This two-phase project begins with a systematic literature review on developing intercultural competence (IC) for children aged 6-14. Preliminary findings confirm a significant research gap: while IC development is well-studied in higher education, it remains critically underexplored for this age group, despite evidence of a sensitive period for cultural learning (Heine, 2012). Empirical immigration research further validates this focus. Böhlmark's (2009) seminal study on immigrant integration in Sweden identifies early educational experiences as a primary determinant of long-term integration, underscoring primary schools as pivotal sites for developing the intercultural competence essential for societal cohesion. This review maps existing models, pedagogical approaches, and assessment tools, setting the stage for the second phase.

This conference presentation focuses exclusively on the second phase: a comparative critical analysis of national primary curricula. The core research question is: How do the national core curricula of Hungary, Poland, Austria and Sweden conceptualize, position, and integrate intercultural competence as an educational goal for young learners? This question is particularly pressing in contexts like Hungary, where the educational discourse powerfully emphasizes patriotic education—a focus that aligns with scholarly observations of Hungarian school education prioritizing national identity formation, thereby often relegating intercultural education to a marginal role, primarily within foreign language teaching (Langerné Buchwald, 2017). This focus is further reinforced by the specific challenges inherited from the post-socialist transition. For countries like Hungary, the late 20th-century shift towards democratic, pluralistic societies required a fundamental transformation of education systems—from closed, ideologically rigid structures to ones embracing openness and diversity. This rapid reorientation presented unprepared challenges for teachers and institutions alike (Bleszynska, 2011; Gordon Győri, 2014). It is within this historical context that the critical tension embedded in today's Hungarian curriculum must be examined: how it navigates between the imperative to strengthen national identity and the need to promote openness to diversity.

Furthermore, genuine cultural pluralism requires supportive societal values and practices (Stanley, 1996; Grant & Ladson-Billings, 1997). Teachers are pivotal in shaping these conditions. Yet, their potential contrasts sharply with research showing Hungarian teachers often feel unprepared for this role (Gordon Győri, 2014), creating a central tension this study investigates.

The curriculum analysis is guided by two foundational models. Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) informs age-appropriate goal-setting for primary education. Byram's model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) provides a multidimensional framework (attitudes, knowledge, skills, critical awareness) for analysing how IC is operationalized in curricula. This combined framework enables a critical assessment of whether curricula foster deep intercultural learning, not just mention diversity. The policy demand for these competences stems from their historical evolution. Emerging in 20th-century Europe, intercultural pedagogy has shifted its focus from minorities to the majority, now claiming general pedagogical status in pluralistic democracies (Gogolin, 2002; Walton et al., 2013). This European normative shift contextualises national curricula like Hungary's.

Directly informed by the ongoing systematic review, the analysis uses its key insights as evaluative criteria. Thus, it critically assesses how well formal curricula align with research on effective childhood IC development.

This study engages with Network 7's 30-year legacy of examining social justice in education. By analysing national curricula, it traces the persistence of national identity narratives in post-socialist contexts and their interaction with intercultural education. Connecting historical insights from diverse national pathways, it critically examines how European intercultural competence discourses are adopted, adapted, or resisted in local policy documents. This reveals epistemic tensions between dominant national narratives and more inclusive frameworks, contributing to the network's mission of fostering dialogue amidst Europe's complex educational landscape.

This presentation details the methodology of the comparative curriculum analysis. Research Design: We employ a qualitative critical content analysis design, comparing national core curricula as primary policy documents. The analysis is both deductive (using theory-driven codes) and inductive (allowing for emergent themes). Data Corpus: The unit of analysis is the most recent official national core curriculum for primary education (ISCED 1) from four strategically chosen countries: Hungary (NAT, 2020), Poland, Austria, and Sweden. These represent a post-socialist context with strong national discourse (Hungary, Poland), a traditional immigration destination (Austria), and an inclusion-focused benchmark (Sweden). Analytical Procedure: The analysis follows a structured qualitative content analysis protocol to ensure systematic coding, comparison, and transparency. A crucial aspect is the two-tiered approach to document analysis. We examine not only the overarching national core curricula but also the subject-specific framework curricula (where available and officially mandated). This is essential because the operationalization of IC components—such as specific attitudes, skills, and critical engagement—often occurs at this more detailed, subject-level planning stage, and may be absent or only vaguely implied in the general core document. The analysis employs a hybrid (deductive-inductive) coding strategy. The coding scheme is derived from two main sources: 1. Theoretical Framework: Deductive codes based on Bennett's DMIS and Byram's ICC components (e.g., "Attitudes: Curiosity," "Skills: Interpreting and Relating," "Knowledge: Social Groups," "Critical Cultural Awareness"). 2. Systematic Review Findings: Inductive codes reflecting recurring themes from the literature review, such as "Teacher Role," "Assessment of IC", "Pedagogical Approach", and "Link to Equity/Social Justice." Using this scheme, the analysis examines across both document levels: a) the frequency, context, and specificity of IC-related terminology; b) the framing of diversity; c) prescribed pedagogical methods; and d) the discursive relationship between IC objectives and national identity/patriotic education objectives within and across specific subjects. The comparative design intentionally centres situated knowledge and local contexts by selecting countries that represent divergent European experiences with diversity, sovereignty, and inclusion.

The comparative analysis is expected to yield three key outcomes, which will be discussed in the presentation: 1. A Typology of Curricular Approaches: We anticipate identifying distinct profiles. The Hungarian (and potentially Polish) curriculum is likely to represent a "National-Centric with Additive Diversity" model, where IC is acknowledged but subordinated to a strong national identity narrative. The Austrian curriculum may exemplify an "Integration and Cohesion-Focused" model, explicitly addressing diversity as a domestic reality. The Swedish curriculum is expected to embody an "Embedded Inclusive Competence" model, where IC is seamlessly integrated into transversal competences and a holistic school ethos. 2. Identification of Gaps between Research and Policy: The analysis will highlight discrepancies between the practices identified as effective in the systematic review (e.g., interactive, experiential learning focusing on attitudes and skills) and the often more declarative, knowledge-oriented approaches found in the curricular texts, particularly in the Hungarian context. 3. Contextualized Recommendations: By learning from the comparative good practices (notably from Sweden and Austria), the study will generate evidence-based, context-sensitive recommendations for curriculum development in Hungary and similar contexts. These will focus on how to leverage the developmental potential of primary education and better support teachers in fostering intercultural competence from an early age. The findings aim to open up perspectives for the future of curriculum design by providing evidence-based alternatives that can reconcile cultural cohesion with social justice in diverse societies. The research thus aligns with the network’s anniversary goal of collectively envisioning the future of social justice and intercultural education in Europe.

Bennett, M. (1986): A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10 (2). 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2 Bleszynska, K. M. (2011): Intercultural education in post-communist countries. In C. A. Grant & A. Portera (Eds): Intercultural and multicultural education: Enhancing global inter¬connectedness. (pp. 69–82). Routledge. Böhlmark, A. (2009). Integration of childhood immigrants in the short and long run: Swedish evidence. International Migration Review, 43(2), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00769.x Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung [BMBWF]. (2023). Lehrplan der Volksschule [Curriculum for primary school]. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Gogolin I. (2002): Interkulturelle Bildungsforschung. In R. Tippelt (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildungsforschung (S. 263–279). Leske + Budrich. https://www.bmb.gv.at/ Gordon Győri, J. (2014). Tanárok interkulturális nézetei és azok hatása az osztálytermi munkára: A multikulturális és interkulturális szemlélet elméleti alapjai és történeti vonatkozásai az oktatásban. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó. Gordon Győri, J., Boreczky, Á., Czachesz, E., & Vámos, Á. (2011). Multicultural education in Hungary. In J. Spinthorakis, J. Lalor, & W. Berg (Eds.), Cultural diversity in the classroom: A European comparison (pp. 29–44). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Grant, C. A., & Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). Dictionary of multicultural education. Oryx Press. Heine, S. J. (2012). Cultural psychology (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Hungarian Educational Authority (2020). Nemzeti alaptanterv. Langerné Buchwald, J. (2017). Ingázó diákok – avagy tanulási célú ingázás az osztrák-magyar határ mentén. Fakultás Kiadó Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. (2017). Podstawa programowa kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły podstawowej [Core curriculum for general education for primary school]. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. Skolverket. (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare] https://www.skolverket.se/publicationer Stanley, L. S. (1996): The development and validation of an instrument to assess attitudes toward cultural diversity and pluralism among preservice physical educators. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 891–897. Walton, J., Priest, N., & Paradies, Y. (2013). Identifying and developing effective approaches to foster intercultural understanding in schools. Intercultural Education, 24(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.793036