Hofbauer/Gross 2021) in which we identify dominant discourses including those relating to economisation and marketisation. We look at the impact of the pandemic and initiatives to support marginalised students during the mentioned period with a focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged students and students with diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. Finally, we related this analysis to accounts of social reproduction (Bourdieu 1971; 1986; 1998c; Bourdieu/Passeron 1990). In so doing, this paper answers the following research questions: (a) How did public debates reflect concerns about socioeconomic and educational inequality, including students’ learning gaps and need to catch up? (b) What was the policy response? Our findings reference open letters, statements, press releases and other documentation, but for clarity do not specify the numerous media sources used.

We find that while catch-up measures in the studied countries promote equality of access, the undifferentiated universal provision privileged by economisation logics is inequitable towards socioeconomically, linguistically and ethnically disadvantaged students. Bourdieu’s insight is that people use their cultural resources, social contacts and standing in society as well their economic resources to help forward their own interests and live what they consider to be a good life. Those with diverse personal histories as well as linguistically, ethnically and socioeconomically disadvantaged students often have a varied mix of such assets to draw on. More often than not, however, they lack the habitus and associated capitals – and thus support opportunities and individual strategies – that will benefit them in social interaction. Universal provision, rooted in productivity logics emanating from economisation discourses and sometimes provided through market processes, ignores these differences. This allows those already advantaged to maintain and increase their privilege and thereby reproduces the inequalities of those who are subject to intersectional disadvantages.

Ball, S.J. (2021): The education debate (Fourth Edition), Bristol, Policy Press. Bourdieu, P. (1971): Systems of education and systems of thought, in: M.F.D. Young (Ed), Knowledge and Control: New Directions in the Sociology of Education, London, Collier-Macmillan. Bourdieu, P. (1986): The forms of capital, in: J.G. Richardson (Ed), Handbook of Theory for the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (1989-92/2014): On the State: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1989-1992, edited by P. Champagne et al., translated by D. Fernbach, London, Polity. Bourdieu, P. (1998a): The essence of neoliberalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, December, retrieved from: https://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu [Accessed 30.11.21]. Bourdieu, P. (1998b): On television and journalism, London, Pluto Press. Bourdieu, P. (1998c): Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford, Stanford UP. Bourdieu, P. (2003): Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2, London, Verso.Bourdieu, P. (2005) The Social Structures of the Economy, Cambridge, Polity. Bourdieu, P./Passeron, J.C. (1990): Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London, Sage. EC/European Commission (2020): Increasing significance of migration, Retrieved from: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/increasing-significance-migration_en [Accessed 10.01.2022]. Horvath K. (2019): Migration background – Statistical classification and the problem of implicitly ethnicising categorisation in educational contexts. Ethnicities, 19(3), 558-574. doi:10.1177/1468796819833432 Kelly, P./Hofbauer, S./Gross, B. (2021): Renegotiating the public good: Responding to the first wave of COVID-19 in England, Germany and Italy. European Educational Research Journal, 1-26. doi: 10.1177/14749041211030065 Stošić P. (2017): Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund. Zur Medialisierung eines Bildungsproblems. Kinder, Kindheiten und Kindheitsforschung, Vol 18. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. UNESCO (2021): COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse [20.07.2021].