Forced migration is an increasingly significant global issue with over 84 million forcible displaced people recorded in 2021 (UNHCR 2021). These numbers are especially significant within the context of a pandemic which has ostensibly closed borders and restricted movement.  Schools located in communities within destination contexts across Europe have faced the realities of the inequities of daily life for their students which the pandemic has highlighted, inequities which are especially magnified for marginalised children such as young refugees. Our focus in this presentation is on practitioners working in schools within such communities.

Teachers of refugee children in European classrooms are caught between competing discourses of inclusion and performativity. Whilst international agreements about the right to a quality inclusive education for refugee children, such as SDG 4, are part of global policies which nation states have signed up to, at the local level, teachers in European classrooms navigate an increased standardisation agenda reliant on pupil performance and high stakes testing. This presentation seeks to answer the question ‘How can we integrate the global imperative for an inclusive educational response to refugee children at the local level where there are competing agendas?’ Our research is in Sweden and England, most recently as schools and teachers adjust to life during the pandemic- arguably a time when the need for an inclusive approach for refugee children is intensified.

Previously our work with teachers and school leaders in England and Sweden led to a co-constructed holistic inclusive model of refugee education (McIntyre and Neuhaus 2021). This theoretical model had its roots in the confluence of Ravi Kohli’s ‘resumption of ordinary life’ (2011, 2014) and Nancy Fraser’s ‘participatory parity’ (2003). The interdependence of the two theoretical framings had resonance with our practitioners who viewed the model not as an abstraction but as a practical tool to be used in planning and operationalizing the ethics of inclusive education for their refugee pupils. The emerging model of inclusive practice for refugee pupils has been subsequently modified and trialled in case study schools in the English context (McIntyre and Abrams 2021).

Currently, our empirical work is a study of how the model works at the local level in schools in Sweden within a global context of dislocation resulting from both the ongoing pandemic and continued conflicts and humanitarian crises leading to arrival of more forcibly displaced children and young people into Europe. At the same time there is national pressure for schools to make up for ‘lost learning’ due to the pandemic and the increased accountability required to measure this. The teachers are caught within the tensions of meeting top-down global and national demands of seemingly contradictory discourses of equity and standardised measures of pupil performance, whilst also navigating their own individual moral endeavours to meet the needs of the children whose journeys of forced migration have seemingly ended in their classrooms.

The work reported here responds to the challenge of shaping research that has the potential to improve education provision for refugee children. We also report on our reflections about the ways in which our research methods are heavily dependent upon relational trust and the need to understand local and place-specific contexts. This has created specific challenges when working within a context of waves of lockdowns and restrictions as both country-sites responded to the pandemic at often asynchronous times, during the period of the research.

The project was funded by the Open Societies Foundation and our aim is to establish the utility of pedagogical tools arising from the theoretical model for both school leaders and teachers working in schools with pupils from refugee backgrounds and for teacher training.

Qualitative data have been generated in Sweden and England over four phases of research. Our methodological approach foregrounds our participants’ expertise as practitioners in their own contexts, utilising participatory methods that captured their voices and reflections. The overall ongoing project comprises 4 phases. Some participants have been involved since phase 1. We focus on findings from phase 3 and 4 in this presentation. Phase 1 began in 2017 and included a comparison of policy documentation and discourse in each context, drawing on Ball (1998, 2015). This was accompanied by interviews and focus groups with municipal and school leaders and observations of practice in schools in England and Sweden over the period of an academic year. (McIntyre, J., Neuhaus, S. & Blennow, K. 2018). Phase 2 developed this work further through online communications and video focus groups bringing together Swedish and English practitioners alongside further interviews with key stakeholders in each locality. (McIntyre, J. and Neuhaus, S. 2021). Phase 3 drew on five case studies of ‘good practice’ schools and colleges in three cities within England. There were 20 adult participants and around 25 young participants. The work was ethnographic in intent drawing on policy documents, interview data with school leaders, educational practitioners and young people and field notes of meetings and observations of teachers and young people in each school context. (McIntyre, J. and Abrams, F. 2021). Phase 4 focused on developing the inclusive model for working with refugee pupils in schools in Sweden. This comprised a series of workshops (recorded so that subsequently emerging themes could be identified) where the case study work from phase 3 was analysed by the Swedish teachers, generating points of connection and comparison whilst also identifying differences and the possible reasons for these differences in approach (17 participants). A ‘core group’ from these workshops volunteered to join an online series of workshops with 2 of the English participants from Phase 3. Then followed workshops (again recorded for later analysis and reflection) involving those working in local communities to enable them to develop a supportive infrastructure for refugee children, and leaders in different municipalities across Sweden with a responsibility for new arrivals and their integration into education. The data was analysed thematically drawing on the concepts of safety, belonging and success (Kohli 2014) and through the tripartite lens of redistribution, recognition and representation (Fraser 2003). The data was further analysed to answer the research question.

Our work illustrates how within changing global and national contexts, teachers work to find solutions and ways of thinking about how best to adapt our model for the refugee children in their own classrooms at the local level. We present findings from this work firstly through our English case studies and then through our ongoing work with experienced practitioners in Sweden which includes a focus on how the inclusive model can influence teacher education in Sweden. The findings show that the model allows teachers to compare barriers and opportunities for refugee children and to develop a common vocabulary for describing, evaluating and reflecting on their practice. It also allows for comparison of the constraining and enabling factors to enact the model in each local and national context in order to inform next steps with local and national policymakers and with those working within teacher education. The work has led to the development of pedagogical tools for enacting the inclusive model of refugee education to inform preparatory and ongoing teacher education. In disseminating this and the knowledge from the research we find that teachers report positively on the impact of using the model as a focus for professional development conversations within the school especially when these extend to include the perspectives of those outside the school, such as local municipal leaders, teacher educators, the research team. The model is strengthened when it is seen as dialogic bringing together stakeholders working at different levels. And in so doing it allows for consideration of the risks the practitioners navigate as they are caught in the nexus of global and very localised policy and practice. We conclude that our findings benefit researchers, practitioners, teacher educators and municipal leaders responsible for the education of new arrivals and national policymakers across Europe.

Ball, S. 1998. “Big Policies/Small World: An Introduction to International Perspectives in Education Policy.” Comparative Education 34 (2): 119–130. doi:10.1080/03050069828225. Ball, S. 2015. “What Is Policy? 21 Years Later: Reflections on the Possibilities of Policy Research.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 36 (3): 306–313. Fraser, N. 2003. “Social justice in the age of identity politics.” In Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. 2003. Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. Verso: London. pp. 7-109. Kohli, R. 2011. Working to Ensure Safety, Belonging and Success for Unaccompanied Asylum‐seeking Children. Child Abuse Review 20: 311–323. Kohli, R. 2014. Protecting asylum seeking children on the move. Revue Europeene des Migrations Internationales. 30 (1): 83-104. McIntyre, J and Neuhaus, S. 2021. ‘Theorizing Policy and Practice in Refugee Education: conceptualising ‘safety’, ‘belonging’, ‘success’ and ‘participatory parity’ in England and Sweden. British Educational Research Journal. McIntyre, J. and Abrams, F. 2021. Refugee Education: Theorising practice in schools. Abingdon: Routledge. McIntyre, J., Neuhaus, S. & Blennow, K. 2018 Participatory parity in schooling and moves towards ordinariness: a comparison of refugee education policy and practice in England and Sweden, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2018.1515007. UNHCR 2022. Refugee Data Finder. Available at https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/