Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

This article reports on a study of mandatory assessment in mathematics for preschool-class children (aged six) and teachers’ opportunities to advocate Care for the learning of mathematics. Care for learners and Care for mathematics intersected in the teachers’ Grouping of students and their ability to Know the student. These play out as teachers promote availability and justice to students, and as teachers strive to make students’ knowledge visible, promote accuracy and gain legitimacy. It is concluded that teachers’ opportunities to advocate care for the learning of mathematics needs to be present also in the administration of assessment and to be put in the context of the school’s culture and student population, for teachers to be able to promote fair assessment for each student.

Decisions schools make about teaching content fundamentally shape students’ educational experience and their later life. These decisions often take a particular shape for students with intellectual disabilities. Although such decisions for this group are a prime concern in the governing and practice of education, they have gained little attention in research. Research that does investigate teaching content for students with intellectual disabilities often makes a distinction between Life Functional skills (LFS) and Academic Content (AC) and treats these as being quite separate. The study at hand explores the nuances of and relationship between the two through a scoping review, and contributes knowledge on didactical aspects and the how and why of teaching content as depicted in research. Results indicate that research on teaching content entails a complex process of valuing the content in which AC and LFS often overlap. Results also illustrate that students and teachers are absent from the research on teaching content and not included as active participants; researchers’ methods often take precedence over teachers’ and students’ valuing of teaching content or methods.

Mathematics education, assessment and inclusive education are far from neutral and value-free. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it presents and explores ethical dilemmas in educational assessment in mathematics. The prevalence of such dilemmas resides in moments of teaching and mirrors systematic disadvantages. Secondly, teachers’ professional judgement is highlighted as crucial in resolving these dilemmas. I argue that a flexible and dialogical approach based on principles rather than fixed reasoning and rules is necessary when dealing with ethical challenges during assessment. Overall, this chapter contributes knowledge on the intersection of ethics in mathematics education and in educational assessment and offers an opportunity to explore potential ethical principles in relation to educational assessment in mathematics. This is achieved by reviewing research on ethics in mathematics and assessment, followed by a presentation of what ethical dilemmas and teachers’ professional judgement consist of during assessment. To contextualise and further knowledge within the problem area, ethical dilemmas and professional judgement are thereafter explored through the case of national assessment in mathematics in Sweden. Three fictional, but authentic, cases are presented and followed by points for discussion. These can serve to make visible values and the stance taken or needed in various contexts, on ethical dilemmas and professional judgement during assessment. Finally, the implications of ethical dilemmas to improve educational assessment in mathematics, and the role of professional judgement, are discussed.

This study focuses on ethical dilemmas that arise in moments of inclusion and equity in mathematics teaching and how they might be tackled through teachers’ professional judgment. Skovsmose’s inclusive landscapes of investigation approach was used to design the study and to collect teachers’ joint reflections on moments of inclusion and equity in their teaching. Ethical dilemmas and professional judgment were the analytical foci for a qualitative thematic content analysis. Three explorative workshops were held with two teams of teachers from two schools in Sweden. The analysis identified three themes of ethical dilemma, and ways in which these were responded to by teachers’ professional judgment: (1) dilemmas of diversity and acting justly; (2) dilemmas of resources and allocating them fairly; (3) dilemmas of values and recognising diversity. We conclude that mathematics teachers’ professional judgments involve showing bravery, going outside of the norm, negotiating values and duties, listening to the students, and throughout this, engaging in collegial learning in the best interests of the learner.

Compulsory School for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (CSSID) in Sweden is undergoing extensive policy change with the overall argument of promoting inclusive education. Core is a guarantee regarding support measures to enable achievement, which is in turn connected to increased national assessment and the implementation of a revised curriculum. In this change, increased equity and quality have been stated as motives. At the same time, equity and quality has shown to be challenged in the Nordic education systems (Frønes et al., 2020). The political will and enhancement of assessment in education is a phenomenon troughout Europe, often with the incentive to reform education deriving from international comparisons of knowledge, as PISA for example.

Through the shifting governing of CSSID, towards assessment, discourses of normality and of assessment joins forces and pushes ACS toward the discourse on learning, knowledge and assessment of the mainstream compulsory school (Andersson et al, 2023).). This is an example on how neoliberal values are embedded in today’s schooling and inclusion, equity, and quality are often approached as being promoted by comparison and competition (Blossing et al., 2014; Harvey, 2005; Smith, 2018; Yang Hansen and Gustafsson, 2016). This phenomenon has also appeared in other contexts and has been criticized by researchers who emphasize that quality of life, equity and self-determination need to be focused to a greater extent. Something that can be achieved by considering inclusion as an ethical responsibility that school and society have, rather than reducing inclusion to neoliberal values ​​that include knowledge assessment, competition, comparison, and freedom of choice (Brossard Børhaug & Reindal, 2018). In relation to this, Waitoller (2020) discusses the force of accumulation, which refers to the identification and sorting of students as able or not. Furthermore, learners’ identity is within the realm of assessment often linked to the ideal of the neoliberal human being. Whenever this ideal is not met, due to individuals having deficits, it is seen as a threat to economic progress (Ball, 2013). We claim that these circumstances especially impact students ASC and is reinforced during assessment.

The purpose of the study is to contribute knowledge on national assessment for compulsory students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) in Sweden. For the current paper, we have developed the method for selection and analysis and have focused on two governmental investigations to do so. Furthermore, we will put the results in relation to global and traveling discourses on assessment of knowledge and students with ID and discuss the outcome in relation to New Public Management and how policy mediates meaning (see Ball, 2013; 2017). In prolongation, we will analyze policy as well as the national assessment material itself and how these together constructs students’ knowledge, the student with ID as a learner and the assessment itself.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used

Drawing on Popkewitz (2014), Hacking (1999), and Foucault (1994), we understand "fabrication" as the simultaneous making up of and making sense of reality by attributing characteristics, hopes and prerequisites to students, their knowledge and assessment. Policies are then understood to inscribe meaning and condition the students with ID and their knowledge, thus fabricating certain types of students, knowledges, and assessment. This brings forth possibilities and limitations regarding who and what kind of students and knowledge can and should be in(ex)cluded, but also what assessment means in the context of national assessment in ACS.The Open data archive of the Swedish Parliament database (OpAL ) has been advocated to select governmental investigations connected to national assessment for students with ID. In addition, and at a later state, the national assessment material for the early schoolyears in mathematics, will also be analysed. For the study at hand, a discursive reading and analysis of how the student with ID and his/her knowledge is fabricated is performed alongside with the fabrication of national assessment.

Two governmental investigations which lies in the heart of this was selected. These concern the evaluation of goal and targets in school (SOU 2007:28) and grading and assessment for representing students’ knowledge in CSSID (SOU 2020:43).The analysis was performed in a two step procedure and builds on a previous study on how policy document fabricated inclusion for students with ID (Andersson et al., 2023). Sections of texts that concerned assessment of knowledge and the student with ID in these two policy documents was selected. Thereafter, an exploratory and quantitative thematic analysis was performed and in which statements on the student, the student’s knowledge, and assessment, were collected into three themes (Creswell, 2007). The corpus of data was thereafter analyzed out from how inclusions, exclusions, categories, and labelling constructed and fabricated meaning on the students, the student’s knowledge, and assessment. This was explored and thereafter formulated in terms of what kind of students, knowledge and assessment was fabricated. Hence, we have systematically explored characteristics, hopes and prerequisites attributed to students, their knowledge and assessment and their interrelatedness (see Hacking 1999; Popkewitz 2012; Valero 2017). 

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings

The two governmental investigations are proceeding the current policy change to make national assessment mandatory in CSSID. The 13 years between them point towards policy traveling in a certain direction. In the investigation Goal and targets for learning in compulsory school, suggestion to new national assessment system (SOU 2007:28), the child was fabricated as not challenged and as recipient of care, as someone special and hard for schools to teach and finally, as challenged in meeting standards. In connection to this fabrication of the student, the students’ knowledge was fabricated as important to normalize as far as possible, as relative to students’ prerequisites and as absent in terms of possible goals to reach in the curricula. How then to assess the students’ knowledge and the meaning inscribed into assessment for these students was fabricated as voluntary, crucially absent, and also highly needed. When turning to the later governmental investigation Build, assess, grade - grades that better correspond to the students' knowledge (SOU 2020:43), this lack of assessment and need to normalise and make students’ knowledge visible has been enhanced.  The student is then fabricated as having a right to documentation of their knowledge, but also being deprived this. Paradoxically enough, the student with ID is also fabricated as not having use of an exam or grading and fabricated as not talented enough. Furthermore, knowledge is in connection to this fabricated as needed to be situated in close perimeter to society and what goes on in the real world. The assessment of knowledge is fabricated as an exception or needing exceptions to work, as less important to these students and as making students disadvantaged, in the case of grading. Assessment is fabricated as not systematised, so even if it is done, it is not considered as valuable to collect nationally.  

References

Andersson, A.-L., Bagger, A., & Lillvist, A. (2023). Looking through the kaleidoscope of inclusion in policy on students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–14. 

Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, power, and education. Routledge. 

Ball S. J. (2017). The Education Debate. third ed. The Policy Press. Blossing, U. & Söderström, Å. (2014). A school for every child in Sweden. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moss (Eds.), The Nordic Education Model. A school for all encounters neoliberal policy (pp. 17-34). Springer.

Brossard Børhaug, F & Reindal, S.M (2018). Hvordan forstå inkludering som allmenpedagogisk prinsipp i en transhumanistisk (fram)tid? Utbildning & Demokrati, 27(1), 81 

Foucault, Michel. (1994). The Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, 3, Power. London: Penguin.   

Frønes, S, T., Pettersen, A., Radišić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (2020). Equity, Equality and Diversity in the Nordic Model of Education (1st ed. 2020.). Springer International Publishing. 

Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Popkewitz, T. (2012). Numbers in grids of intelligibility: making sense of how educational truth is told. In H. Lauder, M. Young, H. Daniels, M. Balarin & J. Lowe, (Eds), Educating for the Knowledge Economy? Critical Perspectives (pp. 169-191). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Popkewitz, T. (2014). Social Epistemology, the Reason of ‘Reason’ and the Curriculum Studies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22: 1–18. Smith, W. C. (2018). The Banality of Numbers., edited by B. Hamre, A. Morin, C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and Inclusive Schooling: International Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 89–104). Routledge

Valero, P. (2017). Mathematics for All, Economic Growth, and the Making of the Citizen-Worker. In T. Popkewitz, J. Diaz, & C. Kirchgasler (Eds.), A Political Sociology of Educational Knowledge: Studies of Exclusions and Difference (pp. 117–132). Routledge.

Waitoller, F. R. (2020). Why are we not more inclusive? An analysis of neoliberal inclusionism. In C. Boyle, J. Anderson, A. Page, & S. Mavropoulou (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Global Issues & Controversies (pp. 89-107). Sense Publishers.

Yang Hansen, K., & J-E, Gustafsson. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in Sweden - school choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(1-2), 23–44. 

There are disparities in achievement and opportunity across the board in areas of socio-economic disadvantage. The gaps in mathematics are particularly stark and this has significant negative implications for student choice in post-secondary education and subsequent access to further education and occupations, particularly within STEM-fields. This study uses Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s (2007) Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) as a theoretical framework to present a snapshot of some of the influential factors at play, and then to examine the initial results of a systematic literature review (SLR) that explores empirical attempts that have been made to address these issues.

The importance of education in relation to future earnings, health and wellbeing is well understood, and, according to the Salamanca Statement and Framework outlined by UNESCO (1994), it behoves governments and other stakeholders around the world to implement strategies that will improve the educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. However, in order to do so, it is essential to firstly ask what factors might influence these outcomes, and secondly, how can we best address them. In this introductory section the PPCT theoretical framework is used to present some of the myriad factors at play specifically within the field of mathematics education, providing a holistic base upon with to consider any strategies to address them. Using PPCT as a lens, the following key points have emerged:

Process: According to Ekmekci, Corkin, and Fan (2019), while students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly in need of effective pedagogy, they are more likely to “receive less effective instruction on average compared to their higher income peers” p. 58. Within such contexts, teacher’s pedagogic approaches tend to focus more on controlling behaviours (Megowan-Romanowicz, Middleton, Ganesh, & Joanou, 2013). These are examples of intrinsic didactical exclusion which reproduce structural disadvantage in societies, through mathematics.

Person: As noted by Ní Shuilleabhain, Cronin, and Prendergast (2020), students’ attitudes towards mathematics tend to be more negative in schools in areas of low Socio-Economic Status (SES), and pupils in such schools tend to have higher levels of mathematical anxiety and lower self-concept in mathematics.

Context: Low SES Neighbourhoods are often recognised as being less conducive to educational achievement, with less access to social capital via mentors or role models, and fewer resources (Dietrichson, Bøg, Filges, & Klint Jørgensen, 2017). Dotson and Foley (2016) highlight the challenges in hiring and retaining high quality mathematics teachers to schools in low SES areas, citing the “inherent difficulty” of working in such contexts. This can lead to a cycle of low expectations for students, and, given that “the development of student motivation flows at least partially through teacher motivations and motivation related behaviors” (Megowan-Romanowicz et al., 2013, p. 53), the influence of such low expectations can be damaging.

Time:  The initial years in post-primary are understood as crucial for a student’s mathematical journey, with performance at this stage acting as a gatekeeper to higher-level mathematics courses and beyond that to STEM courses and careers. Unfortunately, it is precisely at this juncture that achievement gaps tend to widen for students from lower SES backgrounds (McKenna, Muething, Flower, Bryant, & Bryant, 2015).

This section has highlighted a few of the many reasons why achievement in mathematics is stratified along socio-economic lines. This study uses a SLR methodology to attempt to address the following research questions:

What types of empirical research have been undertaken aiming to address the mathematical achievement gap between low SES students and their more affluent peers?What ‘best practices’ or ‘guidelines’ can be extrapolated from these studies to inform future work?

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used

The goal of this study is to review empirical research reporting on interventions that aim to address issues in mathematics education associated with low SES, with a particular focus on the post-primary education sector. Where possible, emphasis will be placed on the 11 – 15 age group, reflecting the impact of the Time component of the PPCT model as highlighted above. Having identified relevant studies, this research aims to explore and build on what can be learned from such an analysis. The search procedure drew on six relevant databases: ERIC (EBSCOhost), British Education Index, Academic Search Complete, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and APA PsycArticles. Concatenated (using the AND operator) search terms in each database related to subject (mathematics), education level (post primary), educational disadvantage (low SES), and interventions (empirical). In each database, the searches were conducted across title and abstract (using the OR operator) and the subject thesaurus where available.Once duplicates were removed, a total of 528 studies remained for title and abstract screening. Inclusion and exclusion criteria relating to the population, intervention, outcome, and study characteristics (PICOS) were used to support the identification of relevant articles. Three of the four authors have been involved in the screening process and all of the titles/abstracts were screened by at least two researchers. There was approximately 90% agreement between the researchers, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Of the articles screened, 449 studies were deemed irrelevant, leaving 79 for full-text review. At this point the full review has not been completed, but some very interesting initial findings have emerged, with possible implications for practice. 

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings

At this early stage of analysis, the interventions identified in the literature fall under the two broad categories of teacher professional development (PD), and diverse pedagogic approaches implemented directly with students. Both fall under the category of Process within the PPCT framework, with the pedagogically focused interventions impacting on the Person at the centre of the model (the student) and the professional development on the Context and the teachers’ influence therein. Given the significant extant research highlighting the fact that teacher’ self-efficacy and beliefs can have a substantial impact on student outcomes (Archambault, Janosz, & Chouinard, 2012), it stands to reason that initiatives that aim to support students from low SES backgrounds should also focus on PD in these areas. Promoting a positive classroom climate provides scope to improve student-teacher relationships and to potentially enhance student motivation and achievement. The work of Valerio (2021) points to the importance of structuring PD in a sustained way that supports collaboration between teachers, and an iterative approach to planning.Regarding pedagogy that supports student engagement, results indicate that more focus should be placed on mastery rather than performance goals, emphasising active learning approaches (Megowan-Romanowicz et al., 2013). Mirza and Hussain (2014) highlight that it is important to take the time to ensure deep understanding using “rich” tasks. And Cervantes, Hemmer, and Kouzekanani (2015) note the positive impact of problem- and project-based learning on students from minority backgroundsResults from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that the strength of the relationship between test scores and socio-economic status (SES) varies markedly between countries (OECD, 2010, 2013), indicating that with the right supports, it can be possible to overcome a disadvantaged background (Dietrichson et al., 2017). The results of this research may go some way to providing a roadmap to achieving this. 

References

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher Beliefs as Predictors of Adolescents' Cognitive Engagement and Achievement in Mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 319-328. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629694

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology, 1.

 Cervantes, B., Hemmer, L., & Kouzekanani, K. (2015). The impact of project-based learning on minority student achievement: implications for school redesign. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2(2), 50-66. 

Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jørgensen, A.-M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 87(2), 243-282. doi:10.3102/0034654316687036Dotson,

L., & Foley, V. (2016). Middle Grades Student Achievement and Poverty Levels: Implications for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 33-44. Ekmekci, A., Corkin, D.

M., & Fan, W. (2019). A multilevel analysis of the impact of teachers' beliefs and mathematical knowledge for teaching on students' mathematics achievement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(12), 57-80. 

McKenna, J. W., Muething, C., Flower, A., Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. (2015). Use and Relationships among Effective Practices in Co-Taught Inclusive High School Classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 53-70. 

Megowan-Romanowicz, M. C., Middleton, J. A., Ganesh, T., & Joanou, J. (2013). Norms for participation in a middle school mathematics classroom and its effect on student motivation. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1), 51. 

Mirza, A., & Hussain, N. (2014). Motivating Learning in Mathematics through Collaborative Problem Solving: A Focus on Using Rich Tasks. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 1(1), 26-39. 

Ní Shuilleabhain, A., Cronin, A., & Prendergast, M. (2020). Maths Sparks engagement programme: investigating the impact on under-privileged pupils’ attitudes towards mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: International Journal of the IMA, 40(1), 133-153. OECD. (2010).

PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background.OECD. (2013).

PISA 2012 results: excellence through equity: giving every student the chance to succeed (volume II) (9789264201125 (print)). Retrieved from Paris: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-ii.htm

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality: UNESCO.

Valerio, J. (2021). Tracing take-up across practice-based professional development and collaborative lesson design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

In Sweden, there has been a development of continuously more and earlier mandatory assessments in schools in the last decades. One of the latest is mandatory assessment in preschool classes from 2019, with one of the purposes to identify students in need of Special Education in Mathematics (SEM students). Preschool class is a compulsory school year for 6-year-olds which precedes compulsory school. The study at hand explores how teachers create knowledge of mathematics and the SEM student during their work with this mandatory assessment. Results show that mandatory assessment might affect how teachers assess knowledge, develop their teaching, and (re)produce knowledge of the six-year-olds as knowers and of knowledge in mathematics. We join the vast amount of research that has shown that mandatory assessment is a potentially sensitive situation for students who are already unprivileged, who face obstacles in their learning or who struggle with mathematics. Awareness of processes of inclusion, exclusion and (in)equity during assessment and in the following education is central to not count (SEM) students out as competent learners with valuable knowledge.

The pursuit of inclusion and equity in mathematics education is a multifaceted and complex endeavor fraught with intricate processes and a multilayered challenge (Kollosche et al., 2019). The strive towards inclusion and equity is highly present in policy and practice in many national educational curricula. At the same time, this goal is beset with dilemmas that permeate the mission of mathematics education to ensure equity and inclusion for all learners (Tan et al., 2019). Fundamental questions concerning the opportunities provided by teaching to access learning, is at the heart of this matter (Au, 2008; Peters & Oliver, 2009). This teaching deals with instantaneous moments where complex processes and multitudinous challenges appear (Kollosche et al., 2019). When being able to adress these challenges in the fluent, lived, and contextual teaching moments of inclusion and equity are facilitated (Roos & Bagger, 2021). Hence, the purpose of this paper is to elaborate on a theoretical model to facilitate inclusion and equity in the mathematics classroom. For this reason, the following research question have guided the work: What composes moments of inclusion and equity in the mathematics teaching in a diversity of classrooms and schools? Hence, the outcome of this paper is a model, which also is a first step into trying the model out by schools in the proceeding of the project.

Equity and inclusion in mathematics teaching

Teachers, schools, and school systems are grappling with how to secure inclusion of all students in learning and to stop the decrease in equity in mathematics between groups of learners. This decrease has been recorded in international and national evaluations, as for example PISA and TIMSS, and in Sweden, through national evaluations of school’s accountability in terms of learners results and equity. Due to this, inclusion and equity are core notions in teacher education and educational practice and there is abundance of research on inclusion and equity in the education and mathematics education research field (e.g., Zevenbergen et. al, 2002). Though, mathematics education research speaking of these core values often do it on a theoretical and philosophical level, leaving a gap in research on how to realize inclusion and equity (Roos, 2019). Common between these studies, which stem from very different perspectives and theoretical assumptions, is that it is crucial to improve the situation at hand, but also that it is not easily solved (e.g., Tan et al., 2022). This is put at the fore even more when looking at students in need of special support for their learning, which can be illustrated by the risk portfolios generated by research from several research fields. In the cognitive sciences, mathematics education and special education, mathematical learning difficulties are in itself constructed as a risk (Niemenen et al., 2023). At the same time, national evaluations contribute with illustrations of the crucial and troublesome state of inclusion and equity. Nevertheless, these are not able to provide a consistent answer on how this lack of equity and inclusion can be resolved in the lived classroom (Bagger, 2017).

In the Nordic school systems, equity and inclusion in education is and has been a challenge (Frønes et al. 2020). In this, mathematics education has a special role due to the subjects governing dispositive, which label and marginalize students (Björklund, 2017). This is even more the case regarding students in need of special support, students with foreign background and boys in the Swedish setting, since on a group level these students do not reach goals. In the case regarding students in need of special support signs of structuralised marginalisation is apparent in reports from school agencies.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper draws on data from a two-year long and ethically approved field study with two participating compulsory schools in Sweden, the Mathematics is MInE (Mathematics education for Inclusion and Equity) project. The overall goal of the MInE project was to generate knowledge on, and develop principles for, supporting mathematics education in primary schools which facilitate equity and inclusion. We have defined inclusion and equity in mathematics teaching as: “teaching that contributes to student empowerment, and their ability and agency to learn through striving for every student’s opportunity to participate” (Bagger & Roos, 2023, p. 1). Hence, the study aims at levelling societal aspects of injustice through mathematics teaching, which represents a combination of societal and educational aspects which is largely lacking in research and education.  In the MInE project, teaching regarding inclusion and equity has been systematically investigated and developed in close collaboration with teachers. The project builds on Ainscows (2020) framework for inclusion and equity in education systems. This means that school development lies at the core of analysis and that inclusion and equity are considered as principles promoting participation for all students. The principles are understood as overarching principles which governs administration, school development and community involvement (Ainscow, 2020). Also, this model relies on the use of evidence to work with development on these three areas in the organisation of education. We advocated the Inclusion Inquiry Approach (IAA) in the data collection (Messieu & Ainscow, 2021). Therefore, data consists of teachers’ experiences from moments of inclusion and equity in their teaching out from three aspects: reflections on teaching, learning from difference and the development of teaching. This was reflected on during focus group interviews, and the analysis was thematic and anchored in the theoretical framework. Earlier findings in the project display that teachers’ professional judgment and ethical dilemmas is the core in facilitating moments of equity and inclusion, and that these are highly interrelated. Above all, moments of inclusion and equity has been shown to hold tensions on three aspects. These aspects represent common dilemmas and teachers’ professional judgement to resolve these in order to facilitate inclusion and equity in their teaching: 1) The quandaries of managing diversity and dispensing justice. 2) The challenges of resource allocation and ensuring fairness. And 3) The complexities of upholding values while recognizing and embracing diversity (Roos & Bagger, in press).  Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTeachers’ experiences of moments of inclusion in their teaching overlapped with moments of equity, during which the focus shifted towards the teacher’s capacity or opportunity, in terms of organizational and administrative or communal routines and restrictions, to grant students access to learning. Teachers emphasized that to facilitate inclusion and equity, an attitude perquisite was to value diverse forms of knowledge and learners. Inclusion was trough this portrayed not only as a value and goal for education and schooling, but also as a practical endeavor. Both inclusion and equity relied on teachers: insights into each students’ individuality and learning needs and capacity to build trust and fostering relationships (see Bagger & Roos, 2023; Roos and Bagger, 2021; Roos & Bagger, in press). These earlier findings are seen in the light of Ainscows (2020) framework and have been elaborated on. We right now have developed a tentative model which will be further developed in close collaboration with teachers and schools. The core elements in this model, common dilemmas and professional judgement are to be understood as complex and interrelated. To facilitate inclusion or equity, both need to be considered and explored out from the various aspects in the model. In addition, there is a need to see how for example the diversified classroom (inclusion) relates to managing diversity and the dispense of justice. The professional judgment and ethical dilemmas being in center for school development and inclusion and equity in the teaching, has been elevated into a model for exploring and better understanding how inclusion and equity works at a classroom and school level. Core aspects of professional judgement are then closely intertwined with aspects of a differentiated classroom, visions and values, and an overall teaching approach to tailor teaching to students and a learning path that suits them.  ReferencesAinscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7-16. 

Au, W. W. (2007). Devising inequality: a Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690802423312

Bagger, A. (2017). Quality and Equity in the Era of National Testing. The case of Sweden. In J. Allan & A. Artiles (Eds.), The Routledge Yearbook of Education 2017, Assessment Inequalities, (pp. 68–88). London: Routledge. 

Bagger, A. & Roos, H. (2023). Moments of Inclusion and Equity in the Mathematics Classroom. Abstract presented at ECER 2023 in Glasgow.

Björklund, L. B. (2017). Assessment in mathematics education: A gatekeeping dispositive. In H. Straehler-Pohl, N. Bohlmann & A. Pais (Eds.), The disorder of mathematics education. Challenging the sociopolitical dimensions of research (pp. 209-230). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-34006-7_13

Frønes, Pettersen, A., Radisić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (2020). Equity, Equality and Diversity in the Nordic Model of Education. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61648-9 

Kolloshe, D., Marcone, R., Knigge, M., Gody Penteado, M., & Skovsmose, O. (2019). Inclusive mathematics education. State-of-the-art research from Brazil and Germany. Cham: Springer.

Messiou, & Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusive Inquiry: Student–teacher dialogue as a means of promoting inclusion in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 670– 687. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3602          

Nieminen, J., Bagger, A. & Allan, J. (2023). Discourses of risk and hope in research on mathematical learning difficulties. Educational Studies in Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10204-x

Peters, S. & Oliver, L. A. (2009). Achieving Quality and Equity through Inclusive Education in an Era of High- Stakes Testing. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 39(3), 265-279. 10.1007/s11125-009-9116-z

Roos, H. (2019). Inclusion in mathematics education: An ideology, a way of teaching, or both? Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 100(1), 25–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z

Roos, H. & Bagger, A. (in press). Ethical dilemmas and professional judgment as a pathway to inclusion and equity in mathematics teaching. ZDM

Roos, H. & Bagger, A. (2021). Developing mathematics education promoting equity and inclusion: Is it possible? In: David Kolloshe (Ed.), Exploring new ways to connect: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Mathematics Education and Society Conference Volumes 1-3 (pp. 223-226). 

Tan, P., Lambert, R., Padilla, A., & Wieman, R. (2019). A disability studies in mathematics education review of intellectual disabilities: Directions for future inquiry and practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 54 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.09.001

Zevenbergen, R., & Ortiz-Franco, L. (2002). Equity and mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(3), 151-153.

Mathematics-specific learning difficulties and disabilities (MLD) have received increasing attention in scholarly research. In this study, we place MLD research in its wider context of risk societies by discussing the manufacturing of MLD as a risk. This framing of MLD builds on a certain idea of hope in how research could provide the means to better understand and support learners with MLD. We conduct a Foucault-informed analysis to understand how scholarly knowledge about MLD has been produced through discourses of risk and hope. Our material consists of 30 influential journal articles published in the three fields of MLD research: cognitive sciences, special education and mathematics education. Our study indicates that MLD has been predominantly conceptualised through a technico-scientific risk discourse that frames MLD as harmful for learners and societies alike; such risk discourse relies on a discourse of hope in scientific methods. We also analyse a social risk discourse that identifies risks in social exclusion and marginalisation of students with MLD, finding hope in inclusive learning environments. Based on our analysis, we propose that the mere conceptualisation of MLD has thoroughly revolved around discourses of current liminalities (risk) and enunciations of better futures (hope). However, what has been unexplored is the politics of such risk and hope discourses themselves. We propose a socio-politically oriented discourse of risk/hope as a way to reframe scientific knowledge production about MLD. This discourse identifies risks not in MLD itself but in how research manufactures MLD as a threat to both economic growth and student identities. Instead of asking research communities to mitigate the risk of MLD, we call for them to embrace it.