Conference Agenda

Teaching in dynamic and ever changing migration and diversity contexts continues to be challenging. In particular, teachers are called upon to meet the following two educational objectives:

Firstly, equal educational chances should ideally be provided regardless of factors such as social, ethnic, national origin, religious conviction or gender. However, this is still far from reality (OECD, 2023). Although the causes for this inequity are complex, it is also undisputed that teachers are influential with their respective pedagogical orientations (e.g. Weitkämper, 2019 for an overview).

The second objective relates to the broad topic of social belonging and the corresponding social learning: All students should learn to live responsibly in a democratic, diverse society. The Swiss-German "Curriculum 21", for instance, stresses the need to learn mutual respect for a pluralistic, anti-discriminatory society and for social cohesion (D-EDK, 2016). Teachers are challenged in this respect, not only in terms of guiding their students' learning processes, but also in terms of self-reflecting and developing their own attitude.

Both of these concerns are based on the fundamental conviction that all students have equal rights to recognition, both in terms of educational opportunities and in terms of their social belonging (Mantel, 2022). In view of the great importance of these two objectives, the question arises as to how teachers can be effectively supported in their challenges. This, in turn, requires a better understanding of the guiding orientations teachers have and what limits or expands their scope of action.

Previous studies repeatedly show stereotyping and deficit orientations among teachers towards their students, particularly with reference to migration history, culture and/or language, sometimes intersectionally interwoven with socio-economic background and/or gender. In some studies, the differences between various pedagogical orientations have been worked out within the framework of typologies, however, often limited to a focus on teachers’ dealing with cultural difference, particularly what the German speaking area is concerned (see Leutwyler & Mantel, 2015 for an overview; Mantel, forthcoming). The presented study adds to the state of research with an attempt to describe the differences between teachers’ orientations in a rather general way, exploring new ways of looking at the underlying logics and including a deeper understanding of what these orientations are shaped by in terms of their life and professional history. Accordingly, this research is focussed on the following questions: (a) What are the pedagogical orientations among teachers in schools of the migration society, particularly with regard to questions of educational opportunities and questions of social belonging and the corresponding social learning? (b) In what ways are these orientations shaped by the teachers’ life and professional history?

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24^th February 2024, the European Union activated the temporary protection directive (EC, 2001). The directive is intended to establish “minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin”. Article 12 of the directive instructs that “Member States shall authorise . . . persons enjoying temporary protection to engage in employed or self-employed activities, subject to rules applicable to the profession, as well as in activities such as educational opportunities for adults, vocational training and practical workplace experience”. It is estimated that there are currently 4.2 million people from Ukraine living in the European Union, with Germany and Poland the main countries hosting these beneficiaries of temporary protection (Eurostat, 2023). While some attention has been given both to the educational experiences and challenges for Ukrainian children and young people as they attempt to continue schooling in new contexts, and to the experiences of schools and national systems of education as they seek to integrate these new learners, very little attention has been paid to the integration of Ukrainian educators into schools and education systems. The notable exception is the OECD work on “Teaching Opportunities and Support for Ukrainian Educators” (OECD, 2023). This short document provides a keen insight into the variety of ways in which certain member states of the European Union have sought to support Ukrainian teachers to restart their careers in a new jurisdiction. Short-term contracts as teachers are available in some countries, while other countries they are specifically seen as resources to address the educational and psycho-social needs of Ukrainian children and young people, sometimes in dedicated temporary education sites, or can be employed as teaching assistants. While there are many contextual differences with this population of teachers, it is evident that they share some of the same barriers that refugee and migrant teachers face more generally as they seek to continue their chosen career in a new jurisdiction. Miller (2008) claims that when states do not provide appropriate professional development support for such teachers, they fail to integrate them into the norms, customs and nuances of the local system which is “tantamount to professional neglect”. Female refugee teachers in Canada and the UK (Ratković and Pietka-Nykaza, 2016) argue that they shoulder the burden of integration, with few supporting mechanisms for enabling them to continue in their career. When this happens, they are less likely to succeed on their journey into teaching. Even when they have successfully commenced a teaching position, such teachers encounter a host of difficulties such as adjusting to new administrative regulations, teaching practices, new curriculum, diverse forms of assessment, differences in values and expectations, teacher status, classroom management and interaction with parents and communities (Bense, 2016; Carvatti et al., 2014; Collins and Reid, 2012). These experiences can lead to high levels of attrition among migrant and refugee teachers. Bridging programmes have been highly successful in supporting refugee teachers to integrate into teaching workforces (Schmidt and Schneider, 2016). There is a wide variety of models to the provision of such programmes, ranging from complete reaccreditation over one full academic year to short, two-day induction courses. The Migrant Teacher Project secured funding under the AMIF to support the integration of Ukrainian teachers in Ireland. They key element of this work was the provision of tailored teacher bridging programmes. Rooted in concepts of worker integration, this paper reports on participant evaluations from two versions of these bridging programmes.

My PhD study explored how a group of migrant preservice teachers experienced the phenomenon of intercultural education in the Learning Area of Languages within the Australian school context. The study aimed to understand both preservice teachers’ perceptions of the intercultural capability and its implementation in their teaching practice.

This study employed a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to explore the participating preservice teachers’ lived experiences of adopting an intercultural perspective in their classroom of Languages. Data were collected through individual in-depth interviews from a cohort of seven preservice teachers enrolled in a graduate Initial Teacher Education program and completing a qualification in teaching Languages at an Australian University in Victoria. By investigating preservice teachers’ interpretations of the intercultural capability; their experiences in the classroom of Languages (what they observed and how they acted during their teaching rounds and how they intend to act in the future); and their beliefs about the need for the development of the intercultural capability in their learners, it was possible to delve into the ways in which these prospective secondary school teachers of Languages engage with the intercultural project.

This study focuses solely on practitioners and explores their engagement (or lack thereof) with the intercultural project, based on the rationale that ‘no education policy can operate successfully without the commitment of teachers’ (Starkey 2007, p. 60).

This study posits that, for the intercultural project to succeed and become more than ‘good intentions’ (Gorski 2008, p. 516), there needs to be a move towards a more politically engaged approach (Tarozzi 2014). Teachers should see themselves as responsible for creating an inclusive and just society (see Crozet 2016).

This study follows a Critical Intercultural Communication Pedagogy framework (Atay & Trebing 2018; Sobre 2017) coupled with an ethical paradigm based on the work of the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (Bossio 2018; Ferri 2014; Ben-Ari & Strier 2010). Critical Pedagogy aims to transform society through education by locating the place of change in schools (Guilherme 2002), where the development of ‘critical cultural awareness’ should be fostered (Byram 2008). This aspect is essential for the success of intercultural education because it turns it into a broader social project. Crosbie (2014, p. 97) considers that this ‘quest for social transformation […] begins with a language-learning classroom in which students are encouraged to deal with cosmopolitan ideals, giving rise to a possible scenario where engagement with the world is shaped by social justice’.

The research findings, mainly deriving from individual in-depth interviews, indicate that both the critical and ethical paradigms appear as weak and uncertain, especially when it comes to translating ascribed meanings of the intercultural capability into the practice of teaching. This highlights the need for a strong theoretical (philosophical and epistemological) foundation for intercultural education to counteract neoliberal forces in the field. The critical turn in intercultural education scholarship is still far from being known and accepted outside the circle of those interested in it. In addition, the neo-social phenomenon in Australian education policy (Lingard, Sellar & Savage 2014) risks weakening the efforts made by critical intercultural communication scholars, since the social agenda is present in education policy. This ‘rejuvenated governmental interest in enabling healthy and positive social environments’, however, appears to exist ‘primarily for the sake of fostering greater economic productivity’ (Savage 2013, p. 187) instead of existing primarily for the benefit of all students, regardless of their linguistic, cultural, or socioeconomic background as proclaimed in the document underpinning the current Australian Curriculum. It is important to note that this well-documented and long-standing shift towards intercultural education is also typical to other countries, and its inception in Australian education policies mirrors developments internationally.