This paper reports on the findings from an evaluation study conducted in Greece in 2022. The focus of the evaluation was the project Schools for All which aims to assist the educational inclusion of Newly Arrived Migrant and Refugee Students (NAMRS) in Greek schools. Conceptually, the project’s approach to inclusion is based on the close association of inclusive to democratic education. This approach attributes great significance to students’ active participation, avoids targeting specific groups of students who are to be ‘included’ (migrant and refugee students in this case) and involves the total of the school community in the process of inclusion (Slee & Allan, 2001; Slee, 2010; Meziou, 2016; Kricke & Neubert, 2020). Methodologically, the project is based on the training of school staff in the development and implementation for inclusive education action plans which engage the whole school community and promote a whole—school approach to inclusion (Due, 2021).

The Greek schools which provide the context for this project operate within a heavily centralised system in which the Ministry of Education has the control of the curriculum, of the appointment of staff and it dictates to a large extent the school policies (Theotokatou, 2022). In terms of the educational provision to NAMRS, the Ministry of Education appoints teachers in temporary contracts to those schools that have sufficient number of NAMRS. These teachers staff reception classes which operate alongside the mainstream ones and follow a two-zone model of educational provision. The objective of classes in the first zone is the teaching of Greek language at basic level while the second zone is open to students who already have basic skills in Greek language. Students studying in reception classes attend some school subjects in mainstream classes, regardless of their skills in Greek language. This is particularly the case for the second-zone students who are usually registered by the schools to attend all mainstream classes that do not clash with the reception classes timetable.

Reports have already highlighted that two key issues in educational inclusion of refugee students globally are their access to National education systems (UNHCR, 2022) and the quality of provision by trained staff (Thomas, 2017). Both issues are particularly relevant in the case of migrant and refugee students in Greece, a country which has been at the forefront of the refugee crisis and the educational system of which is not easily adaptable to new realities and new challenges, (Kazamias and Roussakis, 2003). Moreover, its ethnocentric curriculum (Kakos and Palaiologou, 2014) and the lack of relevant a quality teacher training programmes (Sotiropoulou  and Polymenakou, 2022) pose further challenges in the efforts to develop effective educational interventions for educational inclusion of NAMRS.

Schools participating in the programme Schools for All had responded to a relevant call by the programme team. Their selection was based on the number of NAMRS registered and on the training needs of the teaching staff as identified by the school management team. A team comprised by a member of staff (usually a teacher of NAMRS receptions classes) and a member of the management team was responsible for the development and for the coordination of implementation of an Educational Action Plan aiming to support the educational inclusion of NAMRS. In a small number of schools, the coordinating team included also a parent. The attempt by some schools to recruit students’ representatives (members of students’ councils and NAMRS) was unsuccessful.

Qualitative and quantitative data was collected for this study. Online surveys to students who were directly involved in the EAPs (native and NAMRS) examined their perspectives on the quality and level of their involvement in the EAPs and on the extent to which these EAPs have the potential to improve the cohesion of the school community and the educational inclusion of NAMRS. All participating schools were invited to identify the native languages in their student population and the surveys were translated in all these languages (14 in total). Surveys with the members of the coordinating teams focused on their perspectives about the effectiveness of the efforts of the schools to include the NAMRS, their own knowledge and level of confidence in supporting such efforts, the challenges that schools have to overcome and their training needs. The qualitative part of the study was conducted in seven schools that participate in the project. Data was collected from individual, group interviews and informal discussions with staff. In most cases the informal discussions took place at the end of the school day in the staff room with the participation of the Headteacher and of staff who were involved in the implementation of the EAPs. All individual interviews and group interviews were audio recorded, and notes were kept during informal discussions. The focus of the qualitative part of the study was on teachers’ experience from developing and implementing EAPs for educational inclusion of NAMRS, their perspectives about the educational needs of NAMRS, the extent to which the EAPs in their schools covered these needs and the overall preparedness of the school community in hosting such educational interventions. The discussion in this paper concentrates on the analysis of data collected from school staff which focuses in particular on the priorities of the educational provision to NAMRS and the challenges to inclusion.

The findings indicate that according to teaching staff, the approach to educational inclusion that informs their practice is developed in the confined space between ethnocentric policies that consider language as a condition for access to curriculum and the limited opportunities for provision of the holistic support that NAMRS require. Within this context, language operates as a condition for inclusion and as an excuse for educational exclusion while the burden for integration is on the NAMRS (Sedmak, 2021: 17). Reception classes, especially those of the first zone, resemble to multilingual ghettos in which students share the experience of a type of in-school exclusion (Barker et al, 2010). Teachers report that even when attending mainstream classes, language barriers prevent NAMRS from any meaningful participation and their presence is experienced often as meaningless or as nuisance. As a result, school tolerates NAMRS’ absence from these classes and language becomes a barrier not only to curriculum access but also to other two key elements of school life: communication with peers and participation in school life. Many participants highlight the inflexibility and inefficiencies of the centralised, bureaucratic educational system as barriers to educational inclusion. However, arguably even more concerning is the effect of the above on teachers’ motivation, self- confidence and determination to exploit the undoubtedly limited spaces that this educational system allows for the development of appropriate inclusive interventions for their school communities. The project Schools for All offered significant opportunities to teaching staff to reflect and to challenge this reality. However, long-term and sustainable changes require interventions that target several areas, including curriculum development, educational policies and teacher training. It requires also the engagement of the educational community in a continuous, critical evaluation of their educational provision as a means and as an obstacle in the right of all children to education.

Barker,J., Alldred,P., Watts, M. & Dodman, H. (2010) Pupils or prisoners? Institutional geographies and internal exclusion in UK secondary schools, Area, 42.3, 378–386 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00932.x Due, C. (2021) Inclusive education for students from refugee or migrant backgrounds. In: Allen, K.A., Reupert, A. & Oades, (Eds): Building Better Schools with Evidence-based Policy. Routledge: London. 162-168. Kakos, M. & Palaiologou, N. (2014) Intercultural Citizenship Education in Greece: Us and Them. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(2): 69-87. Kazamias, A. M. & Roussakis, Y. (2003) Crisis and Reform in Greek Education, European Education, 35:3, 7-30, DOI: 10.2753/EUE1056-493435037. Kricke, M. & Neubert, S. (2020) Inclusive Education as a Democratic Challenge – Ambivalences of Communities in Contexts of Power, In: Meike Kricke & Stefan Neubert (Eds) New Studies in Deweyan Education: Democracy and Education Revisited. New York: Routledge. Meziou, K. (2017) Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink?, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21:2, 146-159, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184. Sedmak, Mateja (2021) Comparative report on qualitative research: Newly arrived migrant children. MiCreate Project report. Available online: http://www.micreate.eu/wp-content/img/D5.2%20Comparative%20report%20on%20qualitative%20research%20NAM_webpage_final_feb.pdf Accessed 24th Oct 2022. Slee, R. (2010). The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203831564 Slee, R, & Allan, J (2001) Excluding the included: A reconsideration of inclusive education, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11:2, 173-192, DOI: 10.1080/09620210100200073. Sotiropoulou, P. & Polymenakou, E. (2022) Multicultural Initial Teacher Training in Greece: Preparing Pre-Service Teachers for Migrant Education and Social Justice. In: Boivin, J.A. and Pacheco-Guffrey, H. (Eds) Education as the Driving Force of Equity for the Marginalized. IGI Global: Hershey, PA. 90-112. Theotokatou, I. (2022) The Leader who is not a Leader.: A Micro-political Analysis of the Leadership Style of a School Principal. Papazisis, Athens. (In Greek). Thomas, R.L. (2016) The Right to Quality Education for Refugee Children Through Social Inclusion. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 1, 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0022-z.