Only very recently since 2017, Lithuanian school first experienced receiving a continuation of steep increase of Cross Culture Kids (CCKs) (Van Reken, 2002), including return immigrants of Lithuanian pupils post-Brexit or due to COVID pandemic, and refugee children due to the recent European political climate. While still lacking a clear framework to aid the integration of these youth whose lives have been utterly disrupted by mobility has yet been provided, there remains a need to view and research this diversity as an asset (Čiuladienė, 2024). In the context of increasing diversity, schools must find solutions to ensure cross-cultural transitional care (CCTC) (Mahoney & Barron, 2020).    

The study aims to identify current CCTC approaches in Lithuanian educational institutions, with a focus on how language assimilation is viewed in this process. Three research questions were asked: What are educators' general understanding of CCK in Lithuania? What are the current institutional CCTC practices? What are the experiences and practices of CCKs towards identity-safe cross-cultural transitions? 

This is a case study of Vilniaus Lietuvių Namai situated at a public gymnasium in Vilnius, established after regaining independence, which focuses on accelerating Lithuanian language learning and integrating students into the national social and cultural life (Ruškus, 2008). Episodic narrative interviews (ENI) (Flick, 2000, 2009; Mueller, 2019) were conducted in several schools that provide support to migrant and internationally mobile students. Combining narrative and phenomenon–oriented approaches, these interviews (N=7) reveal how teachers and administrators construct meaning, negotiate and interpret institutional values consciously and unconsciously through organisational storytelling. Stories of resilience were captured to explore how cross-cultural interactions affect teachers' perceptions of students' identities and sense of belonging within educational settings. Through short, tightly focused narratives, recounting concrete episodes of students’ transitions, the research participants made sense of their authentic personal experiences related to the contested and complex phenomenon under study - creating an identity-safe environment for a specific group of students – those with a cross-cultural background.

Results showed that as educators employ Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2018), they adopt a humanistic, ethical pedagogical approach (Forrester et al., 2020) to promote inclusive education for all students. Stories of creative practices that supported transitions, such as mentoring, culturally responsive formal and informal learning activities. For example, recognising students' language profiles encourages teachers to incorporate multilingual resources (e.g., a literature curriculum redesigned to include content that mirrors students' life experiences beyond representing their demographics), validating and empowering students' linguistic identities (Sleeter & May, 2024) to foster an appreciation of global perspectives. Overall, good practices were evident to address classroom diversity concerning human rights, language needs, and cultural identity disputes- much of which aligns with sustainable multilingualism approaches (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). However, tensions persist due to the lack of space for creating a whole-school multilingual environment or within on-site residential facilities, given the explicit institutional focus on Lithuanian language and culture assimilation. Implications underscore the importance of considering sociopolitical contexts when addressing school inclusion in language, well-being, and related areas. To conclude, this research proposes the need to address inclusive assimilation by considering language identity and its consequential geopolitical affiliations, which affect the life choices available to pupils and the life trajectories on their horizon. From this stance, integration is more helpful to be seen as helping cross-cultural pupils anchor the self during turbulence of changes, instead of a tool for belonging or status to be gained.

Ciuladiene, G. (2024). Migrant Children and Integration-Related Challenges in Lithuania: The Opinions of Educators (A Case Study). Social Sciences, 13(10), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13100501 Forrester, G., Kurth, J., Vincent, P., & Oliver, M. (2020). Schools as community assets: An exploration of the merits of an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach. Educational Review, 72(4), 443-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1529655 Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY. USA: Teachers College Press. Mahoney, E., & Barron, J. (2020). Surveying the landscape: Common Practices, Challenges and Opportunities in International School Transitions-Care. The 2020 Report. SeaChange and Globally Grounded. Retrieved from https://seachangementoring.com/transition-support/ Ruškus, J. (2008). Į Lietuvą atvykusių lietuvių kilmės moksleivių patirtis:„Lietuvių namų “mokyklos atvejis. Oikos: Lithuanian Migration & Diaspora Studies, 2008(6): 443-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1529655 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sleeter, C., & May, S. (2024). Critical multiculturalism: An introduction. In C. Sleeter, Critical multicultural education: Theory and practice. Teachers College Press. Van Reken, R. (2002). Third Culture Kids: Prototypes for understanding other cross-cultural kids. Cross-Cultural Kids. https://www.crossculturalkid.org/who-are-cross-cultural-kids/