In order to guarantee the human right to education in the sense of non-discriminatory and equal participation of all people in an inclusive education system, the assessment of effective individualised support measures is necessary (Art. 24 UNCRPD). Although European states have committed to developing an inclusive school system, they often maintain a well-established special education system based on labelling individual students as having special educational needs (SEN). In these situations, a tension can be observed between the provision of individual support and the potentially stigmatising and discriminatory effects of labelling students as having SEN. For example, the identification of SEN is still associated with a higher risk of exclusion from regular education (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2020). Studies also point to classist, racist and ableist influences as a factor on the categorisation of SEN (e.g. Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2020, Berhanu 2008, Dyson 2008, Werning et al. 2008). Similarly, educational statistics surveys suggest that the identification of SEN is characterised by high contingency (Desforges & Lindsay, 2010; Klemm, 2018). For example, comparing school laws and regulations in the 16 German states, we counted at least 24 different assessment procedures (Gasterstädt, Kistner & Adl-Amini, 2020). Accordingly, identification and segregation rates, as well as rules governing SEN assessment procedures, vary widely at the state level. Although the SEN assessment procedure can be seen as a central fulcrum for the tension between the provision of individual support und potential discrimination, research in this area is scarce.      
The poster will present the research project "InDiVers", which addresses SEN assessment procedures in Germany. The qualitative multilevel research design is based on Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin 1990) and Situational Analysis (Clarke, Friese & Washburn, 2018) (see methods section).

The project is informed by the assumption, that in order to change policy and practice towards inclusion and diversity, it is first necessary to understand the mechanisms of exclusion and the labelling processes that underpin them. Therefore, analysing the case of the assessment procedures in the German school system might also lead to a better understanding of exclusionary practices in school systems in other countries with established segregated special education systems. Thus, from a power-critical and anti-discriminatory perspective on diversity, our aim is to question the categorisation of SEN and the exclusions that go along with it, in order to be able to give impulses to address and include diversity in all aspects in the German school system in the next step.

The central questions of InDiVers are how the decision about, and legitimation of inclusion/exclusion are negotiated between different actors and how the underlying order of difference is (re)produced. The project also asks how the need for support for individual students is determined, which diagnostic procedures are used and how pedagogical “others” are constructed in these processes. While these questions are mainly addressed with a focus on individual cases, we also take into account the broader situation of assessment procedures at the level of the local education landscape in which these procedures are embedded. From this angle, we ask how regionally differentiated constellations of actors, e.g. professionals or guardians, cooperate and which positions appear to be particularly powerful. Drawing on the theoretical perspectives of institutional discrimination (Gomolla & Radtke, 2009) and intersectionality (Riegel 2016), the project focuses on power and inequality relations in the structures of the institutions and organisations involved and the professionals working within them.

The poster will present our research design, give an insight into the initial findings, and take a closer look at our strategies for transferring our findings into practice.

The project is located in interpretative/reconstructive social research. Following the logic of maximum and minimum contrasts, four German federal states were selected according to the development of identification and segregation rates (high/ low; decreasing/increasing), the role of legal guardians in assessment procedures (e.g. co-decision on diagnosis), the regulations for reviewing the assessment, the definition of SEN and the requirements for diagnostics: Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and Saxony-Anhalt. The project is based on a multi-level approach (Helsper, Hummrich & Kramer, 2013), which combines a qualitative longitudinal study of procedures in individual cases at the level of the individual school with an examination of the local education landscape these procedures are embedded. Accordingly, the research design is structured into two closely linked sub-projects. The sub-project "Regional Constellations" (SP1) at the University of Kassel focuses on regional actor constellations, rules, routines and logics of action within the assessment procedures. To this end, 8-12 expert interviews will be conducted per region with stakeholders in the local education landscape. The experts addressed include actors from the school administration at the state and regional level, the school authorities, the youth welfare services, actors from the special and regular schools as well as self-advocacy groups (e.g. parents' associations). In addition, there will be a reconstructive analysis and triangulation of relevant documents (such as legal regulations) and statistical data on the assessment of SEN. In the same regions, the sub-project "Case-related constellations" (SP2) at the TU Darmstadt is pursuing a longitudinal design to accompany SEN assessment procedures in at least eight cases. For this purpose, protocols of observation, audio recordings and interviews (e.g. with parents, involved teachers or school administrators) are collected in central situations of the assessment procedure and are supplemented by the analysis of relevant documents (e.g. expert reports). The research project uses the methods of Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) (Strauss & Corbin 1990) and situation analysis (Clarke, Friese & Washburn, 2018) to combine the different levels and data. Two transfer modules accompany the research in the two sub-projects by providing impulses for the advancement of the procedures in the survey regions (TransRe) and by developing concepts for the professionalisation of teachers and the use in teacher training (TransPro). Data collection has been completed in Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate. We are currently in the recruitment phase in Saxony-Anhalt and Saarland.

We would like to present some initial observations along the questions of how SEN is defined, why it is assessed and how the assessment procedures can be understood. Our analysis confirms the observation, that the teacher's attribution of pupils as not meeting the school expectations is central. These expectations are shaped not only by academic achievement but also by implicit notions of what it means to be an 'able' student. However, which expectations of ability are made relevant is biased by racist and classist attributions. Focusing on the individual assessment procedures, we observe a constant narrative in which no alternatives for the student’s educational options other than SEN emerge. Therefore, at different stages of the assessment procedures, different professionals construct a broad understanding of the student’s situation at school and at home. However, this understanding is not used to support the student or to reflect on the student’s barriers to learning, but to develop a consensus between experts and parents about the need to label the student as having SEN. In this mode, the assessment instruments used, such as individual education plans, focus mainly on the student’s failure. The complex issues behind the perceived failure of pupils are therefore clearly directed towards an individualisation of failure and need. Furthermore, we observe that the identification of SEN is constructed in various ways as 'relieving' or 'unburdening', while the possible burdens associated with the label of SEN are not addressed. Thus, only one side of the tension between individual support and potential discrimination is addressed. In addition to presenting these initial findings, we would also like to discuss the multi-level approach of the research project in terms of the challenges it poses as well as the possibilities it opens up for understanding SEN assessment procedures.

Berhanu, G. (2008). Ethnic minority pupils in Swedish schools: Some trends in overrepresentation of minority pupils in special educational programs. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 17–29. Dyson, A., & Gallannaugh, F. (2008). Disproportionality in special needs education in England. The Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 36–46. Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Interpretive Turn. Los Angeles: Sage. Desforges, M. & Lindsay, G. (2010). Procedures used to Diagnose a Disability and to Assess Special Educational Needs: An International Review. Report commissioned by the NCSE. https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5_NCSE_Diag_Ass.pdf European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2020). European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education: 2018 Dataset Cross-Country Report. Ramberg, J., Lénárt, A., & Watkins, A. (Eds.). https://www.european-agency.org/data/cross-country-reports Gasterstädt, J., Kistner, A., & Adl-Amini, K. (2020). Die Feststellung sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs als institutionelle Diskriminierung? Eine Analyse der schulgesetzlichen Regelungen. Zeitschrift für Inklusion 4. https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/551 Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2009). Institutionelle Diskriminierung. Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Helsper, W., Hummrich, M. & Kramer, R.-T. (2013). Qualitative Mehrebenenanalyse. In B. Friebertshäuser, A. Langer & A. Prengel (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 119-135). Basel: Beltz Juventa. Klemm, K. (2018). Unterwegs zur inklusiven Schule. Lagebericht 2018 aus bildungsstatistischer Perspektive. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Riegel, C. (2016): Bildung – Intersektionalität – Othering. Pädagogisches Handeln in wider-sprüchlichen Verhältnissen. Pädagogik. Bielefeld: Transcript. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Werning, R., Löser, J. M., & Urban, M. (2008). Cultural and social diversity: An analysis of minority groups in German schools. Journal of Special Education, 42, 47–54. Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2020). Minority representation in special education: A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special education, 23, 180-187.