Conference Program

Schools in post-migrant societies are increasingly finding themselves in a difficult position. They are expected to provide safe and inclusive learning environments, yet there is growing public and political backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) (Kuhar & Zobec, 2017). This talk puts forward a proposal for an Intersectional Participatory Safety & Inclusion Audit (IPSIA) as a school development methodology to operationalize parts of the SDG Target 4 (‘safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments’) as democratic accountability in practice, rather than declarative policy. Drawing on the concept of intersectionality, IPSIA identifies safety, belonging, the right to express oneself, and access to remedies as the three interdependent democratic pillars of school life. These pillars are frequently overlooked by single-axis indicators and 'average' school climate metrics (McCall, 2005; Thapa et al., 2013). IPSIA is therefore compatible with current international projects, such as the ‘Lets Care’ project funded by the Horizon programme. This transnational research network comprises nine countries and 120 schools, and is developing a 'safe school' model. Through participatory workshops and collaborative research, teachers and pupils will develop strategies to foster emotional security and a sense of belonging in everyday school life.

However, IPSIA takes a different approach with a structured, four-stage process covering from audit to implementation. First, schools conduct participatory hotspot mapping. This involves student-led mapping and walk-alongs, as well as scenario-based mini-interviews, to identify the specific spaces, routines and moments of interaction where feelings of safety and belonging are experienced or lacking (Mitra, 2004). Secondly, the resulting hotspot patterns guide an institutional analysis focused on mechanisms that trace how specific practices and rules (routines, assessment and feedback practices, language rules and complaint procedures), produce or amplify vulnerabilities in particular intersectional constellations (McCall, 2005). Thirdly, the findings from the first two stages are used in participatory sense-making workshops, where students and educators jointly interpret the evidence and translate it into change hypotheses (i.e. what needs to change, for whom, through which mechanism and why). This co-interpretation stage is designed to counter epistemic injustice by treating lived experience as an indispensable analytical resource (Fricker, 2007). Fourthly, the jointly developed hypotheses for change are translated into concrete school development actions and measures. Subsequently, iterative checks are carried out to determine whether the measures are reaching all relevant groups and situations and whether certain school routines continue to cause challenges (McCall, 2005; Thapa et al., 2013). The proposed action audit therefore has three objectives: (a) the practical implementation of SDG 4 for school development; (b) developing a replicable, participatory, intersectional method that retains accountability (McCall, 2005); (c) providing guidance on the democratic governance of inclusion in the face of DEI backlash, through transparent remedial infrastructures, durable student voice architectures and reforms at the level of individual schools (Mitra, 2004; Tabron et al., 2024). After the presentation, the audience will be invited to participate in a discussion about the further development of the methodological school development proposal, as the project idea is to be submitted for third-party funding.