Through the eyes of a child: the meaning and negotiation of integration from the perspective ofpupils in Vienna2RES n.º 33 (2) (2024) a216. pp. 1-19. ISSN: 1578-2824INTRODUCTION: FRAMING THE PROBLEMIn the “long summer of migration”1 (Hess & Kasparek, 2017) of 2015, the number of asylumapplications more than tripled from 28,064 in 2014 to 88,340 in Austria (Bundesministeriumfür Inneres, 2018). Subsequently, migration and integration not only became dominantissues in the media – in 2018, the migration discourse dominated Austrian news coverageonce again (APA, 2018) – but also a key policy area, as reflected in various policies andlaws, such as the Integration Act of 2017. Krzyżanowski et al. (2018) point out that termssuch as “migration crisis” have been used to legitimize “special measures” for morerestrictive, assimilative integration policies. In line with global trends, Austria’s migrationand integration policies are consequently characterized by institutionalized skepticismtoward migrants. At the same time, ongoing processes of “securitization”2 force migrationinto the discursive realm of “national security” ( Huysmans, 2000). Accordingly, manyefforts have been made in Austria to “successfully integrate” newcomers – e.g., withthe help of value and orientation courses (Section 5 Integration Act). The starting pointof this paper is therefore that despite the overall “welcoming culture” observed in the“long summer of migration”, a change in public opinion but also in migration, integrationand education policy has taken place. With regard to the perception of integration inAustria, various scholars show that there is a “normalization of exclusionary rhetoric”(Wodak, 2020), while the assimilationist approach generally reinforces an anti-migrationtendency, which is reflected in integration policy in general and education policy inparticular (Gruber, 2018, p. 6). Policies are characterized by assimilationist notionsthat suggest a culturally homogeneous Austrian society and redefine integration as adisciplinary measure by “integration through performance” ( Rosenberger & Gruber,2020, p. 128), to test the individual ability and willingness of migrants (Kunz, 2011; Gruber,Mattes & Stadlmair, 2016; Rosenberger and Gruber, 2020), and, in the face of perceived“unwillingness to integrate”, by “integration through punishment” ( Rheindorf, 2017, p.197–199). When looking at education policies in Austria with regard to the integrationof migrants, the focus is on language integration policy (Flubacher, 2021), with Germanin particular being given primary importance ( Alpagu et al., 2019, p. 220). In general,integration policies in school are characterized by "disciplining," "privatization," and"individualization." Dursun et al. (2022, p. 15) show, however, that despite the variousdisciplining and segregating policies – illustrated, for example, by the German supportclasses (Deutschförderklassen) – certain actors and forces with opposing or at leastdifferent policy goals make sure that inclusive and integrating institutional norms andpractices do not completely disappear in Austria.1 We use the term “summer of migration” to contest such terms as ‘migration wave’ and ‘migration crisis’ that have been predominant inthe media and political discourse in Austria (but also in other countries in Europe) to describe the events of 2015 and 2016. Accordingly,we oppose the classification of these events as a natural phenomenon that ignores the socio-political dimension of migration flows,or as a crisis for Europe that presupposes a temporality with an end and return to stability.2 The concept of securitization refers to the process of staging of existential issues in politics to lift them above politics. In securitydiscourse, an issue is dramatized and presented as an issue of supreme priority; thus, by labelling it as security, an agent claims aneed for and a right to treat it by extraordinary means (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 26).de seis institutos de secundaria de Viena. No sólo encontramos muchas interpretacionesdiferentes de la integración, sino también contradicciones, ambigüedades y ambivalenciascon respecto al concepto de integración. Nuestras conclusiones sugieren que es vital que lasociedad perciba a los jóvenes como actores activos en el discurso de la integración y quetenga en cuenta el significado y la negociación de la integración, así como las necesidadesy el bienestar de los inmigrantes desde la perspectiva de los alumnos, a fin de sostener elproceso de integración de los niños inmigrantes.Palabras clave: Integración, educación, enfoque centrado en el niño, alumnos, Austria