Promoting Inclusive Education for Diverse Societies: A Conceptual Framework PDF

OECD Education Working Papers No. 260 Lucie Cerna, Cecilia Mezzanotte, Promoting inclusive Alexandre Rutigliano, education for diverse Ottavia Brussino, societi...

OECD Education Working Papers No. 260 Lucie Cerna, Cecilia Mezzanotte, Promoting inclusive Alexandre Rutigliano, education for diverse Ottavia Brussino, societies: A conceptual Paulo Santiago, framework Francesca Borgonovi, Caitlyn Guthrie https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/94ab68c6-en  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development EDU/WKP(2021)17 Unclassified English - Or. English 16 November 2021 DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS Promoting inclusive education for diverse societies: A conceptual framework OECD Education Working Paper No. 260 Lucie Cerna (OECD), Cecilia Mezzanotte (OECD), Alexandre Rutigliano, Ottavia Brussino (OECD), Paulo Santiago (OECD), Francesca Borgonovi (OECD), Caitlyn Guthrie (OECD) This working paper has been authorised by Andreas Schleicher, Director of the Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD. Contact: Lucie Cerna, [email protected] JT03485401 OFDE This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. 2  EDU/WKP(2021)17 OECD EDUCATION WORKING PAPERS SERIES OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcome, and may be sent to the Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Comment on the series is welcome, and should be sent to [email protected]. This working paper has been authorised by Andreas Schleicher, Director of the Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers -------------------------------------------------------------------------- © OECD 2021 PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17 3 Acknowledgements The Working Paper was drafted by current and former members of the OECD Strength through Diversity: Education for Inclusive Societies project. The authors would like to thank participants of several Meetings of Country Representatives of the project and participants of the Policy Advice and Implementation Division seminar for their feedback on earlier versions of this Working Paper. The authors also thank Andreas Schleicher and Jody McBrien for their comments, and Daiana Torres Lima and Rachel Linden for their help formatting and publishing the document. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 4  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Abstract In many countries, schools and classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse along a variety of dimensions, including migration; ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples; gender; gender identity and sexual orientation; special education needs; and giftedness. To navigate this diversity, adopting a multidimensional and intersectional lens could help education systems promote equity and inclusion in education and foster the well-being and learning of all students. Such an approach could also support education systems in preparing all individuals so that they can engage with others in increasingly complex and diverse societies. To build equitable and inclusive education systems, analysing policy issues regarding governance arrangements, resourcing schemes, capacity building, school-level interventions, and monitoring and evaluation is key. The Strength through Diversity: Education for Inclusive Societies project seeks to help governments and education systems address diversity to achieve more equitable and inclusive education systems. This paper presents the project’s theoretical and analytical framework. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17 5 Table of contents Acknowledgements 3 Abstract 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Analytical framework 7 2.1. Background and context 7 2.2. Theoretical foundations 9 2.3. Inclusive education and equity in education 10 2.4. Dimensions of diversity 14 2.5. The role of socio-economic condition and geographical location 21 2.6. Intersectionality 21 2.7. Multilevel approaches to diversity in education 23 2.8. Outcomes 24 3. Key issues for analysis 29 3.1. Issue 1: Governing diversity, inclusion and equity in education 31 3.2. Issue 2: Resourcing diversity, inclusion and equity in education 34 3.3. Issue 3: Developing capacity for managing diversity, inclusion and equity in education 35 3.4. Issue 4: Promoting school-level interventions to support diversity, inclusion and equity in education 38 3.5. Issue 5: Monitoring and evaluating diversity, inclusion and equity in education 41 4. Methodology 43 4.1. Main components of the project 43 4.2. Modes of participation 47 4.3. Deliverables 47 References 49 FIGURES Figure 2.1. Analytical Framework 8 Figure 2.2. The four models of education 11 Figure 2.3. Intersectionality between dimensions of diversity and overarching factors 22 Figure 2.4. Outcomes for the project 24 Figure 4.1. Project phases 44 TABLES Table 3.1. Policy areas to analyse inclusion, equity and diversity in education systems 30 PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  6  EDU/WKP(2021)17 1. Introduction In many countries, classrooms and societies are becoming increasingly diverse along a variety of dimensions, including migration; ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples; gender; gender identity and sexual orientation; special education needs and giftedness. Dimensions of diversity can intersect in many ways, and also with other factors such as socio- economic status and geographic location. It is important to address and take into account diversity in all its facets through a multidimensional and intersectional approach. This is fundamental for education systems to be equitable and inclusive and to promote strong communities. Equitable and inclusive education systems support students to achieve their full educational potential irrespective of their personal and social circumstances, and help them to develop a sense of belonging and self-worth. This approach aims to advance the debate on educational equity from normative evaluations on how resources are allocated, towards validating the self-worth of individual students in the pursuit of truly inclusive societies. This is crucial to improving the learning and well-being outcomes of individuals within diverse populations but also to supporting all people to engage with others constructively in increasingly diverse and complex societies. Various studies on diversity, equity and inclusion exist, so it is important to draw on different strands of research to bring the studies together. Issues related to the definition of educational objectives and standards, the organisation of schooling, resource allocation and trade-offs countries face in striving for inclusion in education also need to be considered. Furthermore, emphasis should be put on the governance challenges related to the development of coherent and comprehensive approaches aimed at serving diverse populations in coordination with other areas of policy making including health and social services. These policy issues represent key areas to promote more equitable and inclusive education systems where all students can thrive in increasingly diverse classrooms. Assessing the inclusiveness of education systems (i.e., the extent to which they promote the inclusion of diverse learners) is a complex process which deals with a range of policy areas, and requires a comprehensive analytical approach and great care in the use of concepts. In particular, assessing the inclusiveness of education systems requires the adoption of a holistic approach to diversity and inclusion in education policy. This entails breaking out of policy silos and connecting them into a structured and comprehensive policy framework linking key areas for diversity, equity and inclusion. The OECD Strength through Diversity: Education for Inclusive Societies project seeks to help governments and education systems address diversity to achieve more equitable and inclusive education systems. Following Phase 1 of the Strength through Diversity project, The Integration of Immigrants and Refugees in Schools and Training Systems, this paper sets out a proposed conceptual framework to study diversity, equity and inclusion in education. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17 7 2. Analytical framework 2.1. Background and context Education policy does not happen in a vacuum. It requires openness and interactions between systems and their environments and is influenced by economic, political, social and technological trends (OECD, 2016; OECD, 2019). The major global developments of our time, such as climate change, rising inequalities and demographic shifts, have contributed to the increasing diversity found in our countries, communities and classrooms (OECD, 2019; International Organization for Migration (IOM), 2020; OECD, 2016). Diversity has important implications on education systems and conversely, the potential role education systems play in shaping these trends and building more sustainable and inclusive societies for tomorrow. The democratic process relies on the civic knowledge and skills of citizens, as well as their engagement in public matters (OECD, 2019). Yet striking a fair balance between all parties in the face of increasing diversity is no easy endeavour. Rising inequality and an increasing gap between rural and urban areas has led many citizens to take to the streets to voice their concerns and demands. This form of civic participation is gaining popularity at a time when many countries have seen a drop in voter turnout and a decline in public trust of institutions. Moreover, digitalisation has made it easier to disseminate inaccuracies and outright lies, and there is growing concern about the algorithms and echo chambers that only confirm the prior beliefs of individuals. This widens the gap between the “self” and the “other”, making it difficult to establish common ground and foster social cohesion. At the same time, digital technologies have also increased our access to information and given a voice to some of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in society. These groups are diverse and many have historically faced exclusion from participation in mainstream political debates, possibly because of their gender, immigration background or because they are part of an ethnic minority. Including diverse voices in the public policy debate is not only a matter of human rights; it has the power to intrinsically transform the way policies are made so that they better reflect today’s diverse societies. The need to adapt education systems to all learners’ needs will be essential in building inclusive societies that leave no one behind. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that global phenomena can spread rapidly, which causes the need for strong coordination among countries to respond timely and consistently. Education systems, too, require greater crisis management planning and for flexibility of their teaching staff and practices. It is also fundamental that plans take into account the need for adapting response to diverse needs, as to ensure equity and inclusion not only in emergency solutions such as distance learning practices but also after the end of a pandemic to ensure that no one is left behind. All these global developments have important implications on how we analyse diversity, equity and inclusion in education. The analytical framework is presented in Figure 2.1 and will be discussed in the following sections. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  8  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Figure 2.1. Analytical Framework 3. Developing capacity for managing diversity in education Societal Context 5. Evaluating and monitoring diversity in education Awareness Recruitment, preparation and Preparation  Economic of diversity evaluation of school staff – of all conditions across teachers, school leaders and students for  Demographic developments 2. Resourcing diversity in education system support staff diversity Monitoring outcomes Evaluating processes  Technological of diversity in for diversity in progress General distribution of education at the education at the local  Political context resources and diversity Society system level and school level in education Dimensions of Diversity Related policy (to be interconnected with socio-economic How and to How do all areas status and geographic location) what extent individuals Targeted distribution is the  Social services engage with  Health services of resources to education others in  Migration policies account for diversity, system increasingly  Other including human equitable diverse and resources and complex inclusive? societies? Legal frameworks Individual well- Individual  Legal rights of Educational goals and goals for diversity, being outcomes individuals and communities inclusion and equity  Academic  Labour market  Outcomes Psychological outcomes  Physical  Non-labour Regulatory framework  Social market for diversity in  Material outcomes education Responsibilities for and Equity and Cohesion of administration of Education Inclusion within and Inclusion diversity in education System Education in Society System  Social Education provision to  Equity outcomes outcomes at  Diversity- account for diversity in related Matching system level education  Inclusion outcomes resources Learning Non- Engagement outcomes at within schools strategies instructional with parents system level 1. Governing diversity in education to individual to address support and and student diversity services communities learning needs 4. Promoting school-level interventions to PROMOTING support diversity in education INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17 9 2.2. Theoretical foundations The project follows in the footsteps traced by the first phase and takes a holistic approach to examine if and how education systems can ensure that societies are well-equipped to provide equitable and inclusive educational opportunities. As such, it considers the specific vulnerabilities and assets some students may experience because of their background and circumstances and how best education systems can reduce the prevalence or the effects of risk factors for academic underachievement and low overall well-being. The project adopts a resilience framework to analyse what education systems can do to promote positive change considering broad individual and social well-being as the end goals of this process. Resilience refers to “the capacity of individuals, institutions and societies to overcome adversity and display positive adjustment” (Daniel and Wassell, 2002; Howard, Dryden and Johnson, 1999). The concept of resilience explains individuals’ ability to cope with adverse circumstances and the different ways in which they respond to these circumstances. As a result, experts and policy makers can analyse what role institutional and social features play in reducing individuals’ vulnerability to adversity (OECD, 2018). Susceptibility depends on the specific assets and vulnerabilities that actors have when adversity strikes, but also to the unique combination of risk, protective factors and circumstances that accompany the experience of adverse events. In this sense, focusing on resilience might help identify the policies and practices that support and promote individuals’ positive adjustment in the face of adversity. The resilience framework adopted in the project considers that those who experience adverse circumstances are not equally susceptible to such circumstances and, as a result, display different degrees of adjustment. The framework applies to individuals, organisations such as schools and whole societies. In particular, the goal is to develop a comprehensive and innovative analytical framework that could guide efforts to consider how countries can develop education systems that are responsive to the needs of diverse populations. The project also aims to support countries in articulating coherence in the system on the definition of clear policy goals and the design and implementation of policy efforts directed at reaching such goals. Increased international migration, evolving legal frameworks recognising the rights of individuals with special education needs, evolving societal attitudes towards the rights of LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer and intersexual) individuals and of women and men and the opportunities offered by digital technologies are just some of the societal factors that shape the demand for education responses to diversity. The development of the analytical framework is based on a thorough review of prior work conducted by the OECD on equity and fairness in education and uses the review to critically identify and examine points of departure and unanswered questions for the conceptualisation of inclusive education. In particular, the project extends the current theoretical underpinnings of OECD work on equity in education. Building on underlying debates among contrasting theories of distributive justice, the project framework is based on egalitarian principles mandating formal equality of opportunities rather than outcomes, by focusing on aspects of distributive theories that are often viewed as peripheral, rather than the core of such theories: self-worth and identity. The project considers how equity should be considered as a precondition for inclusion but also how the mere allocation of resources aimed at guaranteeing formal equality of opportunity does not necessarily result in the validation of individuals’ sense of self which is a critical component PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 10  EDU/WKP(2021)17 of what a just and inclusive society is. By focusing on individuals’ identity and sense of self-worth, the project moves from normative evaluations on society’s methods for allocating resources in education to broader conceptions of what justice entails. The crucial role played by individuals’ sense of self-worth (i.e., the emotional component of self-confidence) and the uniqueness and individuality in enabling factors determining self-worth are at the core of the theories of distributive justice conceived by Rawls (1971) and Sen (2009). In these theories, the role of personal responsibility in the use of resources to achieve well-being and the intrinsic value of the opportunity to exercise such personal responsibility are also central. In “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls considers the social bases of self-respect as one of the five primary goods that should be equalised (the other four primary goods are basic liberties including freedom of association, freedom of movement and choice of occupation, powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of responsibility, income and wealth). Sen focuses on functioning and capabilities to move the materialistic focus on “primary goods” inherent in Rawls’s theory. Sen emphasises what individuals can achieve with goods (functioning) and their ability/freedom to mobilise resources (capabilities). Although Rawls and Sen’s theories differ in many ways, they also share several common underpinnings, in particular when considering the implications for education systems of guaranteeing the social bases of self-respect. Education systems are a key social basis of self-respect and while they can be organised in ways that enable all individuals, in their individuality, to construct their self-respect, they can also stand in the way of such progress. 2.3. Inclusive education and equity in education 2.3.1. Educational equity Equitable education systems are those that ensure the achievement of educational potential is not the result of personal and social circumstances, including factors such as gender, ethnic origin, immigrant status, special education needs and giftedness (OECD, 2017; OECD, 2012). This assumes the role of education systems in achieving equity is to provide equality of opportunities so each individual reaches his/her education potential. Overall, “achieving greater equity in education is not only a social-justice imperative, it is also a way to use resources more efficiently, and to increase the supply of knowledge and skills that fuel economic growth and promote social cohesion” (OECD, 2018). Moreover, in operationalising equity in education, OECD distinguishes between horizontal and vertical equity (OECD, 2017). While horizontal equity considers the overall fair provision of resources to each part of the school system (providing similar resources to the alike), vertical equity involves providing disadvantaged groups of students or schools with additional resources based on their needs (Ibid.). Both approaches are complementary and play an important role in the process of inclusion of marginalised groups of students. 2.3.2. Inclusion in education Social inclusion is a commonly used concept that is broadly understood as “the process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of their identity, to take part in society” (World Bank, 2013). However, be it in society or in education, the definition of inclusion often lacks clarity in academic research where it tends to be used as PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  11 an umbrella term, sometimes confused with integration or participation (Bossaert et al., 2013). The project understands integration to characterise an educational system in which learners labelled as having “special educational needs”, for example, are placed in mainstream education settings with some adaptations and resources, but on condition that they can fit in with pre-existing structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment (UNESCO, 2017). While integration was for long dominant in political discourse, inclusion has progressively become an equally - and sometimes more important - paradigm. In fact, inclusion in education is not a new concept and has been widely accepted as a necessary driver for educational policy starting with UNESCO’s Salamanca Declaration of 1994. The emphasis was put on the need to reform education systems, which can be possible only if mainstream schools become capable of educating all children in their local communities. However, this declaration was exclusively directed at students with disabilities. It is only recently that inclusive education has begun to be understood as necessary to reach all learners by responding to current challenges implied by an increasing diversity in the classroom, and in societies at large (Ainscow, 2019). Today, inclusive education is overall viewed as “a matter of adopting a socio-ecological approach regarding the interactions between students’ capabilities and environmental demands, stressing that educational systems must adapt to and reach all students – and not vice versa” (Amor et al., 2018). In order to distinguish between integration and inclusion, reference is often made to a multi-stage model. Alternatively, as Shelley Moore put it, transition from integration to inclusion can be viewed as an evolution over time (Moore, 2016). The model describes four development stages of education: exclusion, separation, integration and a matter of adopting a socio-ecological approach regarding the interactions between students’ capabilities and environmental demands, stressing that educational systems must adapt to and reach all students – and not vice versa (Amor et al., 2018). Figure 2.2. The four models of education PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 12  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Source: Adapted from (Hehir et al., 2016), A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. https://www.abtassociates.com/insights/publications/report/summary-of-the-evidence-on-inclusive- education#:~:text=After%20reviewing%20evidence%20from%20more,social%20development%20of%20those%20children (accessed on 10 November 2021) As shown by Figure 2.2 the different processes on which are based different models of education can be divided in four categories. First, exclusion, occurs when students are denied access to education. This may happen when students are not allowed to register or attend school, or conditions are placed on their attendance. In general, it can also occur when a student is excluded from education as a punishment for misbehaviour or other issues. Segregation, instead, occurs when diverse groups of students are educated in separate environments (either classes or schools). This can happen when students with a learning disability are forced to attend a school exclusively for students with disabilities, but also when schools instruct either females or males only (i.e., same-sex or single-sex education). More recently, integration and inclusion have often been compared and sometimes confused, whereas the two concepts present significant differences. Integration is achieved by placing students with diverse needs in mainstream education settings with some adaptations and resources, but on condition that they can fit into pre-existing structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment (UNESCO, 2017). Integration can consist in placing a student with a physical impairment or a learning disability, for example, in a regular class but without any individualised support and with a teacher who is unwilling or unable to meet the learning, social, or disability support needs of the child. Inclusion, instead, is a process that helps overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of all learners. It is about changing the system to fit the student, not changing the student to fit the system, because the ”problem” of exclusion is firmly within the system, not the person or their characteristics (UNICEF, 2014). According to international standards such as those set up by UNICEF (2014) and UNESCO (UNESCO, 2017; UNESCO, 2020), inclusive education is defined as a dynamic process that is constantly evolving according to the local culture and context, as it seeks to enable communities, systems and structures to combat discrimination, celebrate diversity, promote participation and overcome barriers to learning and participation for all people. All personal differences (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, Indigenous status, language, health status, etc.) are acknowledged and respected. The key message is that every learner matters and matters equally. There are still considerable challenges when it comes to the design and implementation of educational policy for inclusion, starting with the conceptualisation of inclusive education itself. At the OECD, inclusive education has traditionally been understood as an aspect of equity (the other being fairness) that implies a minimum standard of education for all and, more generally, that people are provided with the minimum skills to participate in society (OECD, 2004; Field, Kuczera and Pont, 2007; OECD, 2012). The project aims to go beyond the definition of inclusive education as a simple dimension of educational equity, though both concepts cannot be thought of separately. Rather, it considers inclusive education as a global orientation aimed to reform and improve the overall education system. The key difference between the two approaches is that while inclusion requires education systems to evaluate and re-imagine broad educational goals and standards, equity is narrowly confined to ensuring that there are no between-group differences in existing educational outcomes across social and demographic groups. Following these observations, at this stage, the project proposes to adopt the following broad definition of inclusive education: “An on-going process aimed at offering quality education for PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  13 all while respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learning expectations of the students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination” (UNESCO, 2009, p. 126). Rather than a particular policy or practice related to a specific group of students/individuals, this definition identifies what characterises an ethos of inclusion (Rutkowski, Rutkowski and Engel, 2014). It is believed that such an ethos requires a cultural change based on a shared commitment amongst staff at national, local and school levels (Ainscow, 2019), and identifies communities of learners, shifting the focus of attention from the individual to the communal (Lynn Boscardin and Jacobson, 1997). In this sense, and because it is based on quite subjective notions, while inclusive education can be a common orientation recognised internationally, its implementation requires a certain sensitivity to the different cultures. Inclusion and equity are overarching principles that should guide all educational policies, plans and practices, rather than being the focus of a separate policy (UNESCO, 2017). Inclusive education, while being closely linked to equity, aims to strengthen the capacity of school systems to reach out to all students (Ibid.) by responding to the diversity of their needs and ultimately guaranteeing self-worth and a sense of belonging. It means that education systems must be able to implement mechanisms that foster a proper environment for the well-being of these students, an environment that allows them to express their full potential. It should make them feel safe, achieve the best performance possible and, when applicable, feel in accordance with their own cultural values and representations while being enrolled in mainstream schools. It is the role of policy makers and educators to address these challenges together, guaranteeing the educational achievement of all while strengthening intercultural understanding and social justice. Key to this definition are the following:  A focus on the on-going nature of the learning process. As a result, the project aims to adopt a life-course perspective and approach, examining issues of coherence and coordination between different levels of schooling and education and interactions between formal and informal learning opportunities afforded to students.  A focus on the need to offer quality education for all while respecting diversity. The project conceptualises the objective of respecting diversity not as the narrow protection against discrimination or the middle ground development of compensatory policies, but as a broad ambition to ensure that the unique knowledge and talents of diverse learners are valued and included in frameworks used to benchmark education quality. The notion of self-worth is also crucial for understanding how individuals value themselves in the context of diversity. Self-worth is understood as the emotional component of self-esteem, and meant as the appraisal of one’s own personal value (Eromot and Levy, 2017).  A focus on students and communities. The project considers the social belonging of individuals to communities and the tensions and opportunities that embracing diversity in education entails. The development of inclusive education policies builds on anti-discrimination policies and the identification of compensatory mechanisms in education to create systems that are affordable, accessible, acceptable and adaptable to learners’ needs (Osler and Starkey, 2005). It considers how separation policies, aimed at creating homogeneity out of heterogeneous populations, result in the isolation of some populations given broader social and economic inequalities and power imbalances between different social groups. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 14  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Although the project aims to assess the inclusiveness of different education systems and policies and practices reflecting an ethos of inclusion, it also evaluates the extent to which education systems are equitable, defined in terms of offering equity of educational opportunities to diverse student populations. One important consideration of this project is to differentiate between inclusive education and educational equity. Drawing on the previous discussion, this project understands inclusion to mean achieving equity and ensuring self-worth and sense of belonging of individuals to communities. 2.4. Dimensions of diversity Diversity corresponds to people’s differences which may relate to their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, religion, mental and physical ability, class, and immigration status (UNESCO, 2017). More specifically, it refers to the fact of many people who perceive themselves or are perceived to be different and form a range of different groups cohabiting together. Diversity is multidimensional, might relate to physical aspects and/or immaterial ones such as cultural practices and makes sense according to the boundaries defined by groups of individuals. The first phase of the project examined how education policies could be adapted to better serve the needs of diverse learners, while focusing on a very specific dimension of diversity: migration-induced diversity. However, the new educational demands resulting from international migration can be mostly ascribed to the increased linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic heterogeneity that accompanies birthplace diversity. Additionally, new demands arise because many individuals who experienced migration journeys may also have special educational needs related to learning disabilities, physical impairments and/or mental disorders. The relative importance of these demands and how they play out in national education systems depends, crucially, on the composition of student populations more broadly defined, not just on the composition and needs of students with an immigrant background. The second phase of the project directly considers multiple dimensions of diversity and the interrelations between these dimensions. The dimensions of diversity covered are the following:  migration-induced diversity  ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples  gender  gender identity and sexual orientation  special education needs  giftedness. The dimensions of diversity in the above list encompass a wide range of groups of individuals. Many of these groups have historically faced exclusion from mainstream education because they were considered either incapable or unworthy of conforming to the educational standards identified by education institutions or because their heritage and community were excluded from the formal learning content covered in mainstream educational settings. The intensity and severity of exclusion from education differ greatly across groups and across countries for the same group. For some, exclusion was complete and resulted in lack of participation. For others, exclusion entailed lack of participation in the definition of educational goals and standards and/or barriers preventing full access to high-level educational qualifications. The push to create PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  15 homogeneous learning environments and a narrow focus on academic standards also led to unique challenges for gifted children with respect to social, emotional and physical well-being. The following sections provide definitions and illustrate some of the questions of the project. 2.4.1. Migration-induced diversity The first phase of the project developed a comprehensive set of reports (OECD, 2018; OECD, 2018; OECD, 2019) and working papers (Cerna et al., 2019; Guthrie et al., 2019; Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2017; 2018; Cerna, 2019; Forghani-Arani, Cerna and Bannon, 2019; Bilgili, 2017; 2019) examining migration-induced diversity and the effects it has on education systems. Following the framework developed in the first phase of the project, the second phase considers broad migration experiences individuals may have, whether direct (foreign-born individuals who migrated) or not (individuals who have at least a parent or guardian who migrated). The project continues to focus on international migration as a source of migration-induced diversity, irrespective of reasons for migration and the legal status of the individual migrant. However, the project will continue to consider and reflect on the educational implications of factors like legal status, migration experiences and age at migration. Individuals are considered to have an immigrant background or to have an immigrant-heritage if they or at least one of their parents was born in a country that is different from the country in which they access educational services. Attention is devoted to reflect the specific challenges for academic performance and broader well-being experienced by first-generation immigrant students, second-generation immigrant students, mixed-heritage students and returning foreign-born students (OECD, 2018). 2.4.2. Ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples National minority is a complex term, for which no international definition has been agreed. Therefore, it is up to countries to define the groups that constitute or not minorities within their boundaries. These minority groups can be categorised regarding individuals’ immigrant status and nationality of origins, but can also depend on their ethnic affiliation and Indigenous background. While individuals can perceive themselves or be perceived as forming an ethnic group, they are not necessarily officially considered as a national minority in the country they live in. Roma communities, for example, while being widely perceived as an ethnic group, are not always considered as a national minority (Rutigliano, 2020). Moreover, national minority is an administrative category, and should be thought about as such. While being useful in data collection and policy making, it often does not reflect the complex diversity between and within different ethnic groups. The word ethnicity derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning a nation. Ethnicity refers to a group or groups to which people belong, and/or are perceived to belong, as a result of historical dynamics as well as certain shared characteristics. With variations between different contexts, these characteristics can correspond to geographical location and ancestral origins, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, social norms, shared heritage and language. Because ethnicity has its basis in multiple social characteristics, it is not deterministically defined and someone can be a member of an ethnic group even if he or she differs from other group members on some dimensions. Ethnic affiliation ultimately might depend on the agency of an individual who chooses to be part of a specific ethnic group and, as such, places his or her identity in the context of a broader social group. This affiliation can be non-exclusionary and change over the life course, as individuals choose to adopt or reject such affiliation. Finally, PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 16  EDU/WKP(2021)17 ethnicity is fundamentally a criterion of differentiation that can be both source of recognition and valorisation, and of inequalities and discrimination. The concept of race is close to the notion of ethnicity and the boundaries between both are often blurry. However, race as a concept has been deconstructed since the second half of the 20th century, mostly through a worldwide UNESCO campaign in the 1950s, upheld by renowned anthropologists. It was shown that the concept of race, besides bearing a strong negative value in numerous countries, has little biological bases. Biological differences across individuals from different racial groups are, in fact, minuscule and racial differences across individuals would have no bearing on education policy if it were not for their overlap with ethnic differences and for structural discrimination faced by members of certain “visible”1 minority groups both in education settings and society more widely. It is important to acknowledge that some countries commonly use the notion of race in political and academic languages. However, its social origins rather than its biological bases are usually emphasised. Within the project, the diversity related to the aforementioned characteristics is referred to as ethnicity and ethnic diversity, and the terms race and racial diversity are not used. Indigenous peoples, according to the United Nations’ working definition, are those who inhabited a country prior to colonisation, and who self-identify as such due to descent from these peoples, and belonging to social, cultural or political institutions that govern them (United Nations, 2019). The experience of the colonisation process in some countries has had a double impact on Indigenous peoples and, in particular, on children. On the one hand, it has undermined Indigenous young people’s access to their identity, language and culture. On the other, Indigenous children have not generally had access to the same quality of education that other children in their country enjoyed. These two factors have generally undermined the opportunities and outcomes of various generations of Indigenous peoples and children; they still affect these populations today. Education systems may need interventions on their general design to recognise and respond to the needs and contexts of Indigenous students (OECD, 2017). Students from ethnic minority groups and Indigenous communities are different groups; hence, they need varying policy responses based on their specific needs. Nonetheless, they often face significant challenges when it comes to education. For example, an OECD report on the Slovak Republic showed that Roma individuals tend to be subject to lower educational attainment and higher dropout rates (OECD, 2019). The reasons for this phenomenon are complex and depend on the context, but usually include issues such as historically rooted discrimination, bullying, language barriers and misunderstood cultural variations. The project considers broad ethnic differences, for example, by examining how education systems serve Roma students or Indigenous students, as well as specific dimensions that contribute to and are part of ethnic affiliation, such as linguistic diversity and religious diversity. It looks into the implications these differences have for the organisation of schooling – including instruction, the organisation of school lunches and the account for cultural practices and festivities – as well as for setting the goals and standards of instruction. In parallel, attention is given to the way different countries produce categories and collect (or not) data related to ethnic groups and national minorities, which may significantly differ from one context to another (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018). The different approaches affect the design and implementation of educational policies and projects directed to the inclusion of these 1 “Visible minority” is an administrative category used in Canada that refers to “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour” as defined in the Employment Equity Act. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  17 groups of students. The project considers: (1) the outcomes of these groups, (2) the extent to which discriminatory attitudes limit the opportunities different groups of students have to achieve high levels of academic, social, psychological, physical and material well-being, and (3) the extent to which fostering the inclusion of ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples can benefit the whole student population. 2.4.3. Gender According to its traditional definition, gender might refer to the fact of being male or female. Historically, and in many countries across the world, gender gaps have favoured males. However, over the past century, many countries have made significant progress in narrowing and even closing, long-standing gender gaps in educational attainment, and today males on average have lower attainment and achievement than females in many OECD countries (Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018). There is increasing recognition that gender gaps vary by age, level of education and academic domain and that new gender gaps may be emerging as a result of digital and information and communication technologies (digital technologies) both in new domains such as digital literacy and computational thinking as well as in attitudes and dispositions such as perseverance and self-regulation. Furthermore, the closing of the gender gap in overall attainment and achievement has not been accompanied by a closing of the gender gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) educational choices. Recent research points to new trends in gender gaps in education, particularly in favour of females, as confirmed by the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results (OECD, 2019). For instance, research suggests that standardisation of curricula tends to be associated with lower overall achievement in standardised tests but also with wider gender gaps in favour of females who perform better than males, mainly in reading performance. However, the extent of gender gaps varies across the life cycle (Borgonovi, Choi and Paccagnella, 2018). Moreover, education systems characterised by late selection (for instance, making a choice between a vocational, professional or academic track) tend to have higher mean levels of performance and wider gender gaps in achievement in favour of females who seem to benefit the most from late selection (currently occurring around the age of 15 in most countries) (van Hek, Buchmann and Kraaykamp, 2019). 2.4.4. Gender identity and sexual orientation “Sexual and gender minorities” refers to LGBTQI+ people, that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer and intersexual individuals. The “+” is often added to the LGBTQI acronym to include people who do not self-identify as heterosexual and/or cisgender but who would not apply the LGBTQI label to themselves either. These people include questioning individuals, pansexual individuals, or asexual individuals (OECD, 2020). While the notion of gender has shifted towards a more inclusive definition, away from a binary and heteronormative understanding, policy makers and educators are facing new challenges regarding inclusion in schools. Gender is increasingly acknowledged as a spectrum, and gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being masculine, feminine, or androgynous. Sexual orientation corresponds to the sexual and emotional attraction for the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. Studies show that LGBTQI+ people tend to suffer from significant social exclusion. In most OECD countries, they are still stigmatised and exposed to various forms of discrimination, starting with education, although some LGBTQI+ individuals manage to make it to top levels of achievement and employment (OECD, 2019). While there is little research on the difference PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 18  EDU/WKP(2021)17 of educational achievement between LGBTQI+ students and the rest of the population, various studies have shown that these students are greatly exposed to bullying and tend to feel unsafe in the classroom (UNESCO, 2016). This phenomenon also affects heterosexual individuals who are perceived as non-conforming to gender norms (Ibid.). It highlights both a significant lack of inclusion of these people and a persisting rigidity of mainstream gender representations. There is growing evidence that more inclusive measures at school level (e.g., a curriculum that contains references to gender fluidity), coupled with broad anti-discrimination laws and policies are key in fostering tolerance and the long-run socio-economic inclusion of LGBTQI+ people (OECD, 2020). The project aims to analyse and evaluate some of the policies and other initiatives related to the inclusion of these individuals, and their potential effects on the whole school population. 2.4.5. Special education needs Special Education Needs (SEN) is a term used in many education systems to characterise the broad array of needs of students affected by learning disabilities, physical impairments and/or who suffer from mental disorders. The challenges for schools in providing high-quality education to students with SEN relate to the identification of their needs and the organisation and adequate resourcing of responses. These interventions should aim at ensuring that these students develop academically, socially, psychologically and physically and that their long-term material well-being is enhanced by the skills and knowledge they acquire in education (Brussino, 2020; Mezzanotte, 2020). Learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental disorders differ depending on the severity of symptoms, the frequency of the symptoms and the extent to which they limit students’ involvement in different learning and social activities that take place at school. For example, while all students with dyscalculia will suffer from a chronic condition, the severity of the symptoms vary in the population also depending on how early diagnosis and specialised support is arranged. Furthermore, students suffering from dyscalculia will be limited by their condition in classes involving maths, but not during classes on poetry or literature and will not generally suffer social penalties although they may develop low levels of psychological well-being because of their condition. Often, special education needs occur in co-morbidity, which indicates the co-existence of at least two disorders in an individual. In particular, learning disabilities are often comorbid to mental illnesses and specifically to developmental disorders. For example, between 50% and 90% of children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have at least one comorbid condition, and approximately 50% of all children with ADHD have at least two (Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance (CADDRA), 2018). However, it is also worth noting that physical impairments do not always cause special education needs, so many of these students will not require additional support. The project focuses on the following conditions: Learning Disabilities. Learning disabilities are disorders that affect the ability to understand or use spoken or written language, do mathematical calculations, coordinate movements, or direct attention. They are neurological in nature and have a genetic component. The severity of symptoms varies greatly across individuals because condition specific intensity differs in relation to co-morbidity. Learning disabilities are independent of intelligence: individuals with average or high performance in intelligence tests (such as IQ tests) can suffer from one or multiple learning disabilities and, as a result, struggle to keep up with peers in school without support. Learning disabilities can reduce not only students’ academic well-being but also their social and psychological well-being. The most common learning disabilities are: PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  19  dyslexia  dyscalculia  dysgraphia  auditory Processing Disorder (APD). Physical Impairments. Physical impairments affect the ability of individuals to access physical spaces due to reduced mobility or to access information that is delivered in specific ways: visual delivery for visual impairments and voice/sounds for hearing impairments. In the case of hearing impairments, the production of information via sounds can also be compromised. The severity of symptoms can vary and technological/physical aids can ensure that individuals with such impairments are able to access learning in standard school settings. Physical impairments can either have hereditary components or be the result of specific diseases or traumatic events that produce long-lasting physical consequences. Without support, many students with physical impairments are at a risk of suffering not only from low levels of academic well-being but also social, psychological and physical well-being. Depending on the specific form of impairment, individuals may need to acquire specific sets of skills that will enable them to access, retrieve and process information. Examples include Sign Language(s) and the Braille system. Other impairments may require assistive technology, such as voice recognition software. The most common physical impairments are:  mobility impairments  visual impairments  hearing impairments. Mental health. In recent years, students’ mental health and its interaction with educational systems and services have received increasing attention. Poor mental health can be a consequence of lack of support for students experiencing disabilities and impairments as well as a distinct medical condition hampering students’ academic progress and broader well-being. Because of the stigma associated with mental health conditions and the fact that mental health conditions affect the sense of agency that individuals have to seek for support, many students in school suffer from mental health conditions that are long-standing and severely limiting. The experiences that children have in school can also be partially responsible for the onset of specific mental health conditions, for example due to the experiencing of bullying, social isolation and stress. The most common mental health conditions affecting children in school include:  developmental disorders, such as Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder and Tourette’s Syndrome  depressive Disorders  anxiety Disorders  disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorder (Oppositional defiant disorder - ODD, Conduct Disorder). Countries differ markedly in how they identify, organise and resource educational responses for students with learning disabilities, physical impairments and/or who are affected by mental disorders, but also in the technological and physical changes that schools can put in place to support them (Brussino, 2020; Mezzanotte, 2020). 2.4.6. Giftedness Gifted students are students who have been classified as having significantly higher than expected intellectual abilities given their age, with intellectual abilities being assessed through PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 20  EDU/WKP(2021)17 psychometric tests of cognitive functioning and/or performance in classroom evaluations. The specific methods (tests, portfolios, observations) used to identify giftedness vary greatly across countries and within countries and so do the specific cut-offs used to evaluate giftedness when using the same method or test (identifying the 95th percentile, the 98th percentile or 99th percentile) and the reference group used (national population of the same age group, etc.). Students can also be considered to be gifted in specific domains that are not strictly academic in nature, such as music or sports. Despite high levels of cognitive functioning, gifted children may underachieve in school because of boredom and resulting bad disciplinary behaviour. They can also struggle with social relations and have low levels of emotional and psychological well-being because their high cognitive functioning can lead them to be bullied or isolated. Moreover, some gifted students can face difficulties in social encounters because their high functioning in cognitive domains may lead them to feel lost in situations that they cannot comprehend and classify, such as social situations. Definitions of giftedness do not generally consider students’ socio-economic status and the ability of a student’s classmates. However, many of the negative outcomes (e.g., progression that falls short of potential, low social and psychological well-being) experienced by gifted students can also be experienced by high-achieving students who do not qualify for giftedness according to strict normative criteria. In particular, these negative outcomes are often experienced by high-achieving students with high levels of academic functioning attending highly socio-economically deprived schools in disadvantaged areas with low levels of overall performance among the student body and low expectations among teaching professionals. 2.4.7. Other dimensions of diversity Other dimensions of diversity could also be explored in the scope of the project, depending on countries’ interest and priorities. Some possible topics are the following: Religious minorities The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that religious minorities are among the minorities at risk of being left behind across the world. In the case of immigrants, for instance, evidence shows that to the extent that immigrants and natives belong to different religious denominations and have different cultural traditions, school choice based on such considerations can lead to a lack of integration in schools (OECD, 2018). In countries where parents tend to give a significant importance to the school’s religious philosophy, fragmentation of the school population is more likely to happen (Ibid.). The increase of diversity in OECD countries often implies a greater diversity in terms of religious affiliation, and tensions as well as discriminatory practices can arise that prevent some religious minorities from seeing their right to education fully realised. Inclusive education practices might provide an interesting way to tackle these issues and ensure that schools adapt to these students’ needs while fostering tolerance among the whole school population. Age and aging Countries across the OECD are in the midst of a rapid demographic transformation, with a general increase in populations’ average age, along with an increase in the proportion of elderly citizens. In fact, rising life expectancy coupled with declining birth rates in most OECD countries has had a significant impact on the profile of the populations (OECD, 2019). PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  21 This new demographic panorama is creating various complex challenges for education systems, which concern the student populations, the teaching force and the long-term impact of education per se. In fact, as the population of children generally decreases in OECD countries, the range of skills that the students need to learn actually increases. On the one hand, the digitalisation of societies and labour markets require schooling systems to provide a wide array of skills and tools to the students, so that they can adapt in this ever changing scenario (OECD, 2019). On the other hand, education cannot target exclusively children and young people anymore: the demographic transition that most OECD countries are undergoing requires them to adopt a lifelong learning approach to education. This also implies a reconsideration of traditional models of education and encourages approaches to teaching and learning that are more fluid, adaptive and innovative. In particular, lifelong learning should play a stronger role in strengthening human capital and individuals’ skills and abilities. Access and participation in formal and informal education throughout the lifespan could keep populations healthier, more physically and cognitively active, and more connected to society (OECD, 2013). 2.5. The role of socio-economic condition and geographical location The public provision of education depends on the consideration of educational participation and the acquisition of a key set of knowledge and skills as a right and a duty. As such, publicly funded education systems and compulsory schooling legislation are designed with the purpose of limiting the influence of a child’s family origins on the acquisition of standards. However, large variations in the educational outcomes of children from families of different socio-economic circumstances are observed in most countries, and education is both the result and the determinant of socio-economic stratification. The project examines in detail the extent to which socio-economic conditions determine the outcomes and opportunities different groups of students have and the extent to which legislative and organisational features in different education systems are more or less supportive of students’ learning. In particular, it analyses how socio-economic status is a lens through which other forms of diversity can be “distorted” and uses this lens to evaluate the degree of inclusivity of specific education systems. A second dimension that determines the parameters through which equity and inclusion operate is the geographical dispersion of different social and demographic groups and of schools. If different social and demographic groups are located in specific areas of a country or of a city, creating classrooms that reflect the broad heterogeneity of the overall population and curricula that build upon such diversity can be challenging. Similarly, the location of school, particularly lower and upper secondary schools, which tend to be fewer, bigger and more specialised than primary schools, can have an important bearing on how inclusive an education system can be. 2.6. Intersectionality There are many possible intersections between dimensions of diversity, but also with overarching factors such as socio-economic status and geographical location. The term intersectionality is based on Crenshaw’s (1989) work on gender and ethnicity and has been widely used in other areas in recent years (Davis, 2008; Lutz, Herrera Vivar and Supik, 2011). Identities overlap and intersect and form new, more specific identities with new implications. In the area of diversity and inclusion, the project understands intersectionality to PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 22  EDU/WKP(2021)17 mean that a person can embody multiple dimensions of diversity and as such, be exposed to the different types of discrimination and disadvantages that occur as a consequence of the combination of identities (Lavizzari, 2015). It explores how the six dimensions intersect with one another and with the overarching factors of socio-economic status and geographic location (e.g., if student attends school in an urban or rural area) (Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3. Intersectionality between dimensions of diversity and overarching factors Socio-economic status Geographic location Note: The image synthetises the intersections that can occur in terms of personal characteristics of individuals that are specifically analysed by the Strength through Diversity project as dimensions of diversity, without prejudice to others that can be impactful on people’s life experiences such as religion, age, etc. Socio-economic status and geographic locations are considered “overarching dimensions” that intersect with each other and have a general impact on all other characteristics. Individuals are complex creatures with as many colours as the rainbow. While different aspects of identity are more salient in different circumstances because of internal or external factors, what shapes overall well-being is the complex interplay of different aspects. Some examples of intersectionality include:  First-generation immigrant and socio-economically disadvantaged girls coming from countries with strong patriarchal communities.  Boys whose mother tongue differs from the language of instruction who struggle with language acquisition.  Recruitment and retention challenges to attract, retain and support male teachers from ethnic minority groups.  Support to guarantee the educational opportunities of a visually impaired boy in a class with a high percentage of immigrant-heritage students. The project considers the intersectionality of dimensions of diversity and how it affects policy-making. An intersectionality perspective encourages a different way of looking at all aspects of policy: how problems are defined, how solutions are developed and implemented, PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  23 and how policy is ultimately evaluated (Hankivsky, 2005). It explores what policies, programmes and approaches can best support the needs of learners with different intersecting identities. 2.7. Multilevel approaches to diversity in education The dimensions of diversity (see Section 2.4) describe the variety of characteristics an individual student might bring into a classroom. However, the design and implementation of inclusion policies involve factors that go beyond the individual student level. These include: 1. Students: see Section 2.4 for dimensions of diversity at the student level. 2. Teachers and support staff: diversity within the teaching workforce, the number and quality of teachers, teachers’ professional development and awareness of personal bias, diversity-related knowledge in teacher education (and similar aspects for support staff). 3. School leaders: diversity among school leaders, quality of school leaders and their commitment to building inclusive learning environments; preparation for diversity. 4. Schools: characteristics of school facilities and school climate, socio-economic diversity, availability of resources, family and community engagement, learning environment. 5. System and sub-system: distribution of responsibilities and resources, curriculum, characteristics of education system (degree of school choice), learning settings, incentive structures for teachers and school leaders, roles of stakeholder groups. 6. Society: economic conditions (e.g., income inequality), labour market trends, demography and cultural diversity (migration, minority groups, etc.), political environment, role of media and perceptions of diversity in society, social policies. The interaction among school agents and the articulation across levels of diversity are taken into account in multilevel approaches to diversity in education. Furthermore, the impact that concentrations of diversity can have are a further element that must be considered. As a matter of fact, there is not only the individual effect of diversity through a single student, but also a “concentration effect” when a certain dimension of diversity is highly concentrated in a single school (Cerna et al., 2019). Equity and inclusion cannot be studied in isolation. Societal, school system and school-level factors all influence the design and implementation of education policies aimed at promoting the academic outcomes and broad well-being of diverse populations, setting standards, creating curricula, organising instruction, developing evaluation and assessment tools and providing adequate resourcing policies. These factors influence the design of education policies to support diverse populations in terms of the needs for new policy initiatives, the factors that constrain policy opportunities and the factors that influence policy implementation, impact and cost. Without an adequate understanding of the range of factors involved, and the ways they influence the impact of equity-related and inclusive policy initiatives, there is a risk of developing ineffective policy responses. It is important to understand the interactions between factors at these three levels and education policies aimed at promoting equity and inclusion. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 24  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Considering other policy areas beyond education such as social, health, employment and migration policies is also key. 2.8. Outcomes Outcomes consider individuals, systems and the wider society. They include both immediate (education-related) and later (non-education-related) outcomes (as shown in Figure 2.4). Figure 2.4. Outcomes for the project 2.8.1. Question 1: How and to what extent is the education system equitable and inclusive? Individual well-being The project adopts a similar approach to the one considered in the first phase of the Strength through Diversity Project by examining how inclusive education policies can promote the broad well-being of individuals. The different dimensions of well-being (as outlined below) are considered and policies and practices will be evaluated based on their capacity to promote and sustain overall well-being. Although these dimensions are key ingredients of the concurrent well-being of individuals and contribute to their personal development in the short, medium and long-term, a first aim of the project is to consider the hierarchical ordering/organisation of these dimensions. Does inclusive education require a re-thinking of current hierarchical ordering of educational objectives? Would such re-ordering result in differences in how schooling is organised? For example, at the moment, schooling in many countries is organised with the objective of PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  25 maximising students’ academic well-being, even if this comes at the expense of emotional and social well-being (in the form of high levels of anxiety and isolation). Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in students’ well-being and in comparing education systems, not only in terms of how well students fare academically, but also in how well they promote students’ overall development and quality of life. Research shows that high levels of well-being among students are associated with positive and fulfilling life-experiences, while low levels of well-being are associated with the opposite (Pollard and Lee, 2003). Children in school spend a considerable amount of time in their classrooms, socialising with classmates and interacting with teachers and other staff members. What happens in school is therefore key to understanding if students enjoy good physical and mental health, how happy and satisfied they are with different aspects of their life, how connected they feel to others and the aspirations and expectations they have for their future (Adamson, 2013; Bradshaw, Hoelscher and Richardson, 2006; Currie et al., 2012; OECD, 2009; Rees and Main, 2015). Overall, students who enjoy high levels of well-being are generally less involved in risky behaviours (Currie et al., 2012) and perform better at school (Gutman and Vorhaus, 2012). OECD’s work on child well-being (OECD, 2015) identifies two distinct approaches to its conceptualisation and measurement:  The developmental approach underscores the importance of building human capital and social skills for the future (Bronfenbrenner, 1979); valuing children’s well-being today influences adults’ well-being tomorrow.  The children’s rights approach recognises children not exclusively as future adults, but rather as human beings with their own rights and dignity. In this sense, the approach focuses on their well-being “here- and-now” and relies on their direct input regarding what aspects are important to them and how they might be measured (Casas, 1997; Ben-Arieh, 2010). The project defines well-being as “a dynamic state characterised by students experiencing the ability and opportunity to fulfil their personal and social goals. It encompasses multiple dimensions of students’ lives, including cognitive, psychological, physical, social and material. It can be measured through subjective and objective indicators of competencies, perceptions, expectations and life conditions” (Borgonovi and Pál, 2016). This definition puts an emphasis on the multidimensionality of students’ well-being, which encompasses both students’ states and outcomes, as well developmental processes that may act as risk or protective factors shaping well-being in later life. According to this definition, well-being dimensions cover:  Academic well-being: The academic dimension of students’ well-being refers to the skills and foundations students have to participate effectively in today's society, as lifelong learners, effective workers and engaged citizens. It comprises students’ proficiency in academic subjects, their ability to collaborate with others to solve problems and their sense of mastery in school subjects. It incorporates actions and behaviours that may promote the acquisition of knowledge, skills or information that may aid them when they are faced with new, complex ideas and problems (Pollard and Lee, 2003). PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 26  EDU/WKP(2021)17  Psychological well-being: The psychological dimension of students’ well-being includes students’ evaluations and views about life, their engagement with school, the extent to which they have a sense of agency, identity and empowerment, and their opportunities to develop goals and ambitions for their future (Borgonovi and Pál, 2016).  Physical well-being: The physical dimension of students’ well-being refers to students’ health status, safety and security, having the opportunity to engage with others and not to be limited by physical barriers in access and mobility. It also encompasses the ability to exercise and adopt healthy eating habits (Statham and Chase, 2010).  Social well-being: The social dimension of students’ well-being refers to the quality of their social lives (Rath and Harter, 2010) including their relationship with their family, their peers and their teachers (positive or negative), and how they perceive their social life in school and beyond (Pollard and Lee, 2003).  Material well-being: Material resources make it possible for families to better provide for their children’s needs and for schools to support students’ learning and healthy development. Households who live in poverty find it difficult to ensure that their children have access to the educational and cultural resources they need to thrive in school and to realise their potential (Borgonovi and Pál, 2016). Well-being has therefore an important “subjective dimension in the sense of satisfaction associated with fulfilling one’s potential” (Fraillon, 2004) and a collective one in fostering safe and healthy environments, as well as informed and active individuals. The project focuses on the role of inclusive education in strengthening these elements. Equity and inclusion within education systems Beyond individual-level outcomes, equity and inclusion at the system level are important outcomes that have to be promoted and measured:  Equity outcomes at system level: In many education plans, equity outcomes are measured through various indicators ranging from access and participation to learning outcomes. Some guidelines propose how to assess equity outcomes at the system level, advising to measure concepts such as meritocracy, impartiality and redistribution in relation to education systems (UNESCO, 2018), as well as the distribution and quality of educational resources, teaching practices and student performances (OECD, 2013). Data suggest that equity is crucial for the overall outcomes of an education system.  Inclusion outcomes at system level: Equity alone can have a limited impact on dropouts and educational attainment. These issues are further tackled through inclusive education, i.e., one that fosters students’ self-worth and sense of belonging. In fact, understood as a holistic approach, inclusion might help address educational challenges rooted in the broader social context. Being inclusive is a more recent educational focus of many countries and there is a lack of comprehensive data on inclusion in education. The project looks at inclusion outcomes both in terms of process (e.g., designing of policies) and the results (e.g., evaluation of policies said to be inclusive). PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  27 2.8.2. Question 2: How do all individuals engage with others in increasingly diverse and complex societies? The project strives to analyse the extent to which inclusive education affects the way each one of us engages with others in increasingly diverse and complex societies. In order to do so, it is necessary to look at outcomes at the individual level, both labour and non-labour market related, and at outcomes at the societal level. Whether diversity in itself can foster positive outcomes has been a core question in social sciences. There is growing evidence that inclusion measures aimed at including individuals with diverse backgrounds tend to positively affect individuals and societies. Individual outcomes Labour market outcomes (e.g., employment rate, unemployment rate, NEET2 rates, access to a paid job): Inequitable education policies and practices have a negative impact on individuals’ opportunities in the labour market and hinder economic and social development (OECD, 2012). Data show that educational attainment positively affects labour market outcomes for individuals. Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to find employment, remain employed, learn new skills on the job, and earn more over their working life relative to those with lower levels of education (OECD, 2010; 2019). An education that is inclusive for all students tends to reduce the level of school dropouts and enhances students’ attainment leading to more people completing higher levels of education (The Traveller Movement, 2019; Fresno et al., 2019), which ensures better opportunities and participation for individuals and better labour market outcomes. Non-labour market outcomes (e.g., health, global competence, life satisfaction): Also, health outcomes are generally better among people with higher educational attainment. In fact, considerable international evidence shows that education is strongly correlated to health and to determinants of health such as health behaviours, risky contexts and preventative health care use (Feinstein, Sabates and Anderson, 2006) (OECD, 2010). Moreover, recent research shows that the inclusion of certain groups of students, such as students with learning disabilities, tends to improve their social skills, mainly in terms of social interaction with their peers (King and Ryan, 2019), in turn increasing individuals’ skills and life satisfaction. Cohesion and inclusion in society Social outcomes (e.g., trust, volunteering, political efficacy, crime): The OECD Framework for Inclusive Growth notes that governments are facing an increasing distrust of citizens towards public institutions coupled with falling civic engagement and political efficacy. Inclusive policies in all sectors, including education, are today unavoidable and necessary (Secretary-General of the OECD, 2018). Besides the fact that equitable and inclusive education can improve individual outcomes and help fulfil individuals’ human rights to develop their capacities and to participate fully in society, it has important implications for a society as a whole. In fact, education generally translates into greater levels of civic participation such as voting and volunteering, all of which help to build safer neighbourhoods and social cohesion (OECD, 2010). Ensuring equity and the inclusion of diversity in education involves guaranteeing every person the possibility to feel a sense of belonging and self-worth, and to participate fully in society. 2 NEET is an acronym that stands for "Not in Education, Employment, or Training". PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified 28  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Moreover, the economic benefits are not limited to individuals. Investing in education provides governments positive public returns at every level of education. Educated citizens earn more, pay higher taxes over a lifetime, and cost less for their governments in terms of social entitlements and welfare (OECD, 2019). Education seems, therefore, to have a strong positive effect on a great array of social issues faced by every society. For instance, researchers find a negative correlation between education and the level of crime – the latter decreases significantly when completion in education and educational attainment increase (Hjalmarsson and Lochner, 2012). Diversity-related societal outcomes (e.g., representation in workplace and political representation): while social mobility is influenced by a range of factors, such as individuals’ family and social environment, education that provides equal opportunities for all can help individuals move up the social ladder, and thus help to create more equitable societies (OECD, 2012; OECD, 2018). For example, to enhance the representation as well as inclusion of diversity in schools might lead to a better representation and inclusion of diversity in the labour market. A review of studies on this topic shows that, even though there are debates in the current literature, diversity in the work place tends to correlate positively with the team performance, at least in the context of advanced economies and industrial sectors (Valfort, 2017). However, discrimination is a widespread issue across OECD countries and is costly both to individuals and for an economy as a whole (OECD, 2008).This phenomenon starts with education, and an inclusive lens might bring positive long-run effects.. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  EDU/WKP(2021)17  29 3. Key issues for analysis The overarching policy questions of the project are as follows:  How can education systems support equitable learning and well-being outcomes of diverse populations and make systems more inclusive?  How can education systems support all individuals so that they are able to engage with others in increasingly diverse and complex societies? The analysis is organised according to five key issues. To ensure inclusive and equitable approaches in education systems, reflecting on the following elements is key:  That an overall, systemic framework for governing diversity, inclusion and equity in education is designed (Issue 1: Governance).  That resources are used effectively to support diversity, inclusion and equity in education (Issue 2: Resourcing).  That the system is able to build capacity for all stakeholders to support diversity, inclusion and equity in education (Issue 3: Capacity Development).  That schools provide effective interventions to support diversity, inclusion and equity in education (Issue 4: School-level Interventions).  That processes and outcomes are monitored and evaluated to support diversity, inclusion and equity in education (Issue 5: Monitoring and Evaluation). The five main issues are organised in policy areas and described below. They are also listed in Table 3.1. PROMOTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR DIVERSE SOCIETIES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unclassified  30  EDU/WKP(2021)17 Table 3.1. Policy areas to analyse inclusion, equity and diversity in education systems 3. Developing capacity 4. Promoting school-level 5. Monitoring and 1. Governing diversity, 2. Resourcing diversity, for managing diversity, interventions to support evaluating diversity, inclusion and equity in inclusion and equity in inclusion and equity in diversity, inclusion and inclusion and equity in education education