Many countries in Europe have traditionally received a constant influx of immigrants and refugees within Europe and further afield due to their economic prosperity and political stability. Migration has profoundly impacted the composition of classrooms (OECD, 2018). As a part of the Erasmus+ funded project Culturally Responsive Leadership and Evaluation in Schools (CReLES), higher education institutions of four European Countries, Austria, Ireland, Russia and Spain, with a high percentage of migration background students in schools (8.2%, 12%, 7- 16% and 4.6% respectively Eurydice, 2019 & Zagoskin et al., 2021), have collaborated to explore the extent to which school leaders have been successful in creating inclusive learning environments in schools. Indeed, this ever-increasing diverse student population expects school leaders to develop pedagogies, practices and policies that ensure the success of students from all cultures (William, 2016). Unfortunately, PISA data have consistently shown, in most countries, a performance gap between students with an immigration background and native-born students (Schleicher, 2019). Therefore, this study aims to explore

-          School leaders’ capacity in promoting a climate and practice of cultural responsivity in schools that enhance all students' learning and well-being

-          contextual and in-school variables that influence cultural responsivity in schools. 

In the context of this study, culturally responsivity may be defined as being mindful of diverse cultural values, norms and traditions, recognising the history and impact of social structures that marginalise humans and demonstrating responsibility to disrupt and stop inequities. Cultural responsivity also refers to the ability to learn from and relate respectfully to people from one’s own and other cultures (Kozleski et al., 2005; Oregon State University, 2019). The culturally responsive (CR) school leaders thus, have

High expectations for student achievement, incorporating the history, values, and cultural knowledge of students' home communities in the school curriculum, working to develop a critical consciousness among both students and faculty to challenge inequities in the larger society, and creating organisational structures at the school and district level that empower students and parents from diverse racial and ethnic communities (Johnson & Fuller, 2014).

Moreover, the CR school leaders are courageous enough to challenge the status quo and promote inclusion by critiquing assumptions, biases and stereotypes and at the same time, making school practices, policies, artefacts, languages, people and behaviour inclusive (Khalifa, 2018).

The guiding ideas of the study also include the notion of cultural differences versus cultural deficit[1]. This shifts the responsibility of student underachievement from students and their cultural background to the schools as institutions and teachers and principals as leaders. In this conception, it is argued that students underperform largely because their culture is different from that of the school (Walker & Dimmock, 2005). Ladson-Billings (2021) also denounces overemphasis on out-of-school variables as causes for in-school outcomes. School leaders with such a disposition create a climate of respect for all cultures and establish practices aligned with the students’ cultural values, attitudes and beliefs. Along with the in-school factors, however, the school leaders’ actions, to some extent, are embedded in, influenced and moderated by several contextual factors. These factors may include, national or regional policies concerning multiculturalism and integration, provision of professional development opportunities for school leaders and extra resources to facilitate interventions for migrant students’ learning.   

[1] students from minority ethnic groups often fail in school because of the culture in which they are raised, not the culture of the school (Walker & Dimmock, 2005, p.293).

Multi-site case studies were used to gather in-depth and holistic information about leadership practices and in-school and out-of-school variables that impact cultural responsivity in schools. A sample of 17 schools across the four partner countries was selected considering the percentage of migrant students in the schools. The key sampling criterion was the percentage of migrant students formed at least 10% or more of the student population in each of the case study schools. The case study methodology enabled the researchers to explore the area under study through various data sources, learn their perspectives and view the multiple facets of reality. Furthermore, the multi-site case studies helped to gather data to study within-site and cross-site patterns that resulted in a wider understanding of the phenomenon (Mills et al., 2010). Data were primarily collected through semi-structured interviews with principals, deputy principals, teachers, parents and students in the sampled schools. This multiplicity of the stakeholders provided a variety of lenses to explore and consequently access the multiple facets of the area under study, and the use of semi-structured interview technique as DeJonckheere and Vaughn (2019) maintain, proved helpful in collecting open-ended data; exploring participants’ thoughts, feelings and beliefs about the topic; and delving deeply into their personal experiences. In addition to the interviews, school websites were also reviewed, for being another primary source of data (Frey, 2018), to collect evidence in relation to cultural responsivity. Following on from the data collection stage, the data were analysed using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) framework that consists of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. The data reduction included selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data; data display stage organising and re-assembling the data for drawing conclusions. For conclusion drawing, a researcher is to step back and carefully review the patterns emerging through the analysed data, and the verification is the process of cross-checking the conclusions to ensure that they are credible, defensible and warranted. The framework was used not only for intra-case analysis but also across cases. Prior to deciding the case study protocol and interview questions and guidelines, a literature review was conducted to study the characteristics of Culturally Responsive leadership, Culturally Responsive practices and factors impacting Culturally Responsivity to identify the manifest constructs, scales and sub-scales for forming the interview questions.

In Austria, Ireland and Russia, most school leaders and teachers acknowledged the increasing diversity among the student population. While in Spain, the school leaders generally referred to the number of immigrants as being consistent or even dwindling. Many interviewees (students, parents, teachers and school leaders) in all countries expressed general acceptance and appreciation for diversity. In some cases, however, school leaders consider assimilation as the inclusion or believe it is the responsibility of the immigrants to integrate into the host country. School leaders and teachers in all four countries were cognizant of students’ needs and the significance of developing proficiency in the language of instruction in most cases. In these countries, several measures are undertaken to support students’ learning of the language of instruction. As compared to the language of instruction, students’ home languages, in most instances, get limited acknowledgement in schools. Even so, sometimes language is a cause of conflict (Ireland, Russia & Spain) along with religion (Austria, Ireland & Spain). Likewise, in Russia and Spain, all school leaders and teachers agreed that curriculum does not take account of cultural diversity but in Ireland and Austria, school leaders and teachers referred to the curriculums of some subjects, through which they could incorporate the cultural experiences of their students. Also, they referred to some revisions that have taken place over time. In Russia and Spain, without any exception, all the school leaders and teachers were from a non-immigrant background. In Ireland, few teachers interviewed were from a migration background. In Austria, on the contrary, some teachers, as well as one school leader, were from a migration background. Almost all school leaders and teachers spoke about limited professional development opportunities vis a vis developing CR practices in schools and expressed their willingness to attend any CPD focused on enhancing CR competencies.

DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2). Eurydice. (2019). Integrating students from migrant backgrounds into schools in Europe: National policies and measures Available at: https://doi.org/10.2797/819077 (accessed 18 January 2022). Frey, B. B. (Ed.). (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage Publications. Johnson, L., & Fuller, C. (2014). Culturally responsive leadership. New York: Oxford University Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). I’m here for the hard re-set: Post pandemic pedagogy to preserve our culture. Equity & Excellence in Education, 54(1), 68-78. Khalifa, M. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press. Kozleski, E., Harry, B., & Zion, S. (2005). Cultural, social, and historical frameworks that influence teaching and learning in US schools [PowerPoint Slides]. National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems: http://www.azftf.gov/WhoWeAre/Board/Documents/NCCRESt_Cultural_social_and_historical_frameworks.pdf Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397 OECD (2018), The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background: Factors that Shape Well-being, OECD Reviews of Migrant Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en. Oregon State University. (2019). Cultural Responsivity, Cultural Relevance, and Cultural Reinforcement (C-RRR) as EDI (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion). Practices. http://osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs.dir/3090/files/2019/03/C-RRR-20191.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2021). Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf (accessed 9 July 2021). Spathis, E. (2020) 4 Ways to Incorporate Culture in World Language Instruction. Available at: https://www.edutopia.org/article/4-ways-incorporate-culture-world-language-instruction (accessed 27 January 2022). Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2005, September). Leading the multiethnic school: Research evidence on successful practice. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 291-304). Taylor & Francis Group. William, N. (2016). Culturally Responsive Leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand Secondary Schools [Master’s thesis. Auckland University of Technology]. Zagoskin, E., Gabdrahmanova, A, Rjendinskaya, I., Kaveshnikova, E., Serchuk, M. Desta, B., Saddam, A.A.A., (2021, June 18). Percentage of Migrant Children in Russian Schools. Experience of Integration of Children from Migrant Families. https://eufactcheck.eu/blogpost/blog-experience-of-integration-of-children-from-migrant-families/