Classrooms across Europe are becoming more diverse. Students increasingly differ in academic performance, socio-economic background, language proficiency, and migration background. Teachers are expected to respond to this diversity in fair and inclusive ways, while working under uncertainty and often competing expectations. Their educational decisions are shaped not only by research evidence, but also by their professional beliefs and by institutional and cultural contexts. Decisions about differentiated instruction, grade retention, grade acceleration, and tracking are among the most far-reaching responses to student heterogeneity (Eurydice, 2011; Tomlinson et al., 2003).

This symposium brings together three empirical studies from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany to examine how teacher beliefs connect educational knowledge with classroom action. Together, the papers explore how teacher beliefs about differentiation and grade retention are structured, how they relate to everyday teaching practices and perceived challenges, and how they may contribute to unequal educational outcomes (Santos, Pipa, & Monteiro, 2023; Tomchin & Impara, 1992). In this way, the symposium directly addresses the ECER 2026 theme “Knowing and Acting: The changing conditions and potentials of education research” by showing how teachers’ educational decisions are shaped by context, values, and professional judgement.

The first paper focuses on primary education in the Netherlands and examines how teachers manage heterogeneity in their classrooms. Using latent profile analysis, the study identifies different patterns in teachers’ use of differentiated instruction and links these patterns to beliefs about grade retention and acceleration. Contrary to the common assumption that differentiation and retention are seen as opposing strategies, the findings suggest that teachers who use more differentiated instruction may also hold more positive views about retention and acceleration (Protheroe, 2007). This paper highlights that teachers’ belief systems are often more complex than policy debates suggest (Tomchin & Impara, 1992) and questions simple contrasts between “progressive” and “traditional” approaches.

The second paper uses a quasi-experimental design in Flemish secondary education to study bias in teacher expectations and recommendations. Through a factorial video vignette experiment, the study examines whether teachers’ judgements about tracking and grade retention are influenced by students’ socio-economic status, ethnicity, name, and language proficiency, while academic performance is held constant. The results show that teachers have higher expectations for more privileged students. Interestingly, these students are also more likely to be advised to change programmes rather than to repeat a grade. This suggests that assumptions about students’ backgrounds and trajectories can shape decision-making in subtle ways. The paper highlights the ethical dimension of teacher judgements and shows how beliefs can translate into unequal educational opportunities.

The third paper draws on large-scale panel data from Germany to examine how teachers’ grade retention beliefs relate to teaching practices, perceived challenges, and career characteristics. Using structural equation modelling, the study finds that teachers who report more use of differentiated instruction are less supportive of grade retention, while those who experience more classroom management difficulties are more supportive of grade retention. At the same time, individual characteristics explain only a small part of the variation in beliefs. This points to the importance of broader contextual factors, such as school policies, school culture, and local grade retention practices (Goos, Pipa, & Peixoto, 2021; Santos et al., 2023).

Taken together, the three papers offer a cross-national and multi-method perspective on teacher beliefs and responses to student heterogeneity. By combining survey data, experimental methods, and large-scale panel analyses, the symposium shows how educational knowledge is interpreted and acted upon under changing social and institutional conditions. The discussant will reflect on the implications of these findings for research, policy, and practice, with a particular focus on equity, professional autonomy, and evidence-informed decision-making.

Eurydice. (2011). Grade retention during compulsory education in Europe: Regulations and statistics. Publications Office of the European Union. Goos, M., Pipa, J., & Peixoto, F. (2021). Effectiveness of grade retention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34, 100401. OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. Protheroe, N. (2007). Alternatives to retention in grade. Principal, 86(3), 30-34. Santos, N. N., Pipa, J., & Monteiro, V. (2023). Analysing grade retention beliefs within teachers’ psycho-pedagogic beliefs system. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103939. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.