Conference Agenda

In this project we intend to promote the creation and development of one Transformative Learning Community (TLC), in a school cluster where it still do not exist. Thus, our research problem is: how does the development of one TLC, around the issue of diversity, promote an inclusive school?

To study this problem, we focused on three main goals: (1) analyze the development process of inclusive education through the present policy framework; (2) identify the perspectives and practices of teachers and students; (3) understand the influence of a TLC, focused on issues of inclusion and diversity, in teachers’ professional development.

Diversity in schools takes many different forms: learning styles, readiness for learning, interests, linguistic and sociocultural resources (Kaldi et al., 2018; Pinho et al., 2011; Szelei et al., 2019) and diverse values/expectations towards school and education (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Inclusion requires building collaborative communities that welcome diversity and promote the success of all students, requiring a deep restructuring of schools’ cultures, policies and practices (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Ainscow & Messiou, 2018; Florian, 1998).

The involvement of students in these collaborative processes will make schools more aware of what is going on within their borders, identifying barriers to students’ participation and learning (Ainscow, 2020; Caetano et al., 2020), improving school environment and students’ engagement with the school (Keisu & Ahlström, 2020). Besides this, OECD results (Ainley & Carstens, 2018) indicate that most teachers who participate in formal professional development initiatives, addressing issues related to these, reported improvements in self-efficacy regarding teaching in diverse environments. Therefore, it is essential to create continuing development opportunities for professionals to discuss and reflect on their practices towards diversity, and to develop specific knowledge and skills for facing the challenges associated with inclusion and diversity (Szelei et al., 2019). This is a central issue in the development of inclusive schools (Ainscow, 2020).

According to Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, “the process involves transforming frames of reference through critical reflection of assumptions, validating contested beliefs through discourse, taking action on one’s reflective insight, and critically assessing it” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 11). It involves sharing dialogue and experiences in collaborative processes, crossing the boundary of experiential and theoretical knowledge, making invisible learning visible and building the unknown through co-authorship and networking (Wenger et al., 2014).

Systemic school based intervention have been gaining strength (Admiraal et al., 2019), particularly, the development of learning communities in the school, involving not only teachers, but also students and other members of the educational community (Pinho et al., 2011). Transformative Learning Communities (TLC) appear here as a proposal to create collaborative contexts, supported by a socio-reconstructionist and emancipatory philosophy, that can respond to needs felt by schools, giving rise to transformative learning empowering all community participants. Indeed, TLC can promote shared research and critical reflection within the community, facilitating change in conceptualizations and practices (Wenger et al., 2014), the creation of relationships and the transformation of school culture towards greater equity, with significant gains in behaviour and student learning. To this end, it is essential to create participation structures, which include the organization of meeting spaces and times, the development of productive interdisciplinary teams and of effective collaborative processes (Admiraal et al., 2019).

There is growing recognition in the Netherlands of the need for a more equitable and inclusive educational system (Hosseini et al., 2021). In spite of these developments, however, equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are not addressed directly in the legal qualification criteria for secondary school teaching (Rijksoverheid, 2005), and often have no formal position in teacher education curricula. Also missing in this context, is a shared language among educators regarding the goals of and approaches to inclusion (Hosseini et al., 2021). In international contexts such as the USA, the more critical, political and activistic concept of social justice-oriented teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Gorski & Dalton, 2020) has developed following decades of awareness-raising and research (Leeman & Reid, 2006). In the Netherlands, this movement is still unknown to many educators, and may be considered “radical” (Hosseini, et al. 2021: 18).

Research has shown that having teachers with whom they can identify contributes to learners’ chances of school success (Figlio, 2017) and that a diverse teacher population can enhance the learning of all students (Wells et al., 2016). Teaching staff in schools in the Netherlands – as in many countries – do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve (Grootscholte & Jettinghoff, 2010). Thus, the teaching profession does not have enough opportunity to benefit from a broad range of experiences and backgrounds among teaching staff (Bijlsma & Keyser, 2021), which can serve to perpetuate systems of inequity and social injustice. As emphasized in Banks’ (2004) model of multicultural education, inclusive and equitable education takes place within a diverse and inclusive environment that has empowering and equitable social structures. Among factors identified as contributing to the lack of diversity among teachers in the Netherlands are low recruitment rates and high levels of attrition among culturally diverse teachers and student teachers (Grootscholte & Jettinghoff, 2010). In order to promote inclusive teaching and provide diverse teachers with access to the profession, therefore, it is necessary for ITE to be inclusive itself. This is in line with the ‘teach as you preach’ principle within many teacher education programmes, and also with conceptualisations of social justice-oriented teacher education that emphasise multilayered goals affecting student teachers’ practice as well as the environment in which they learn (Cochran-Smith, 2004).

Research has shown that EDI in teacher education is best addressed as an integral aspect of teaching and learning to teach, rather than in electives or standalone courses (Civitillo et al., 2018). Thus, not only a handful of specialists, but the whole team of teacher educators should ideally be involved. Teacher education for inclusion is likely to be heavily influenced by teacher educators’ beliefs, and the goals they ascribe it (Hosseini et al., 2021). The question is therefore, in a setting where widespread attention for EDI is a relatively recent development, what are the starting points of teacher educators and their students with regard to inclusive education? And how can we build upon their beliefs and experiences in order to design and implement an inclusive teacher education curriculum?

The study presented in this ignite talk is situated in the context of a university-based initial teacher education (ITE) master degree programme in the Netherlands. Carried out during a process of curriculum revision, the study aimed to explore the beliefs and experiences of students and teacher educators regarding EDI and its role in (teacher) education. Through examining the ‘starting point’, the aim was to inform and inspire the further development of the programme in ways that involve meaningful change while maintaining space for colleagues’ beliefs and perceptions of their role.

Demands for initial teacher education (ITE) to address learner diversity and inequitable opportunities for pupils is a global concern (Grudnoff et al, 2017; Herzog-Punzenberger et al, 2022). However, Rowan et al (2020)’s systematic review of international research on teacher education and equity concludes that most research focuses on student teachers; more insight into the views of teacher educators and their critical epistemic reflexivity is needed. This paper aims to address this by asking: What are the views and practices of teacher educators regarding diversity and equity in ITE, and what contextual factors influence these?

The study presents the results of a case study in an ITE institute in a large urban area in England. The data from policy documents and 11 interviews with primary phase teacher educators and programme management were analysed employing content analysis.

A tripartite distinction (Rowan et al. 2020) of ‘knowledge claims’ was used to analyse views of teacher educators: 1) teaching about diversity (teaching about migration and equity), 2) teaching to diversity (catering to the needs of diverse learners) and 3) teaching for diversity (ITE as a place for achieving social justice). All interviews showed evidence of teaching for diversity. There was often explicit reference to advancing diversity through ITE in combination with justice and fairness, addressing unconscious bias and countering the damaging effects of stereotypes. Some interviewees had explicit critical agendas, with ITE being ‘a site for change’ and the need for more advocacy for ‘minority students’. ‘We-ness’ was strongly present, focusing on the need for collective articulation of values and practices, questioning with 'risky talk' (Eraut, 2000) what needs to be talked about, with students and within the teacher educator community. Teaching to diversity views mainly focused on the importance of getting to know the pupils, their attitudes, behaviour, interests and home situation. Inclusive pedagogy and the importance of realizing that pupils are not at an equal starting point was emphasized. Teaching about diversity was less evident, and mostly referred to the importance of student teachers having awareness of diversity and equity issues.

Recent sources (Grudnoff et al, 2017; Cochran-Smith, et al 2016; Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011) have described possible equity practices, from which we distilled six relevant categories: funds of knowledge; high expectations; adaptive teaching; relationships; inquiry as stance; addressing inequity. All practices surfaced in our data, indicating variety in the ways in which teacher educators address equity. Notably, most respondents indicated a hesitation in implementing practices. Talking about equity and diversity was often considered difficult; respondents noted tthe need for a framework to support focused dialogue. Most respondents also suggested that teacher education can do more to help student teachers to resist deficit concepts of learners in order to develop inclusive pedagogies.

Finally, the hindering effect of national regulations was evident in the data. Most respondents referred to insufficient time due to the constraints of mandatory programme content. Some stated the difficulties of paying attention to diversity and equity, when this is not a government priority. Moreover, the considerable influence of partnership arrangements was noted. School cultures, values and ethos are important influences on being able to achieve programme aims. Conversely, the university Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and leadership and the role of the programme director were considered to be stimulating factors.

The results with regard to views, practices and contextual factors suggest the challenges of arriving at a shared, deep understanding and practice - that praxis is complex in this area, is embedded in teacher educators’ values and autobiographical dimensions and multiple contextual factors. Collective responsibility to bring about change requires critical dialogue among teacher educators.

This study investigates how teacher educators conceptualize/operationalize teacher-educating for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in university-based teacher preparation programs in different geographical and institutional contexts. It speaks to the value—and challenge—of diversity in educational research (ECER 2023) to understand teacher educators’ professional knowledge for teacher preparation in/for an evolving world.

While DEI is not a new concept, it is visible in contemporary education goals. A scan of websites of European universities reveals commitment to DEI. For example, “Inclusivity as a core value” (University of Helsinki https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/university-helsinki); “diversity is celebrated and everyone is treated fairly regardless of gender, age, race, disability, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, civil status, family status, or membership of the travelling community” (University College Dublin https://www.ucd.ie/equality/about); “nurturing an inclusive culture…strength lies in diversity” (Maastrich University https://www.maastrichuniverisyt.nl/about-um/diversity-inclusivity).

These commitments undoubtedly guide teacher preparation in these and other higher education institutions across Europe, especially since the European Commission has “established ‘inclusive education, equality, equity, non-discrimination and the promotion of civic competences’ as priority areas for European cooperation in the field of education and training” (https://education.ec.europa.eu/, para.4). This commitment is also reflected in U.S. institutions where preparing teachers for equitable education is an “animating force” (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005, p.45). Yet, such commitments are fast becoming imperative given significant global-level events (Author, 2021). Chief among them is unprecedented global migration resulting from war, adverse climate events, and persecution. 2021 saw 89.3 million people forcibly displaced; that number burgeoned to 101+ million in 2022 stemming from the Russian-Ukrainian war. Alarmingly, children account for 41% of migrants (UNHCR, 2022). This massive movement of young people has dramatically increased the presence of culturally and linguistically distinct newcomers in classrooms across Europe (Bryant et al., 2022) and the U.S. (UNHCR, 2022), urgently requiring teachers to become more responsive to changing social conditions and diverse student populations (Author, 2021; European Commission, 2017). Global social movements (#BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, the Schools Strike movement…) amidst growing intolerance, political malfeasance, white supremacy, and nationalism, ignited demands for justice, sharpening the need for social justice-oriented teachers/teaching. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated endemic educational inequities, disproportionately affecting children of color (Bryant et al., 2022). International attention to preparing teachers to serve the educational needs of all children has never been more urgent, even as teachers continue to express a lack of preparedness to do this critical work (European Commission, 2017; OECD, 2018; 2019).

This reveals a gap between teacher educators’ DEI commitments and the capabilities of the teachers they prepare. Research on teacher educators internationally has shown that “rhetoric surrounding this issue is much more robust than actual practice” (Author, 2019, p.64), and “there are multiple discourses that educators draw upon” (Hytten & Bettez, 2011, p.8). Thus, despite embrace of the concept, a common understanding of what DEI means remains unclear. Our study examines these multiple discourses surrounding DEI teacher preparation and seeks to gain insight into teacher educators’ enactments—barriers, practices and affordances—by learning from teacher educators across different contexts. We report on a pre-pilot study in preparation for a large-scale study of international teacher educators. We drew upon North’s Social Justice Education Spheres—Redistribution/Recognition; Macro/Micro Levels of Power; Knowledge/Action (2008), to theoretically ground our thinking and inform our research questions:

1. Numerous terms are used in thinking about teacher preparation for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion/DEI: social justice, equity, multiculturalism, anti-racist, decolonizing, emancipatory, etc. Which term(s) do teacher educators choose/use? Why?

2. In varied institutional/geographical contexts, how is DEI teacher preparation operationalized? What supports/structures are(not) in place to forward articulated goals?

3. What are some key practices teacher educators have implemented in DEI work with teacher candidates?