Training Toolkit
BRIDGE: Building Research-Informed Guidance for Educational Equity
The LEARN toolkit for understanding and addressing educational inequalities for Policymakers in Europe
Introduction
The BRIDGE toolkit for policymakers is a public deliverable (D4.4) as part of Working Package 4 (WP4) in the EU-funded LEARN project (Longitudinal Educational Achievements: Reducing iNequalities).
LEARN (2024-2027) brings together 13 universities and 9 European countries (Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the UK, Switzerland). Adapting a longitudinal perspective, LEARN studies educational inequalities over the life course and across educational transitions. It maps and analyses the ways in which socio-economic, gender, and migrant backgrounds are associated with unequal opportunities—particularly at transition points between educational levels.
Within LEARN, Work Package 4 (WP4), which focuses on policy and impact on education, is dedicated to translating LEARN’s research into resources that support evidence-informed policymaking to reduce educational inequalities. As stated in the LEARN project document for D4.4: “The core purpose of D4.4 is to enhance the capacity of policymakers across Europe to better understand and interpret scientific evidence on educational inequalities, and to incorporate this insight into policy decisions.”
Building on this objective, the BRIDGE toolkit is designed to help policymakers interpret evidence, think critically about policy problems, and connect research to decisions on design, implementation, and adaptation. It is intended as a practical and accessible resource, as well as a learning tool that supports reflection on how educational inequalities can be addressed in different national and regional contexts.
Objectives
The BRIDGE toolkit aims to strengthen the capacity of policymakers to understand and use scientific evidence on educational inequalities in policy design and implementation. More specifically, it seeks to support readers in: – Identifying educational inequalities in transitions. – Framing policy challenges more clearly. – Considering how evidence can inform policy design. – Reflecting on how policies can be monitored and adapted in practice.
The BRIDGE toolkit is not intended to offer a single model or blueprint; rather, it is designed to encourage critical reflection, comparative learning, and evidence-informed policy across different educational contexts.
Module Structure Overview
The toolkit is organized into four modules, each addressing a different stage in the policy process:
- Module 1: Understanding Inequalities in Education — Provides the conceptual and reflective foundation for the toolkit.
- Module 2: Defining the Policy Problem and Using Evidence — Focuses on how evidence can be used to frame policy problems and identify responses.
- Module 3: Designing Feasible and Equitable Policies — Explores how policy choices can be both realistic and fair.
- Module 4: Monitoring, Learning, and Adaptive Implementation — Addresses implementation, evaluation, and learning over time.
LEARN Participating Countries’ Contribution to the BRIDGE Toolkit
| Acronym | Full Name | Country | Module | Contribution / Webinar title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNIL | University of Lausanne | Switzerland | 1 | Conceptualisation, overall coordination, drafting of the introduction, module 1, and conclusion, and preparation of the list of references |
| EUI | European University Institute | Netherlands | 3 | Trade-offs Inherent in Educational Policy Design |
| MMU | Manchester Metropolitan University | UK | 2 | An Introduction to RCTs in Education |
| LifBi | National Educational Panel Study (hosted by LIfBi) | Germany | 2 | Educational Longitudinal Data Structures in Europe: Potentials for Monitoring and Decision-Making |
| UniMi | University of Milan | Italy | 3 | Designing Equitable School Transition Policies |
| UTU | University of Turku | Finland | 4 | Using Registers for Research in Education |
Expected Learning Outcomes
- Gain a clearer understanding of how educational inequalities emerge, persist, and are reproduced across educational transitions.
- Identify the kinds of evidence that are most relevant for policy questions.
- Reflect critically on how evidence can be interpreted and applied in different educational contexts.
- Better understand the trade-offs involved in policy design.
- Appreciate the importance of implementation, monitoring, and adaptation over time.
- Develop a more evidence-informed and context-sensitive approach to policymaking.
- Move beyond simply recognizing inequality as a problem toward thinking about how policy can address it in realistic, equitable, and locally meaningful ways.
Module 1: Understanding Educational Inequalities
Juliette E Torabian, University of Lausanne
Welcome to Module one!
This module provides the conceptual entry point to the BRIDGE toolkit. It introduces educational inequalities as a complex and persistent issue that shapes access, participation, progression, and attainment across educational systems. The aim is to help readers reflect on the main dimensions of inequality and to establish a common frame of reference for the rest of the toolkit.
Educational Policies in Europe
The European Union frames education, training, and lifelong learning as the first principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights, underscoring their importance for full participation in society and for navigating transitions in working life (European Commission, 2017). This principle is central to the idea of just societies because education is not only a route to individual development but also a key institution through which equality of opportunity, social inclusion, and democratic participation are realized (European Commission, 2017, 2020). Within the European policy agenda, access to quality and inclusive education is therefore treated as a condition for social cohesion and for reducing inequalities that accumulate across the life course. From this perspective, education is positioned as an equaliser rather than as a reproduction mechanism of power, social privilege, and economic advantage (Bernardi, 2016). Educational justice, however, is not achieved simply by widening formal access; it also requires that learners encounter fair conditions for learning, progress, and attainment (European Commission, 2020).
Despite such a comprehensive European policy framework and subsequent national policies aimed at building more just societies through education, educational inequalities persist across countries and educational levels (European Commission, 2020). Research on school structure, for instance, indicates that systems with greater stratification, tracking, and segregation tend to show stronger links between social background and achievement (Terrin & Triventi, 2023). Additionally, schools operate within broader education systems, each of which is shaped by distinct structures, policies, practices, and traditions. These system-level characteristics, in turn, shape schooling processes and ultimately influence the degree of equity in education (European Commission, 2020). For instance, the study by (Ballarino et al. 2014) shows that, despite a centralized school system, educational inequalities in Italy diverged regionally over time, with the North benefiting more from educational expansion and the South remaining disadvantaged. The strongest inequalities appeared at key school transitions, especially from lower to upper secondary education, where working-class students in the North were more likely to enter vocational tracks.
In addition to national and institutional policies and practices, educational inequalities are not static one-time events but tend to accumulate over the life course of an individual’s schooling and based on their social backgrounds (LEARN, 2024; PIONEERED, 2022). Families with lower levels of education or migrant backgrounds may have less access to the forms of cultural and social capital that schools tend to value, and this can shape children’s experiences and performance in school (Bourdieu, 1986; Lynch & Baker, 2005). Lower achievement associated with socio-economic disadvantage is then often reflected in weaker qualifications at the point of exit from the education system, a pattern commonly described as the primary effect of social origin. In addition, socio-economic background can influence students’ expectations, aspirations, and perceived possibilities, thereby reinforcing the primary effect through what are known as secondary effects. In their study (Jackson et al., 2007) showed that secondary effects, indeed reinforce primary effects to a substantial extent, accounting for at least one quarter, and possibly up to one-half, of class differentials as measured by odds ratios. This indicates even the sources of inequalities at the intersection or individuals and institutions are more complex and can reinforce each other.
The concept of primary and secondary effects, developed by Boudon (1974), is indeed a framework which can facilitate delineating educational inequalities at the micro level. The primary effects refer to differences in educational achievement structured by social origin with respect to class, and secondary effects relate to social background-specific educational decisions at certain points of educational transitions, which is the focus of LEARN EU-funded project. Both primary and secondary effects can also be applied to gender (Becker, 2014; Hadjar et al., 2014), ethnic inequalities (van de Werfhorst & van Tubergen, 2007; Kristen et al., 2008), the intersection of gender and ethnicity (Fleischmann & Kristen, 2014; Dollmann, 2017), and disability (Powell, 2010). A major recent extension of Boudon’s model concerns tertiary effects (Esser, 2016), namely stereotype-driven expectations, efforts, and evaluations by teachers who treat, diagnose, and make decisions about students differently in school. Research has shown that teachers hold stereotypes related to gender, migration background, social background, and special educational needs/disability (Glock et al., 2015; Krischler et al., 2019).
Accordingly, the lower educational attainment of disadvantaged groups can be explained by their lower achievement (primary effects), their lower educational aspirations and educational choices in favour of less demanding and shorter educational pathways (secondary effects), and their different treatment by teachers (tertiary effects), alongside actual and perceived resource constraints. In effect, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds typically have fewer financial resources to purchase learning materials, attend private schools, or pay for private tutoring (shadow education); fewer social-network resources in the form of people who can support their learning; and fewer cultural resources, such as books and cultural activities, that create a learning-supportive environment. These constraints are associated with a weaker perception of the benefits of higher educational tracks and a stronger perception of the risk of failure. Contemporary models also stress tertiary effects, such as credential-based institutional discrimination and stereotyped teacher expectations and evaluations, which shape students’ attainment and further disadvantage members of already marginalised groups (Blossfeld et al., 2015; Esser, 2016).
Educational inequalities, therefore, are accumulated disadvantages in access to, participation in, and attainment in education that are produced through the interaction of social background, institutions, and broader policy arrangements (PIONEERED, 2022). They are not static or one-dimensional, but multilevel, life-course, and intersectional, because they emerge across different stages of educational trajectories and are shaped by the combined effects of gender, migration background, socio-economic status, and other social positions (PIONEERED, 2022; LEARN, 2024). This means that inequalities should be analysed not only at the level of individual attainment, but also across educational transitions, schools, systems, and time, since disadvantage may accumulate gradually and take different forms in different contexts (PIONEERED, 2022; LEARN, 2024).
Equity in education is, hence, a combination of inclusion and fairness. It entails that all learners should be able to participate effectively, and personal or social circumstances should not block educational success. Access, opportunity, and attainment, therefore, need to be understood together, since unequal entry into education, unequal learning conditions, and unequal outcomes reinforce one another across transitions and stages of schooling (see McCoy et al., 2019; Scholz et al., 2018; European Commission, 2020).
In LEARN, our attempt is to ensure the successful realisation of the European Pillar of Social Rights through educational equity. To this end, we draw on national longitudinal evidence to identify the short, mid, and long-term patterns through which inequalities are produced and reproduced across the nine participating European countries (LEARN, 2024). We provide an analysis of sources of inequalities in educational transitions and translate this evidence to inform and train policymakers to tackle educational inequalities and achieve equity in education for all. The relevance of our research to policy is evident in our deliverables including, Deliverable 4.3 (What Counts as Evidence?), and training for policymakers through the current toolkit, Deliverable 4.4, called BRIDGE.
References
- Ballarino, G., Panichella, N., Triventi, M., (2014). School expansion and uneven modernization. Comparing educational inequality in Northern and Southern Italy, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 36, 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2014.01.002
- Becker, R. (2014). Reversal of gender differences in educational attainment. Historical analysis of the West German case. Educational
- Research 56(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898914
- Blossfeld, P.N., Blossfeld, G.J., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2015). Educational expansion and inequalities in educational opportunity. Long-term
- changes for East and West Germany. European Sociological Review 31(2), 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv017
- Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality. Changing prospects in Western society. New York: Wiley.
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (p. 241–
- 258). New York: Greenwood.
- Bernanrdi, F (2016). Education as the great equalizer: a theoretical framework. In Fabrizio Bernanrdi, “Education, Occupation and Social Origin – A Comparative Analysis of the Transmission of Socio-Economic Inequalities”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301587934_Education_as_the_great_equalizer_a_theoretical_framework#fullTextFileContent
- Dollmann, J. (2017). Positive choices for all? SES- and gender-specific premia of immigrants at educational transitions. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 49: 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2017.03.001
- Esser, H. (2016). The model of ability tracking – Theoretical expectations and empirical findings on how educational systems impact on educational success and inequality. In H.-P. Blossfeld, S. Buchholz, O. Friedrich, J. Skopek, & M. Triventi (Eds.), Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality (p. 25 – 42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Fleischmann Fenella, Kristen Cornelia, Heath Anthony F., Yaël Brinbaum, Deboosere Patrick, et al.. Gender Inequalities in the Education of the Second Generation in Western Countries. Sociology of Education, 2014, Volume 87 (Issue 3), pp.143-170. https://hal.science/hal-04921425v1
- Glock, S., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Pit-ten Cate, I.M. (2015). Are school placement recommendations accurate? The effect of students’ ethnicity on teachers’ judgments and recognition memory. European Journal of Psychology of Education 30(2), 169-188. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43551178.
- Kristen, C., Reimer, D., & Kogan, I. (2008). Higher education entry of Turkish immigrant youth in Germany. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49(2-3), 127-151. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020715208088909
- Krischler, M., Powell, J.J.W., & Pit-ten Cate, I.M. (2019). What is meant by inclusion: On the effects of different definitions on attitudes toward inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education 34(5), 632-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837
- Hadjar, A., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Priem, K. & Glock, S. (2014). Gender and educational achievement. Educational Research 56(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.898908
- European Commission. (2017). European Pillar of Social Rights. European Union. European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
- European Commission. (2020). Equity in school education in Europe: Structures, policies and student performance. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a18e3a88-1e4d-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
- Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/no-more-failures_9789264032606-en.html
- LEARN (2024). EU Horizon Europe project Longitudinal Educational Achievements: Reducing iNequalities (LEARN). https://www.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/longitudinal-educational-achievements
- Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education: An equality of condition perspective: An equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2), 131-164. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477878505053298
- McCoy, S., Shevlin, M., & Rose, R. (2020). Secondary school transition for students with special educational needs in Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1628338
- PIONEERED. (2022). Policy formulations towards an equitable education: policy brief. https://www.pioneered-project.eu/public-deliverables/PIONEERED_policy%20brief_PPMI_FINAL.pdf
- Powell, J. J.W. (2010). Change in disability classification. Redrawing categorical boundaries in special education in the United States and Germany, 1920-2005. Comparative Sociology 9(2), 241-267. https://brill.com/view/journals/coso/9/2/article-p241_6.xml
- Scholz, A., Erhard, K., Hahn, S., & Harring, D. (2018). Inequalities in access to early childhood education and care in Germany: The Equal Access Study. Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V. https://www.dji.de/fileadmin/user_upload/bibs2018/WEB_DJI_ExpertiseDeutschland.pdf
- Terrin, É., & Triventi, M. (2023). The Effect of School Tracking on Student Achievement and Inequality: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 93(2), 236-274. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543221100850
- Van de Werfhorst, H.G. & Van Tubergen, F. (2007). Ethnicity, schooling, and merit in the Netherlands. Ethnicities 7: 4164–4144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796807080236
Module 2: Defining the Policy Problem and Using Evidence
This module focuses on how educational inequalities are framed as policy problems and how evidence can be used to identify possible responses. It is accompanied by two webinars showing how different forms of evidence can help define policy problems, interpret data, and support more informed decision-making.
Track 1: An Introduction to RCTs in Education (MMU Contribution)
Lee Bentley, Manchester Metropolitan University
Pre-Webinar Brief: Evidence-Informed Education & Policy Diagnostic
1. Policy Problem Definition: The Attainment Crisis
The UK education system faces significant challenges, highlighted by a persistent attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. Disadvantaged children can fall 9–20 months behind by the end of secondary school. The cost of inaction is enormous, with economic estimates suggesting this gap could cost the UK economy £20 billion per cohort. Strategic, evidence-based investments are imperative to ensure high-stakes funding moves the needle on social mobility.
2. Hierarchy of Evidence
- Anecdote & Case Studies: Useful for generating hypotheses, but cannot prove causality.
- Correlational Studies: Observe relationships, but carry high risk of false causality.
- Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Isolates the impact of an intervention by randomizing groups to provide causal proof.
- Systematic Reviews: The apex of evidence synthesis, combining multiple RCTs to prevent cherry-picking.
3. Mechanics of an RCT & Cluster Randomization
- Randomization: Splitting population into Intervention and Control groups.
- The Counterfactual: Answers “What would have happened if we did nothing?”
- Cluster Randomization: Randomizing at the class or school level rather than pupil level to prevent “contamination” (teachers sharing techniques with control groups).
4. Case Study: Scaling Success & Financial Justification
- Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI): High-security evidence scaled nationwide.
- Impact: +3 to +4 months of language progress (up to +7 months for FSM pupils).
- Security: 5 out of 5 padlocks (Very High Security based on multiple large-scale RCTs).
- Scale: Rolled out to over 11,000 primary schools.
Track 2: Educational Longitudinal Data Structures in Europe (LIfBi Contribution)
Corinna Kleinert and Felix Bittmann, Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories and University of Bamberg
In this webinar, researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi) provide an in-depth look at how a modern education register could be designed in Germany and its benefits for policy and research.
Core Focus Areas
- Educational Equity: Tracking achievement stratification and resource metrics over long horizons.
- Stage Transitions: Analyzing pipeline constraints as cohorts migrate between school systems.
- Skilled Workforce: Aligning ongoing institutional output with shifting skilled labour demands.
- Long-Term Impact Assessment: Measuring the exact downstream footprint of specific policy measures.
Module 3: Designing Feasible and Equitable Policies
This module examines the process of turning evidence into policy choices. It includes webinars on Three Functions of Education and Two Distributional Concerns and Trade-offs Inherent in Educational Policy Design. Readers are encouraged to reflect on how equity, feasibility, and context shape policy design.
Track 1: Three Functions of Education and Distributional Concerns (EUI Contribution)
Herman van de Werfhorst, European University Institute
Core Framework & Societal Functions
- Qualification: Skill formation and credentialling (measured via PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS).
- Allocation: Sorting process from school to work; matching credentials to labour market demand.
- Socialisation: Instilling shared values, civic competencies, and active democratic citizenship.
Distributional Concerns
- Efficiency: Maximizing outcomes given resources.
- Equality: Ensuring fair access regardless of social origin. Evidence shows efficiency and equality rarely conflict—egalitarian systems perform just as well or better on efficiency metrics.
Country Case Study: The Netherlands
- Economic performance: High maths scores and low youth unemployment (Qualification & Allocation working well).
- Civic deficit: ICCS data shows Dutch students score below peers in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark on civic knowledge, institutional trust, and support for equal rights.
- School Priority Gap: 64% of Dutch schools cover the market economy, while only 34% cover civil rights protection.
Track 2: Educational Policy and Trade-offs (EUI Contribution)
Herman van de Werfhorst, European University Institute
Key Policy Levers Analyzed
- Tracking: The age at which students are separated into different school tracks.
- Vocational Orientation: The scale of the VET sector and employer integration.
Core Findings & Evidence
- Early Tracking: Cross-national evidence between Grade 4 and Age 15 demonstrates that early sorting widens socioeconomic achievement gaps. Postponing tracking narrows class-based inequalities.
- Vocational Life-Course Risk: Strong employer-integrated VET systems deliver quick school-to-work transitions and initial high wages, but employment rates for vocationally qualified workers decline faster after age 50.
- Civic Trust Divergence: Longitudinal Dutch panel data tracking Grade 7 to 10 pupils showed academic track pupils gained institutional trust over time, while pre-vocational track pupils experienced a decline.
Module 4: Monitoring, Learning, and Adaptive Implementation
This module addresses what happens after a policy has been designed and introduced. It is accompanied by the webinar Using Registers for Research in Education, which speaks to the role of data, monitoring, and evidence in understanding how policies are implemented and adapted over time. Implementation is presented as an ongoing process of learning, evaluation, and adjustment.
Track 1: Using Registers for Research in Education (UTU Contribution)
Jani Erola and Ryan O Giubhan, University of Turku
Pre-Webinar Brief
Administrative registers provide accurate, full-population datasets that can be dynamically linked across health, education, income, and employment records.
Advantages over Sample Surveys
- Eliminates retrospective memory bias and non-response bias.
- Captures 100% of target populations, enabling high-resolution analysis of small, vulnerable subgroups.
- Settle contentious public policy debates using unyielding empirical counterfactuals.
Synthesis, Strategic Frameworks & Further Reading
This toolkit has offered a concise introduction to educational inequalities and the ways they are shaped by social background, institutions, and policy.
Module 1 provided a short overview of the concept of educational inequality and introduced the main ideas needed to understand how inequalities emerge, persist, and are reproduced across educational systems.
Module 2 explored how educational inequalities can be studied through evidence, including randomized controlled trials and longitudinal data, and showed how different forms of evidence can support policy analysis and decision-making.
Module 3 focused on the trade-offs inherent in educational policy design and highlighted the challenges involved in creating policies that are both feasible and equitable.
Module 4 examined the role of registers in educational research and demonstrated how administrative data can support monitoring, analysis, and policy learning over time. Together, the modules and webinars provided a structured introduction to the main issues, methods, and policy questions surrounding educational inequalities.
Related European Horizon Research Projects
- CATEWE: Comparative Analysis of Transitions from Education to Work (FP5)
- CILS4EU-DE: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey (NORFACE)
- ETHMIGSURVEYDATA: International Ethnic & Immigrant Minorities’ Survey Data Network (COST)
- IMCHILD: Impact of Childhood Circumstances on Individual Outcomes (NORFACE)
- MapIE: Mapping of Longitudinal data of Inequalities in Education (H2020)
- STRIDE: Strategies for achieving equity and inclusion in education (H2020)
- REVERS-Ed: Trends on educational inequalities over time (H2020)
- Line-Up: Longitudinal data on students’ learning outcomes (H2020)
Selected Further Reading
- European Commission (2025). National strategies to tackle absenteeism and early leaving from education and training.
- European Commission (2023). Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe.
- OECD (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.
- UNESCO (2026). Global education monitoring report 2026: access and equity.
Contact Juliette Torabian (juliette.torabian@unil.ch) if you would like to discuss the content of any of these modules. Contact Paula Sergeant (LEARN@mmu.ac.uk) if you notice any problems with the function of the Toolkit.