Inclusive education – between policy and practice

Inclusive education – between policy and practice

by | NERA, NW 4 Inclusive Education

Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, (NTNU) presented their INCLUSCHOOLproject, funded by the Research Council of Norway, at ECER 2025. The project’s main objective is to gain new knowledge about inclusion and inclusive practices in schools.

Inclusive education is high on the global agenda and is described by UNESCO (2003) as an ongoing process grounded in the conviction that it is the responsibility of the mainstream school system to educate all children. The UN Sustainable Development Goal on Quality Education (goal no. 4) emphasizes that “Access to inclusive, high-quality education is one of the most important conditions for welfare, health and equality in all societies”.

Although research on inclusive education has intensified in recent decades, the concept continues to be interpreted and implemented in diverse ways (Keles et al., 2024). What inclusive practice actually entails remains unclear(Nilholm, 2021). Accordingly, understanding how inclusion is experienced by those directly affected, particularly students, can offer critical insights into why such gaps persist and how they might be addressed (Chapman and Ainscow, 2021; Messiou, 2024😉

The scope and aims of the INCLUSCHOOL project

By exploring inclusive practices from the bottom up in a super diverse primary school, the INCLUSCHOOL project seeks to contribute new student- and context-sensitive knowledge to the field. The project adopts a user-centered, collaborative approach, in which the students themselves, teachers and other professionals play a key role in shaping both the project design and the research process, step by step. By following their initiative, we explore how they experience, perceive, and practice inclusion in everyday school life.

Through three sub-studies, the project will gather knowledge about:

Students' perspectives on inclusion and their participation in the school's inclusion work. Inclusion as an interactional practice in linguistically and culturally complex school environments. Students' participation in interprofessional collaboration, and the process that may potentially lead to a legal entitlement to special education provision and professionals’ perspectives on this.

A scoping review on students’ perspectives on inclusion

At this year’s ECER conference, participants learned more about a scoping review carried out as part of the first subproject, which aimed to map existing research on students’ voices on inclusive education.

The scoping review is intended to provide valuable insights into research on inclusive education through the voices of students, contributing to the field globally. It also aims to inspire further research into which students themselves are placed at the center.

Likewise, the study offers meaningful contributions to the INCLUSCHOOL project by raising researchers’ awareness of both the opportunities and the potential challenges involved in student-centered research. In particular, the review of 51 research articles focuses on the samples, research methodologies, and themes explored. The majority of the articles involved diverse student populations in their sample. A wide variety of research methodologies have been used in the articles, with qualitative interviews as the most common one.

The students are able to share their perspectives on many different topics, and the research articles include open-ended questions about students’ school life experiences, their socio-emotional experiences at school, and academic experiences and learning environments. Additionally, some articles included questions about students’ need for resources, access, and adjustments, their self- and other perceptions in diverse learning environments, and their life experiences and prospects of the future.

Presenting our findings from the review

Our takeaways include that student voices on inclusive education are multidimensional and complex. For example, students’ experiences of inclusion do not concern solely social-emotional or academic aspects. When schools remain arenas where the majority of students’ time is occupied by learning, their social inclusion depends on whether they are granted equitable access to shared learning activities in the classroom.

If we interpret the collective ambition of these studies as an effort to understand students inclusion experiences as multidimensional and complex, and to explore what they need to experience inclusion in school, we suggest a holistic approach. This perspective highlights the importance of contextual, processual, and interactional sensitivity in the field of inclusive education. Such an approach may offer new and valuable contributions to the field of inclusive education.

Key Messages

  • The INCLUSCHOOL project in Norway explores inclusion as an ongoing process focused on students’ presence, participation, and achievement.

  • Despite international commitments, progress towards inclusive education remains slow, with certain student groups at risk of exclusion.

  • The project adopts a user-centred, collaborative approach in a super-diverse primary school setting.

  • Preliminary findings from a scoping review highlight the complexity and multidimensional nature of students’ perceptions of inclusion.
Professor Marit Uthus

Professor Marit Uthus

Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Marit Uthus, professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests fall within the field of special education and educational psychology. Marit is currently leading the INCLUSCHOOL project, which is funded by the Research Council of Norway.

https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/marit.uthus

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1263-1486

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marit-Uthus

Fenna Verkerk

Fenna Verkerk

Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Fenna Verkerk is a PhD candidate at the Department of Teacher Education at NTNU. She is affiliated with the INCLUschool project and her research is about pupils’ voices on inclusion at school. 

https://www.ntnu.edu/employees/fenna.verkerk 

Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

Associate Professor Hanne Kristin Aas

Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Hanne Kristin Aas, associate professor, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning , Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Hanne does research in Educational Theory, Special Education and Teacher Education.

https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/hanne.k.aas

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-0966

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanne-Aas

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Add your list of references here. Use [1], [2], [3]… to mark where they are used in the text above.
What’s missing in ITE? Preparing teachers to address poverty in mathematics education

What’s missing in ITE? Preparing teachers to address poverty in mathematics education

by | NW 10 Teacher Education Research

In Scotland, as in many parts of the world, child poverty presents a significant barrier to educational attainment and well-being. The impact of poverty on academic achievement, including lower attainment in mathematics, is well-documented and framed as the poverty-related attainment gap within education policies in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2023).

This blog post argues that child poverty should be explicitly addressed within ITE programmes, particularly in mathematics education, to help student teachers make clearer connections between issues of social justice and the teaching of mathematics, rather than addressing poverty under the broad terms of inclusion or the poverty-related attainment gap.

Why poverty matters in mathematics education

Mathematics has long been seen as a “gatekeeper” subject. Doing well in mathematics often decides who can progress to higher education and to better job opportunities, and who gets left behind (Douglas & Attewell, 2017; Durrani & Tariq, 2012; Martin et al., 2010). Yet mathematics is too often treated as if it were neutral, separated from inequality. In reality, however, children growing up in poverty are more likely to face lower expectations, be placed in low-ability groups, and receive simplified tasks that limit their chances to succeed (Hoadley, 2007; Jorgensen et al., 2014; Oakes, 1990; Schoenfeld, 2002).

These practices reinforce the idea that only some students are “naturally good” at mathematics, while others are left with fewer opportunities. Because of its central role in shaping opportunities in life, mathematics education is a crucial context to tackle questions of social justice.

This blog post is based on my PhD research, which revealed that student teachers often compartmentalise the idea of social justice and teaching mathematics, treating them as separate concerns. This disconnection presents a significant challenge to preparing student teachers for equitable practice.

The key question is: what within ITE can potentially help to make this connection clearer.

What has been done in an ITE context in Scotland?

The ways we do work should involve providing options and developing flexibility and valuing diversity applying any context. Having said that, I do think the design that we use with the student teachers is a crucial part of improving outcomes for people who live in poverty. It is just we don’t label it that way. We do not say, this is how we are going to tackle poverty, we will do this. Because actually all children can benefit from it.

This reflection comes from an ITE tutor in the research context. As this and other reflections illustrate, in ITE settings child poverty is generally addressed under the broader umbrella of inclusion and rarely directly addresses mathematics teacher education. While this approach indeed reflects a degree of awareness amongst student teachers, it may fail to engage with the lived realities of children growing up in poverty.

What’s missing in ITE?

Valuing diversity in education may require not only offering flexible teaching but also paying closer attention to what that diversity in a classroom actually entails. Poverty, for instance, can shape children’s mathematical learning through the resources and early experiences (Ellis & Sosu, 2015; Greaves et al., 2014; James-Brabham et al., 2023; Marks et al., 2006) they have access to, as well as the confidence they bring into the classroom. At the same time, children living in poverty often demonstrate resilience, benefit from targeted interventions, and thrive with parental and school support (DePascale et al., 2024; Sheehan & Hadfield, 2024). If these aspects remain unspoken, teachers may find it harder to create socially just practices that respond to culture, recognise strengths, and address limitations.

Nancy Fraser’s (1999) multidimensional conception of social justice (encompassing redistribution, recognition, and representation) offers a useful framework for understanding and addressing issues related to injustices in education. Fraser argues that neither redistribution, understood as the fair allocation of resources and opportunities, nor recognition, understood as the acknowledging and embracing of diverse identities of the learners, is sufficient on its own to address injustice.

Representation, understood as ensuring that all learners have a genuine voice and the ability to participate in the classroom, is equally essential. Ultimately, achieving social justice requires the integration of all three dimensions: redistribution, recognition, and representation.

The idea that all children benefit from inclusive pedagogies aligns with the redistribution principle – according to the tutor cited above, the key mission of ITE programmes is to teach student teachers to provide all children with opportunities to succeed. To do this, they need flexibility in their mathematics teaching practice, and a general idea of valuing diversity. However, this does not always recognise how non-school knowledge (for example, budgeting with limited resources, navigating public transports or household tasks) could be meaningfully connected to classroom mathematics.

Equally, redistribution was under-addressed in this context, discussions of equitable access rarely touched on the material and structural factors that affect how children learn mathematics, such as availability of mathematical manipulatives, after-school programmes, or adequate funding at schools in high-poverty areas.

Social justice requires more than providing fair opportunities for the learners; it involves understanding and embracing differences and empowering students to be active participants of the learning environment while considering carefully what they might need to achieve this. However, this was largely absent within the research context, with children’s participation framed as teacher-directed rather than as opportunities for learner agency in shaping mathematical learning. Without stronger attention to these dimensions, student teachers may leave ITE with a limited understanding of how mathematics education itself can either reproduce or challenge social justice issues linked to poverty.

Final thoughts

This study is based on interviews with ITE tutors and therefore reflects their perspectives on programme design and pedagogical intentions rather than the full complexity of classroom practice. As a result, the everyday realities of teaching may reveal stronger forms of recognition and representation than those captured in this analysis, as well as additional ways in which student teachers engage with children’s lived experiences of poverty.

Acknowledging this limitation is important when interpreting the findings. Nevertheless, the interviews with tutors provide valuable insight into how poverty is currently conceptualised and addressed within ITE, offering an important basis for considering how ITE might be strengthened.

Building on this, to more effectively prepare student teachers, ITE programmes could move beyond broad commitments towards inclusion to instead offer more concrete preparation for working with children in poverty. Central to this shift is the need for ITE to explicitly embed the three pillars of social justice: redistribution of resources, recognition of diverse identities, and representation of student agency. Although ITE programmes already take on a wide responsibility when it comes to diversity – covering areas such as gender, race, immigration, and more – these aspects of diversity often overlap, and by addressing one dimension thoughtfully, we also contribute to the others.

Key Messages

  • To effectively prepare student teachers to address poverty in their teaching practice, ITE programmes could move beyond broad commitments to inclusion and offer more concrete preparation for working with children in poverty.
  • Valuing diversity in education may require not only offering flexible teaching but also paying closer attention to what that diversity in a classroom actually entails. 
  • Achieving social justice requires the integration of all three dimensions: redistribution of resources, recognition of diverse identities, and representation of student agency
  • Social justice requires more than providing fair opportunities for the learners; it involves understanding and embracing differences and empowering students to be active participants of the learning environment while considering carefully what they might need to achieve this.
Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik

Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik

Directorate of Basic Education at the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Türkiye

Dr. Nejla Tugcem Sahin Bayik is an Education Specialist in the Monitoring and Evaluation Department of the Directorate of Basic Education at the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) in Türkiye. She is also a part-time lecturer at TED University. She earned her PhD in Education from the University of Aberdeen and holds an MA Degree in Mathematics Education from University College London. Having lectured at the University of Aberdeen, she has also contributed to various research projects as a researcher in the UK and in Türkiye. Her main research interests are social justice issues in education, inclusion, diversity, and children’s rights.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nejla-tugcem-sahin-bayik

Personal Blog: https://tugcemsahinbayik.blogspot.com/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nejla-Sahin-Bayik

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

DePascale, M., Bustamante, A. S., & Dearing, E. (2024). Strengths-Based Approaches to Investigating Early Math Development in Family and Community Context: A Conceptual Framework. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241302059

Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). School Mathematics as Gatekeeper. 58(4), 648–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1354733

Durrani, N., & Tariq, V. N. (2012). The role of numeracy skills in graduate employability. Education + Training, 54(5), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211244704

Ellis, S., & Sosu, E. (2015). Closing poverty-related attainment gaps in Scotland’s schools: What works? From:https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/54123/15/Ellis_Sosu_IPPI2015_closing_poverty_related_attainment_gaps.pdf

Fraser, N. (1999). Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation. In L. Ray & A. Sayer (Eds.), Culture and Economy after the Cultural Turn (pp. 25–52). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218112.n2

Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. Verso.https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=IJxT6pxjO7YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Greaves, E., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2014). Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility. Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. From: https://socialmobility.independent-commission.uk/app/uploads/2024/07/London_Schools_-_FINAL.pdf

Hoadley, U. (2007). The reproduction of social class inequalities through mathematics pedagogies in South African primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701261169

James-Brabham, E., Loveridge, T., Sella, F., Wakeling, P., Carroll, D. J., & Blakey, E. (2023). How do socioeconomic attainment gaps in early mathematical ability arise? Child Development, 94(6), 1550–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13947

Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: Using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4

Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600587040

Martin, D., Gholson, M., Leonard, J., Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of knowledge. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v3i2a95

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. The RAND Corporation. From: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R3928.pdf

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making Mathematics Work for All Children: Issues of Standards, Testing, and Equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031001013

Scottish Government (2023). Pupil attainment: closing the gap – Schools. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.gov.scot/policies/schools/pupil-attainment/

Sheehan, J., & Hadfield, K. (2024). Overcoming socioeconomic adversity: Academic resilience in mathematics achievement among children and adolescents in Ireland. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 524–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12512

Calling for AI-informed student activism in K-12 schools beyond learnification

Calling for AI-informed student activism in K-12 schools beyond learnification

by | NW 16 ICT in Education and Training, NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education, NW 26 Educational Leadership

The global education landscape is witnessing promising strides in the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into policy frameworks. Across borders, education policymakers, aware of AI’s growing impact on world societies and global economies, are calling for robust, trustworthy measures to understand its digital capabilities more fully. For example, the European Union’s (2024) Artificial Intelligence Act, a regulatory framework, mandates the monitoring of AI systems. The OECD (2025) has made recommendations on generative AI aimed at increasing innovation, fostering international cooperation, and sustaining democracy. The AI Action Summit (2025), hosted in Paris in February 2025, brought together leaders from different countries for AI dialogue on such topics as innovation, trustworthiness, and investment. These and other organizational entities have been underscoring the urgency of grasping AI’s transformative impact on the labor market and international community.

Current education policy and research on AI integration in schools

Education policy and research’s convergence on the frontier of AI integration in schools signals something more than a wave of classroom innovation. At this moment, systemic recalibration is reaching into the infrastructural and legislative foundations of education and across borders. AI implementation demands vision, infrastructure, and, crucially, investment. As nations race to harness AI’s potential in education, major actors have been stepping forward with bold commitments and strategic funding (European Parliamentary, 2024). China’s Ministry of Education (2024) and the White House (2025)—joined by the United Arab Emirates—are presently at the forefront of the global AI-in-schools movement. All such highly influential actors have extended the scope of AI, encompassing primary and middle schools (Amir, 2025). 

AI’s role in education is recognized by such countries, with convergence around not just its potential for economic investment but also democratic investment. Perhaps underlying this thinking is the belief that AI should not be limited to a technocratic, efficiency focus geared around political influence and agendas, instead promulgating a depoliticized version of simulated human-like intelligence (Mullen & Eadens, 2026; Sætra, 2020).

We are reminded of Biesta’s (2020) critical appraisal of education as “learnification”—the concern is that this dominant paradigm (learnification) is overly narrow in its focus on learning as individualistic (sidestepping relationships) and learning as a process (omitting content and the purpose of learning).

Scholars are busy examining AI’s transformative potential in education and associated challenges whilst confronting conventional barriers to being educated (Banoğlu et al., 2025; Mullen & Eadens, 2026; Zhong & Zhao, 2025). This line of inquiry supports the use of AI in public education for guiding students’ interests, passions, and strengths in addition to cultivating their own voice, agency, and leadership, in effect transcending schooling’s traditional “grammar” (Tyack &Tobin, 1994).

Mishra (2025), an expert in technology integration in teaching, cautioned policymakers that when human “needs” are reduced to technological capabilities, risks ensue. Of great concern is that educational goals could be reshaped around machine capability without accounting for students’ and teachers’ genuine needs. This thinking has also been articulated for digital learning and instruction. On an up note, theory-informed models and actionable strategies that contribute to the evolving discourse on AI ethics are available (see Mullen & Eadens, 2026).

What do student leaders think about AI?

While politics are in motion and policies are being formulated, some areas of academia support these initiatives even though critical perspectives may not be included or attention on the student voice. Banoğlu et al. (2025) critiqued the prevailing narrative that overlooks AI’s untapped potential. This international research team from Hong Kong, Canada, and the US reframed AI as a catalyst for democratic renewal in schools. AI-informed student activism was introduced. Generative AI (which creates text/images using large language models) and agentic AI (which can act on behalf of users) were interrogated for their potential to amplify student voices, protect rights, and support well-being, as well as to tackle problems like cyberbullying.

The research draws upon student experiences, specifically of three former K-12 student leaders—then in their early 20s—from the US, Japan, and Türkiye. Their stories provoke thinking about how AI can be an ally. The student leader from Japan emphasized the role of feedback in democratic processes by enhancing feedback mechanisms within K-12 schools, noting, “If we could use AI-enhanced feedback systems, it would help us improve our system continuously” (p.103). The US student leader suggested that AI could reduce mundane tasks that consume time, explaining, “AI actually removes that friction for you and does boring things most of the time” (p. 102).

Healthy debate around point–counterpoint is necessary when it comes to AI’s role in education and the future. Pasi Sahlberg, faculty at the University of Melbourne, alluded to a growing disconnect from authentic human interaction and relationships due to AI (as cited in Rubin, 2025): “Whereas a lot can be learned through digital media, there is a lot that can’t…. One of those things is the power of human relationships, face-to-face.” Sahlberg warned that systems overly focused on content delivery risk missing the heart of education: “Making first-class humans requires a different understanding of what human interaction can do.”

In this spirit, albeit acknowledging AI’s technical capabilities, two student leaders from Türkiye and the US underscored human interaction’s irreplaceable role in student leadership, to quote: “If you have wise friends or wise family members, I …ask them about a topic that involves leadership ethics [or] that involves emotions” (see Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 100).

As such, scholars (e.g., Banoğlu et al.,2025; Mullen & Eadens, 2026) suggest the AI’s multifaceted potential and natural limitations enrich student voice, agency, autonomy, and leadership. Priority areas are outlined in research. These include empowering learners to develop more autonomously as leaders, dismantling barriers to information access, emphasizing ethical considerations, and promoting cultural sensitivity.

Key implications of AI-informed student activism are:

Empowering Informed Dialogue: AI can foster student engagement in informed dialogue and meaningful decision-making, enhancing their agency and participation in student-led governance. In some countries, K-12 students are not authorized to organize independently or pursue their own agendas without approval, they often do not know how to establish autonomous organizations without the involvement of adult allies. As voiced by a former student leader: “These are high schoolers who are defending their rights and autonomy, and they lack most knowledge to fully gather the tools to build a student organization or fight against … the administration for their own autonomy” (Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 103).

AI can help bridge the student activism gap by (a) informing young people about their rights and (b) encouraging them to support and build their own organizations. This engagement could enhance agency and participation in student-led governance structures, potentially leading to more democratic and responsive environments in which younger and older learners alike are capable of leading for impact.

Streamlining Communication: AI can facilitate seamless communication among students, enabling large groups to effectively collaborate on projects. Unlike feedback methods that may favor more vocal or dominant voices, AI can be trained to highlight marginalized and minority perspectives, ensuring that diverse ideas—particularly those advocating for child rights and democratic participation—are both recognized and valued. Feedback can be shared en masse, and AI can distill this information into comprehensible reports that reflect a broad range of peers’ ideas, rather than prioritizing the most common or median views.

This inclusive approach to student leadership and consultation promotes an equitable platform where all students are acknowledged, helping to prevent marginalization of less-heard perspectives. Such comprehensive feedback can assist in discerning next steps in leadership activities, fostering a greater sense of community, collaboration, and ownership of learning.

Bridge-Building: AI’s ability to connect learners cannot be understated. By sharing insights about student leadership initiatives, AI can help to level the playing field. Enhanced knowledge capabilities can empower students to rely less on others, fostering autonomy while reducing the risk of vulnerability to disempowerment and isolation.

This democratizing function of AI is highlighted by a former K-12 school leader: “AI could … provide a legal, equitable way [for] young students who don’t have enough experience … who are trying to initiate an organization or who already are in a student body but don’t like how it’s ruled or their relationship with the school; they can use AI … to [help] compensate [for their] lack of knowledge” (Banoğlu et al., 2025, p. 103).

Cultivating Student Leadership: An expectation is for AI to be grounded in ethical principles and approaches to guide its proper use as well as to monitor misuses. To cultivate student leadership, it is vital that a more complete understanding of AI, together with appropriate uses of applications, inform instruction, apprenticeship, and mentorship.

Further research could put AI’s potential for student leadership to the test, observing its integration with youth leadership to discern the extent to which young people might be empowered with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to take initiative, make decisions, and enact agency in their communities. From this standpoint, AI would be encompassing various youth activities and programs designed to foster cognitive awareness, leadership skills, civic engagement, and personal development.

Charting a path toward AI-informed student activism

Interest groups influence school knowledge, reducing teachers and students alike to curriculum conduits (Mullen, 2022). Viewing AI as a top-down policy initiative for technology integration in schools circumvents the rich learning shaped by student agency and relationships, echoing previous waves of computerization that have generated millions in technology investments, absent learner voices and input. The AI paradigm poses a significant threat to school and student agency, calling for activism from education stakeholders in schools and higher education.

While optimism about AI’s vast transformative potential is warranted, national politics and policies have been known to fall short of effectively involving school actors and more fully supporting them. By fostering trust and encouraging children’s AI-informed activism, steps can be taken to create a more democratic, equitable, and peaceful world. Empowering students to utilize AI to advocate for their rights, development, and well-being promotes educational equity, globally.

This leads us to say what we envision, which is an AI-informed student leadership “frontline” dedicated to child rights, activism, and democratic participation. Given the tide of AI-driven, profit-oriented ventures in public education systems, creative thinking and resistive efforts are needed. Narrowly focused AI initiatives interfere with or even halt equity in schooling, especially for children from low-income homes or rural communities lacking reliable access to computers, internet connectivity, and/or digital tools, especially in remotely delivered online learning contexts. By prioritizing student voices and learning communities and by integrating AI thoughtfully and ethically into schools, ethical technological advancement can support democratic values and a collective humanity.

Quite possibly, every reader of this blog has an important role to play in shaping the digital landscape in ways that are favorable to the healthy development and leadership of future generations of children and youth.

Key Messages

A global AI-in-schools movement is emerging, collectively portraying AI’s role in education as technocratic and depoliticized, echoing the long-critiqued concept of “learnification.”

An empirical study by Banoğlu et al. (2025) critically challenges this dominant narrative, offering a critical counter-narrative, showcasing AI’s potential to democratize education through insights from K-12 student leaders in the U.S., Japan, and Türkiye.

AI can empower students to amplify their agency, safeguard rights, support well-being, and enhance student leadership, fostering democratic renewal in schools.

AI can enable informed dialogue, streamline communication, and bridge gaps, enhancing collaboration, autonomy, and equity in student-led initiatives.

Encouraging AI-informed student activism can create a more democratic, equitable, and peaceful world, ensuring education aligns with genuine student needs.

Dr Köksal Banoğlu

Dr Köksal Banoğlu

Education University of Hong Kong

Köksal Banoğlu, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Education University of Hong Kong. His research focuses on the intersection of technology leadership, inferential social network analysis and AI-informed student action, exploring how these interconnections strengthen school leadership, organisational learning and student agency. His recent work has appeared in Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Leading & Managing, Journal of Professional Capital & Community, School Leadership & Management, Journal of School Leadership, and Professional Development in Education. He is the recipient of the 2025 BELMAS Best Blog Runner-up Award. He serves as Chief Editor of Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, and as Assistant Editor of the International Journal of Leadership in Education. He also sits on the editorial boards of Review of Education, Methodological Innovations, and International Studies in Sociology of Education.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3314-1032

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Koeksal-Banoglu

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/koksalbanoglu

 

Dr Carol A. Mullen

Dr Carol A. Mullen

Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA

Carol A. Mullen, Ph.D., is a Canadian–American Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA and a Fulbright Senior Scholar alumnus. She is an internationally acclaimed, award-winning mentoring researcher who uses equity/justice and policy lenses. Her research also examines the impact of creativity in different testing cultures through Fulbright-sponsored scholarships to China and Canada, with related study in Australia. Her authored and edited books include Equity in School Mentoring and Induction (2025), Handbook of Social Justice Interventions in Education (2021, edited), and The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education (2012, coedited). She is Editor Emerita of the Mentoring & Tutoring journal (Routledge) and past-president of the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership (ICPEL), Society of Professors of Education, and University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA).

Dr Mullen has received over 30 awards in leadership, research, and mentorship in the social sciences, specifically educational leadership and administration and related fields. These honors include UCEA’s Master Professor Award and Jay D. Scribner Mentoring Award, in addition to ICPEL’s Living Legend Award and the University of Toronto’s Leaders and Legends Excellence Award. She has published 29 books, over 250 journal articles and chapters in others’ books, and 18 guest-edited special issues. Forthcoming is Improving Your College Courses: A Guide for Engaging In Digital Learning, a book coedited with Dr. Daniel Eadens (Myers Education Press). Formerly, she served as school director, associate dean for the college, and department chair at a previous university.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4732-338X;

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_A._Mullen;

Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carol-Mullen-2 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Amir, K. A. (2025, May 4). Sheikh Mohammed announces AI as mandatory subject in UAE schools. Gulf News. https://gulfnews.com/uae/government/sheikh-mohammed-announces-ai-as-mandatory-subject-in-uae-schools-1.500115349

AI Action Summit.(2025).https://www.elysee.fr/admin/upload/default/0001/17/786758b38da7b4c16f26dc56e51884b3346684aa.pdf

Banoğlu, K., Patrick, J., & Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. (2025). Promises of artificial intelligence (AI) in reframing student agency and democratic participation in K-12 Schools: Perspectives from student leaders. Leading & Managing, 31(1), 90-111.

Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411

China’s Ministry of Education. (2024, December 2). MOE issues guidance on how to teach AI in primary and middle schools. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202412/t20241210_1166454.html

European Parliament. (2024). AI investment: EU and global indicators. European Parliament Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/760392/EPRS_ATA(2024)760392_EN.pdf

European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Future-of-Life-InstituteAI-Act-overview-30-May-2024.pdf

Mishra, P. (2025, April 23). Who ordered that? On AI, education, and the illusion of necessity. https://punyamishra.com/2025/04/23/who-ordered-that-on-ai-education-and-the-illusion-of-necessity

Mullen, C. A. (2022). Corporate networks’ grip on the public school sector and education policy. In C. H. Tienken & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The risky business of education policy (pp. 1-22). Routledge.

Mullen, C. A. (2025). Guest editor of special issue, “Creative Responses to Leadership Challenges and Constraints.” Leading &Managing, 31(1). https://journals.flvc.org/leading-and-managing/issue/view/6509/403

Mullen, C. A., & Eadens, D. W. (Eds.). (2026). Improving your college courses: A guide for engaging in digital learning. Myers Education Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). OECD Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449 

Rubin, C. M. (2025,July 4). Are schools ready for the next shutdown? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyrubin/2025/07/04/are-schools-ready-for-the-next-shutdown

Sætra, H. K. (2020). A shallow defense of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: Examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government. Technology in Society, 62, 101283, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101283

Schleicher, A., & Mitchell, S. (2025, June 3,). From PISA to AI: How the OECD is measuring what AI can do. OECD. https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/from-pisa-to-ai-how-the-oecd-is-measuring-what-ai-can-do

Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453

White House, The. (2025, April 23). Advancing artificial intelligence education for American youth.https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth

Zhong, R., & Zhao, Y. (2025). Education paradigm shifts in the age of AI: A spatiotemporal analysis of learning. ECNU Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531125131 5204

The curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice

The curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice

by | AARE

In today’s multilingual world, with approximately 7,000 spoken or signed languages, at least half of the global population is bilingual. Reflecting this diversity, Australia’s population is remarkably multicultural, with 29.5% born overseas and nearly 250 languages spoken in homes. This linguistic richness calls for an educational framework that mirrors these realities. In response, the English as an Additional Language (EAL) curriculum in Australia is at a crucial juncture, where it must bridge monolingual norms (e.g., Standard Australian English) with the multilingual realities of classrooms.

Drawing on Deleuze, Dewey, and Bill Green’s “curriculum as practice,” our research introduces the concept of “curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice”. This holistic, fluid, and processual approach, premised on the lived experiences of 16 immigrant EAL teachers, underscores the need for a more responsive and democratic educational framework.

Assembling Theory and Practice: A Democratic Approach

In “curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice”, John Dewey’s focus on experiential learning complements Deleuze’s concept of the “fold,” shaping a curriculum that is fluid, multifaceted, experimental, and responsive to linguistic and cultural diversity. Teachers use their lived experiences to shape a dynamic, evolving learning environment, akin to origami, where each fold represents collaborative interactions between students and educators.

Transcending Traditional Boundaries: Teachers’ Narratives

Incorporating the lived experiences of teachers from diverse backgrounds, our study highlights the transformative potential of a curriculum that transcends traditional, rigid frameworks. These educators, through their critical reflections and navigation of the complexities of language learning and teaching in various cultural contexts, offer invaluable insights into creating a responsive and inclusive educational environment. Their perspectives underscore the importance of embracing flexibility and cultural diversity to enhance the democratic educational experience for all students.

Jasha – bringing text to life with visualisation

For instance, Jasha’s early encounters with the English language were far from inspiring. Growing up in the USSR, she described her lessons as “boring texts to read, boring lessons on grammar, no listening and no speaking”. However, a transformative moment came when she volunteered to accompany a teacher to a bookshop when she was in year VIII and discovered Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray”. This book ignited her passion for English, leading her to adopt a more student-centred philosophy in her teaching in a transnational context.

Today, Jasha emphasizes fairness, equality, mutual respect and cultural responsivity in her classroom, recognizing the global diversity inherent in the English language onshore and offshore. She uses a method called visualisation, encouraging students to see a text and be part of the story. This makes English more relatable and memorable. For example, with the “boring, Eurocentric lesson on railway journeys” in “Language Leader”, she asks students to imagine being on a train, recalling scenes from “Harry Potter”, and enjoying the “view”:

And suddenly the most boring reading (and it is really really boring!!!) comes alive.  (Jasha)   

This approach brings the text to life and fosters lively class discussions about cultural concepts of a “journey” and “destination”.   

Janaki – including cultural elements in student engagement

Janaki transformed a curriculum-mandated employment project into a charity event that raised over $1,000 for the Save the Children Foundation through activities like a garage sale and morning tea. While these are common in Australia, Janaki encouraged her refugee students to incorporate cultural elements from their home countries into the event’s planning and execution. Reflecting on this, she remarked, “This experience showed me how capable the student cohort is when it comes to collaborating across cultural differences to achieve impactful results”. The initiative not only fostered student deep engagement but also promoted intercultural identity development through profound experiential learning.

The Fold of English Learning and Professional Becoming

Frida and Natalie – learning through playful interactions The journey of English language learning for these teachers often began with playful, informal interactions. Frida, from the Philippines, fondly recalled playing language games like “Pictionary” and “Scrabble” with her grandmother, which nurtured her love for English. She also immersed herself in reading borrowed books from “a neighbour” and “the local library”. Similarly, Natalie from Bangladesh was captivated by her father’s translanguaging storytelling, particularly his renditions of “Paradise Lost” by John Milton, especially the line, “জাগো, ওঠো না হলে চিরতরে পড়তে থাকো”, (“Awake, arise or be for ever fall’n”). These affective familial and cultural contexts served as rich, informal educational platforms, aligning with Deleuzian concepts of becoming and multiplicity, where learning evolves through diverse, non-linear pathways both within and beyond the learner.

Mahati –

In Australia, the personal and professional education of these teachers further shaped their understanding and practice of the curriculum. Mahati, originally from India, experienced a stark contrast between the rigid educational frameworks overseas what Australian curriculum and the more communicative, student-centred approach in Australia. During her TESOL teaching practice rounds at the Western English Language School, she embraced innovative teaching techniques that significantly differed from her experiences in India and Uganda, as well as from the monologic curricula in Australia. This exposure enabled her to critically reflect and further  adapt her methods to better meet the multilingual and intercultural needs of her students, thereby developing her own hybrid professional becoming (identity). In this context, Mahati also intertwined her knowledge of English literature and grammar into her teaching practice. For instance, she often incorporated insights from T.S. Eliot, particularly his idea about the importance of recursive interpretation, to deepen students’ understanding of texts and their meanings.

“He said, every time I read something again and again, I find new meaning and new beauty in that.” (Mahati)

To enhance understanding, she connected this to the Urdu terms “ شاعر” (shayar/shaa’ir: poet) and “ “شاعری (shayari: poetry). This approach not only leveraged the full linguistic repertoire of the multilingual learners but also amplified their affective connection with the material.

Ling Ling and Becca –

Ling Ling, influenced by her Chinese, Japanese, and English background, emphasizes teaching both culture and language, stating, “I am teaching the ‘culture’ as well as the language”. Similarly, Becca interweaves grammar into communicative, student-centered methods, explaining, “Grammar is a tool for effective communication, not the main goal,” transforming traditional exercises into interactive, engaging and affective activities that enrich the learning process.

Summary

The personal journeys of these English teachers highlight the transformative power of a responsive EAL curriculum. By leveraging their lived experiences and adopting culturally responsive strategies, they have enhanced both the enjoyment and effectiveness of language learning, shifting from traditional to learner-centered practices. This underscores the role of ethical, dialogic teaching in enriching education.

Looking ahead, the concept of “curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice” provides a framework for fostering intercultural and cosmopolitan development – an ongoing, evolving process of shaping education through inclusive, differentiated and dynamic methods that interlace diverse perspectives and experiences, fostering democratic learning environments. By adapting to the diverse experiences of teachers and students, the curriculum can transcend traditional boundaries and create an inclusive, democratically engaged learning environment.

At its core, teachers’ narratives point to the potential for reform in Australia’s educational landscape. Drawing on Dewey’s democratic education and Deleuze’s philosophy, a non-linear, decentred curriculum can celebrate linguistic and cultural diversity, preparing students for global participation. This study offers transformative EAL approaches with broader implications, suggesting that curricula rooted in multilingual and intercultural principles can promote inclusivity and enrich education across disciplines.

Key Messages

  • Curriculum as ‘Folding’ Democratic Practice: The blog presents a flexible, evolving approach to EAL education that incorporates diverse linguistic and cultural experiences.
  • Teacher Experiences as Catalysts for Transformation: Multilingual immigrant EAL teachers’ lived experiences are central to shaping a more responsive and inclusive curriculum.
  • Bridging Monolingual Norms with Multilingual Realities: The blog advocates for moving beyond monolingual norms to reflect Australia’s multilingual classroom realities.
  • Combining Deleuzian and Deweyan Philosophies: Entwining Deleuze’s ‘fold’ and Dewey’s experiential learning fosters a democratic, fluid, non-linear, and culturally inclusive approach to curriculum design.
  • Promoting Cosmopolitanism and Intercultural Learning: The blog emphasizes EAL education’s role in fostering intercultural understanding and world outlook among students.
Dr Nashid Nigar

Dr Nashid Nigar

Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr Nashid Nigar teaches at the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, and has diverse experience in English language and literacy teaching, academic writing, and teacher education. Her recently completed Ph.D. thesis, focusing on language teacher professional identity at Monash University, was graded as Exceptional—Of the highest merit, placing within the top 0.1% to fewer than 5% of international doctorates. Her ongoing research interests include language teacher professional identity and language/literacy learning and teaching.

Professor Alex Kostogriz

Professor Alex Kostogriz

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Alex Kostogriz holds the esteemed position of Professor in Languages and TESOL Education within the Faculty of Education at Monash University. He currently serves as the Associate Dean (International) within the faculty. Alex’s ongoing research endeavors are centered around the professional practice and ethics of language teachers, as well as the realms of teacher education and the early experiences of novice educators.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

  1. Nigar, N., Kostogriz, A., & Mhilli, O. (2024). Curriculum as ‘folding’ democratic practice: Integrating Deleuzian and Deweyan philosophies with the lived experiences of English teachers. Curriculum Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-024-00258-7

  2. Nigar, N., Kostogriz, A., & Gurney, L. (2024). Becoming an English language teacher over lines of desire: Stories of lived experiences. Australian Educational Researcher, 51, 1749–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00662-4

  3. Green, B. (2022). Understanding curriculum as practice, or on the practice turn(s) in curriculum inquiry. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00160-0

  4. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Macmillan Company.

  5. Deleuze, G. (1993). The fold: Leibniz and the baroque. University of Minnesota Press.

 

Using nonviolence to reconceptualize inclusive education in the Global South

Using nonviolence to reconceptualize inclusive education in the Global South

by | NW 4 Inclusive Education, NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education

My doctoral research has been exploring how developing a philosophy of nonviolence can help offset discrimination and exclusion in Chile, a country that has attempted to tackle the issue of inclusiveness through a Global North narrative that has focused primarily on disability and special needs. This blog post explores how nonviolence education can promote a sense of equality and inclusion not purely from such perspective, as has been the norm for the last two decades, but from one anchored in an understanding of cultural, economic, sexual, and ethnic diversity.

Previous assumptions on inclusivity

The very nature of my research project has inclusiveness at its core; not exclusively as a method often and primarily focused on students with special needs, but as a way to experience human relations rooted in an equitable view of others. It involved reading and discussing nonviolent perspectives in education, engaging in weekly contemplative practices such as developing empathy and practicing compassion, and peer-teaching. Participants were all pre-service teachers from Chile, a nation that in the last 4 years has been beset by social violence, much of which spilled over into educational establishments.

These participants’ previous assumptions on what inclusiveness is ranged from “I thought inclusiveness was only a way to adapt materials for special-needs students”, to “I used to think about inclusiveness from a technical perspective rather than understanding what makes a person different from another, or singular”, to “I used to believe inclusiveness was about including other people, but now I understand it as being aware of their differences, acknowledging and appreciating them”

This somewhat incomplete understanding of inclusiveness is hardly surprising, if one is to look at two factors. The first is the definitions and principles of inclusive education we find in research done by Chilean scholars and Chilean government documents; for while it is true that Law 20.845 on Inclusive Education from 2016 seeks the “elimination of discrimination and the approach to diversity”[1], it is also acknowledged that these efforts have focused on and been prompted by widening access primarily to people with disabilities. A report from the National Disability Agency states that inclusive education has been “driven towards the social participation of people with disabilities, their families and civil society, in order to implement the changes demanded by students and our society” (p.1). Research by Chilean scholars in this area (Iturra-Gonzalez, 2019; Manghi et al., 2020; Martinez and Rosas, 2022) on the other hand, tends to use the terms “inclusive education” and “education for students with special needs” interchangeably. There is, as I mentioned, a second factor that shapes this view of inclusiveness: a close inspection of available research done in Chilean education reveals that it draws heavily and almost exclusively on studies and sources from the Global North on this issue, and this is problematic: such research has in fact for decades focused almost exclusively on disability rather than on a holistic approach.

[1] In Spanish in the original: “eliminación de la discriminación y el abordaje de la diversidad”, translation by me.

An argument for what inclusive education should mean today

Given the above, I argue that the idea of inclusiveness I have described is both inaccurate and incomplete, and it is here that nonviolence educational philosophy brings a more holistic understanding of what inclusiveness should look like. To begin with, Judith Butler (2020) has argued that all lives have equal worth; violence in any dimension arises when we see others’ lives as having less worth. Inclusiveness from a nonviolent perspective comprises everyone who has been historically marginalized, excluded, and discriminated against. In other words, whose lives have been socially and culturally devalued. This is where we can establish a link to non-Western traditions (i.e., Ubuntu, BuenVivir, Buddhism, and yoga), which were explored during the study. What these traditions have in common is that they promote a sense of a mutually bound existence regardless of our faith, gender, ethnicity, beliefs, modes of life, ability, literacy or education.

When defining ubuntu, for instance, Desmond Tutu (1999) explains:

“A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are” (p.29)

 

He further adds that the ultimate goal of ubuntu is to achieve social harmony through shared human participation, and that in the end, we can only be human beings through other human beings; therefore, committing an act of violence against someone is an action of dehumanizing both the victim and ourselves.

 These were concepts that were missing from the participants’ original interpretation of inclusiveness, and why they were exposed to these ideas early on in the project; for instance, one of the earliest assignments for participants was to watch a short video on the meaning of inclusiveness in education by Indian scholar Sadhguru. His vision, which I share, is that inclusiveness is not “an idea or a campaign”, but an individual experience of connecting to other human beings, and of bringing this connection into the whole range of activities we engage in, be it educational, economic or spiritual, in order to flourish. One participant explains:

“I really liked what Sadhguru mentioned in his speech about inclusiveness in education, “Survival cannot happen without inclusiveness”, as I think this is a point that many people tend to forget. For me, inclusiveness is about integrating different people into a group. However, this integration should not only be to include or accept a person into this group, this action also serves to see other people as equals” – P24

Perhaps the most important insight participants expressed concerned a paradigmatic shift that moved from an individualistic mindset to a more collective one, as can be seen from the observations below:

“I noticed the sense of community in which I work with others as “we”, but also as my own growth as an individual. Western people, on the other hand, are taught that the only thing that matters is the “ego”, ourselves, everything that surrounds us, we own it” – P1

 

“I am part of a network that should be constructed with love, understanding, and diversity. We are part of the same whole in humankind, but we are diverse. It is this diversity that configures this classroom. I am because you are: I wouldn’t be a teacher without the students and vice-versa”– P10

 

“In Indigenous knowledge, we are devoted to help others not for the sake of our own benefit but, more profound, for the sake of our humanity” – P20

 

“It is the relationship with others that makes us human. The interactions with people that surround us is what allows to be fulfilled, we thrive in communities but we also see our humanity when we come in contact with those towards whom we direct it” – P2

These insights speak of several dimensions worth highlighting; the first is the impact of Western epistemologies in creating an individual viewed as separate from other human beings, and which directly contradicts what an inclusive environment should be. Secondly, they emphasize the fact that human beings are in fact interdependent and not the participants of what Butler calls ‘the fantasy of our self-sufficiency’ (2020). They also speak of the realization of what non-Western wisdom traditions offer in this context: a philosophy that proposes a manner in which we as humankind should be living: not for ourselves but for each other. As this participant notes:

“Fostering this idea that we depend on our peers to learn is a big step in starting to create a non-violent environment. Stop competing, include those who have different ideas, want the success of my classmates for the good of everyone. These are ideas that the new generations will acquire and gradually reform the worldview of society”. – P5

Conclusion

In conclusion, what participants’ insights show is how the nonviolent perspectives offered throughout the project indeed helped them reconceptualize their conception of inclusiveness to one that encompasses the full diversity of our human experience, rather than a method focused on disability alone as an exclusionary/inclusionary dimension. Several of the realizations and comments offered here speak of an appreciation of individual differences, while at the same time embracing inclusiveness as a guiding moral value that recognizes our shared humanity.

I would also argue that this kind of inclusiveness constitutes the strongest form of opposition against any kind of Othering, and that to cultivate that, to generate the kind of love that Garvey (1923) suggested should infuse education so that it could ‘soften the ills of the world’ (p.17), we need to learn to see others not as Others but through an empathetic lens that rehumanizes everyone regardless of our differences. This in the end is the contribution that non-Western epistemologies can make in the formulation of a nonviolent pedagogical framework.

Key Messages

  • We need to review how we view ‘inclusion’ from primarily focusing on students with special needs
  • Inclusion must be anchored in an understanding of cultural, economic, sexual, and ethnic diversity
  • Non-violent education can promote such a sense of equality and inclusion
  • It is important to decolonial perspectives on inclusiveness 
Gaston Bacquet

Gaston Bacquet

Associate Tutor / 3rd-year PhD student

Gaston Bacquet is a 3rd-year PhD student at the University of Glasgow. His research attempts to bring decolonial perspectives on nonviolence to teacher training within the Global South; said research draws from indigenous wisdom traditions such as ubuntu and Buen Vivir, as well as Eastern philosophy, and it aims at using the philosophy of nonviolence as a means to promote inclusiveness in all its dimensions. He also works as an associate tutor at Glasgow, where he teaches Qualitative Research Methods, Modern Educational Thought and supervises postgraduate students in the Educational Studies and TESOL programs. He is a guest lecturer for Education and Violence in the Education and Sustainable Development Master’s Program.

Research Gate link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gaston-Bacquet-2

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9802-7249

Staff profile: https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/education/staff/gastonbacquet/

 

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Brito-Rodriguez, S., Basualto-Porra, L., Posada-Lecompte, M. (2021). Perceptions of Gender Violence, Discrimination, and Exclusion among University Students. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios de Genero de El Colegio de Mexico. Retrieved here: https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2395-91852020000100209&script=sci_arttext

Butler, J. (2020). The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind. Verso https://www.versobooks.com/books/3758-the-force-of-nonviolence 

Garvey, M. (1923) In Amy Jacques-Garvey (Ed.) Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, vol. 1.Atheneum.

Iturra Gonzalez, P. (2019). Dilemas de la educación inclusiva de Chile actual. Revista Educacion Las Americas8, 1-13. https://revistas.udla.cl/index.php/rea/article/view/7/6 

Manghi, .D., Bustos Ibarra, A., Conejeros Solar, M.Aranda Godoy, I., Vega Cordova, V., Diaz Soto, K. (2020). Comprender la educación inclusiva chilena: Panorama de políticas e investigación educativa. Cadernos de Pesquisas 50(175), 114-134. https://www.scielo.br/j/cp/a/YsJW7Td5j8KkPxwrqHYTmrq/?lang=en 

Martinez, C. & Rosas, R. (2022). Students with special educational needs and educational inclusion in Chile: Progress and challenges. Revista MedicaClinica Las Condes 33(5), 512 – 519. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0716864022001031 

Rojas, M.T., Astudillo, P. and Catalan, M. (2020). Report: Diversidad y Educacion Sexual en Chile: Identidad sexual (LGBT+) e inclusion escolar en Chile. UNICEF. Retrieved at: https://www.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2022/03/DIVERSIDADSEXUALYEDUCACION_CHILE.pdf

Ryoo, J,, Crawford, J.,Moreno, D. & McClaren, P. (2009), Critical Spiritual Pedagogy: Reclaiming Humanity through a Pedagogy of Integrity, Community, and Love, Power and Education 1(1), 132-148

Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. Image Books

DE INCLUSIÓN ESCOLAR QUE REGULA LA ADMISIÓN DE LOS Y LAS ESTUDIANTES, ELIMINA EL FINANCIAMIENTO COMPARTIDO Y PROHÍBE EL LUCRO EN ESTABLECIMIENTOS EDUCACIONALES QUE RECIBEN APORTES DEL ESTADO https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1078172.