‘We need to do more’: Preparing teachers for diverse classrooms in England

Abstract

This research investigated teacher educators’ perspectives and practices related to preparing primary teachers for diverse classrooms in a 1-year initial teacher education (ITE) programme in an urban context in England. The research consisted of semi-structured interviews and document analysis within a complex inter-personal, social and policy context. A conceptual framework drawn from the literature was used to analyse the data in terms of teaching about, teaching to and teaching for diversity. An additional theme was uncovered on the role of autobiography in shaping teacher educators’ perspectives. Findings indicate that teacher educators employed six distinct practices related to preparing new teachers to teach in diverse classrooms, which were contextualised by national regulations and university-school partnerships. Key findings are that teacher educators themselves believed that ‘more should be done’ and that building dialogue around diversity within the teacher education community is a crucial step towards addressing inequities and diversity in ITE.

Introduction

Teacher education is core to helping the teaching profession to tackle the inequalities that impact on the life chances of minoritised pupils in schools. However, multiple constraints hamper the potential of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes to prepare teachers for diverse classrooms and contribute to transformational change in this area, which have been identified in a comprehensive ‘Global Literature Review’ of anti-racism in initial teacher preparation (Garratt, 2021). A review of literature by Rowan et al. (2021) queries the ‘persistent failure of teacher education to prepare teachers confident in their own abilities to work with heterogeneous learners’ (p. 146). They draw attention to the prevalence of neoliberal and conservative policy contexts dictating the content and design of ITE programmes as a constraining factor, helping to constitute what Smith and Lander (2022) have called the ‘de-racialisation of education and ITE/T (Initial Teacher Education and Training)’ (p. 26).

Aside from policy analysis, most research in this area has focused on preservice teachers and their sometimes problematic, naïve or contradictory beliefs and the challenge of supporting attitudinal shifts from deficit to asset thinking (Rowan et al., 2021). Teachers in many parts of the world express a lack of confidence in working within increasingly diverse communities (Mayer et al., 2017; OECD, 2020). As Cochran-Smith et al. (2016) have argued, ‘teaching for equity is unforgivingly complex’ (p. 71). At the same time, teacher educators’ ‘conceptual ambiguity of equity’ (Cochran-Smith and Keefe, 2022: 11) has been identified, while teacher educators’ professional development related to diversity is lacking (Florian, 2012). In the field of anti-racist teacher education, for example, ‘lack of tutor knowledge and confidence’ (Smith et al., 2022: 6) is a persistent barrier to change. In this context, Rowan et al. (2021) argue that more insight is needed into the views of teacher educators and their critical epistemic reflexivity – the kinds of knowledge they work with and the nature of what they know in preparing student teachers to work with heterogenous learners. A priority is to understand how this knowledge is drawn on by teacher educators to ‘conceptualise and justify our aims in this area’ (Ryan et al., 2020: 2), as well as to identify the factors which are enabling or constraining in advancing socially just goals. Our research responds to this call, exploring the knowledge assumptions and perceptions of teacher educators on a large primary ITE programme in England that prepares teachers to work in highly diverse (in terms of pupils’ ethnicities, gender and socio-economic status) urban schools. The researchers are both experienced female teacher educators from western European origin, working in such environments in the Netherlands and England. Both have experience of leading initial teacher preparation programmes in universities that serve highly diverse, urban populations and of responding to policy and quality frameworks for ITE. We associate with the imperative identified by Smith and Lander (2022), to support teacher educators in ‘transforming practice with respect to preparing student teachers to teach a diverse pupil population’ (p. 26) and with the need for transformed practice to be informed by shifts in beliefs. Both have been seconded on several occasions to advise on programme quality in initial teacher training, from the perspective of general quality frameworks as well as from the perspective of diversity and equity. Our pre-understanding is that, generally speaking, teacher training programmes find it important to address diversity and equity, but are struggling to implement, both because of the sensitivity of the topic, as well as restraints in the relevant frameworks and overloadedness of programmes.

In this context, our research question is: What are the views and practices of teacher educators with regard to diversity and what contextual factors are considered by teacher educators to impact on the ways they engage with diversity and equity issues in carrying out their role?

The theoretical framework with regard to views and practices of teacher educators is explained below. Contextual factors refer to factors that enable and constrain the ways in which equity can be addressed. They may relate, for example, to national regulations or to institutional contexts of the university and partner schools.

Our research took place in England as nations in the UK adopt increasingly divergent teacher education policy with regard to addressing inequalities. The Scottish Council of Deans for Teacher Education commissioned the development of the National Anti-Racism Framework for Initial Teacher Education (Scottish Council of Deans of Education, 2023), while the Welsh Government’s Anti-racist Wales Action Plan (2022) includes a specific remit to ‘create an anti-racist teaching workforce through embedding anti-racist professional learning’ (p. 84). Contrastingly in England, the development of the Anti-Racism Framework for Initial Teacher Education/Training (Smith et al., 2022) was initiated within the university teacher education sector in collaboration with the teachers’ National Education Union. Our research was conducted while ITE organisations in England prepared revised programmes to meet the new statutory national requirements for teacher education, the ITT [Initial Teacher Training] Core Content Framework (CCF), (Department for Education, 2019). The CCF focuses on five core areas of professional knowledge and practice – behaviour management, pedagogy, curriculum, assessment and professional behaviours. Diversity and equity are not referred to explicitly as areas of knowledge and practice and the CCF makes no reference to teachers’ roles in countering racism, prejudice or discrimination (see Smith and Lander, 2022); a deficit or essentialist orientation informs the requirements, where ‘consideration of SEND [Special Educational Needs and Disability], Disadvantage and Mental Health’ (p. 5) is to be addressed through the five core areas. In the US, this trend towards ‘core practices’ as a policy strategy to reduce unequal pupil outcomes has been critiqued as inadequate (Andrews et al., 2019; Philip et al., 2019), for its reductive conceptualistion of professional knowledge that can address inequities and counter social injustices. Our research is situated in this context that is nationally and internationally consequential to the purposes of teacher education and teaching.

Conceptual framework

The research brings together two core components, ‘knowledge assumptions’ and ‘enactment’, which constitute the contribution of teacher educators to preparing beginning teachers for diverse contexts. Knowledge assumptions indicate the bases for knowledge that are attributed with value, relevance and authority by teacher educators, providing foundations for educational and social goals in the preparation of teachers. Enactment is the set of practices that are value-laden, based on principles that inform teacher educators’ pedagogical choices and the adoption of curriculum design and assessment approaches in ITE. The relationship between knowledge, values, principles and practices is highly complex, framed by dynamic policy contexts and university and school cultures (Cochran Smith et al., 2016; Ellis, 2023).

Our conceptualisation of the knowledge assumptions that underpin teacher educators’ work draws on Rowan et al.’ s (2021) distinction between teaching about diversity, teaching to diversity and teaching for diversity. Teaching about diversity refers to a knowledge base for ITE comprised of knowledge about different ‘types’ of diversity and how different groups are unequally impacted regarding educational access, pathways and outcomes. Teaching to diversity involves focussing on diverse learners, their skills and ways of knowing and learning and subsequently the ways of teaching they need. It values knowing about curriculum and pedagogical repertoire that can constitute teachers’ responses to learners’ differences in terms of teaching and assessment approaches.

Teaching for diversity includes but goes beyond the first two forms: it recognises teacher education as a transformative enterprise aiming to normalise and value diversity and question reductive and essentialist views of heterogenous learners. As such, this is the goal of teacher education that seeks to disrupt the normative tendencies of education systems to reproduce power inequalities among different groups in society (Ladson-Billings, 2021). It rejects what Garratt (2021: 20) called the ‘discourse around tolerance’ within the Teaching Standards, as set out by the DfE, which effectively functions as a mechanism of avoidance in terms of dealing with issues around racism and racial diversity (or a lack thereof) – and, in essence, serves as a hindrance towards further racial literacy.

Teaching for diversity aims to confront deficit perspectives of learners, practising in ways that actively value diversity and the knowledge and experience that all pupils bring to the classroom. Furthermore, Rowan et al. (2021) note intersectionality as a recurrent theme in papers reflecting ‘teaching for diversity’. Exploring the intersection of diversity topics such as race, class, gender and special needs reflects an anti-essentialist approach, and it is important because it can uncover different mechanisms of disadvantage and provide a shift in ways of thinking about diversity (see also Ryan et al., 2020). The teaching for diversity knowledge claim has much in common with the transformational goals of culturally relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2010) and calls for teachers to address injustices in explicit ways (hooks, 1994), deliberately adopting teaching approaches that embed local community knowledge and experience when designing learning experiences and activities (Ladson-Billings, 2021). Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) argue that ‘simply stated, equity involves giving students what they need. It is not the same as equal opportunity’ (p. 74). To conceptualise enactment, we work with six ‘facets’ of practices for equity, adapted from Grudnoff et al.’s (2017) synthesis of major international studies of teaching practices that identified principles of practices that ‘promote equitable learner outcomes … to include social, emotional, civic, critical, and academic’ (p. 2). These are: (1) Funds of knowledge: practices that build on prior proficiencies, identity, interests and experiences and that bridge home, school and community contexts (Brown-Jeffy and Cooper 2011); (2) High expectations: practices related to worthwhile content combined with opportunities for learners to experience success (Ladson Billings, 2021); (3) Adaptive teaching: practices that create learner-focused environments, taking account of developmental appropriateness and the complex ways in which culture impacts on these needs (Grudnoff et al., 2017); (4) Relationships: practices involving teachers’ engagement with their pupils and awareness of different (non)verbal communication styles that bridge the gap between home and school (Brown-Jeffy and Cooper, 2011); (5) Inquiry as stance: practices that require deeply reflective practitioners to think critically about equity and societal issues, prioritising how teachers think about what they do, their values, attitudes and the ways they interpret events; and (6) Addressing inequity by direct means: practices that recognise and challenge classroom, school, and societal norms that reproduce inequality, explicitly rejecting deficit thinking with regard to achievement within diverse groups (Ladson-Billings, 2021). These six facets of practice provided a framework for us to examine enactment in relation to the knowledge assumptions of teacher educators.

Methodology

Our research investigated teacher educators’ views and practices in a context which is characterised by multiple inter-personal, social and policy relations. After obtaining ethics approval from Erasmus University Rotterdam, a two-part qualitative investigation was conducted, to examine this complex phenomenon. Eleven in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine tutors, the programme leader and the university leader for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). Following this, content analysis of programme materials and policy documents was conducted for a complementary purpose, to clarify and produce additional insights to the interview findings (Bowen, 2009). The research context was a one-year post-graduate ITE programme, leading to the award of Qualified Teacher Status and a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) for primary phase teachers. Student teachers spend two-thirds of their time on three teaching placements in partnership schools and are awarded masters credits for critical, analytical and reflective coursework within the PGCE award, both of which contribute evidence towards meeting the English Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011).

The procedure was as follows. In a first meeting attended by both researchers and the programme leader, the rationale and goal of the study was introduced. After agreement to participate, the first researcher presented the goals of the research in a team meeting and invited all staff to participate. This was followed up by an email invitation. Nine tutors, the programme leader and the EDI policy advisor agreed to participate and signed a consent form. Moreover, the programme leader shared all relevant policy documents with the researchers.

Of the 11 respondents, three identified as males and eight as females. The average number of years of experience was 11 years, ranging from 5 years to 21 years. Participants were employed between 0.4 and full time, with an average of 0.7. Together, respondents represented all possible responsibilities in the programme, including: teaching practice supervision, teaching the modules (such as the Learning and Teaching module and the foundation subjects), leading specific pathways (for example the Early Years pathway, the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) pathway or the Literacy pathway) or leading specific curriculum areas (such as Professional Studies or Modern Languages). Finally, respondents were conducting several organisational tasks (such as leading the Partnership team) and research tasks.

Interviews explored participants’ views and accounts of practices around three topics: ways of preparing student teachers for diverse classrooms; perspectives on diversity and the goals of teacher preparation; and supporting and constraining contextual factors in preparing student teachers for diverse classrooms.

The method of analysis followed the six steps of thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). After transcribing and pseudonymising the transcripts, in the first step both authors familiarised themselves with the data by reading the transcripts carefully. In the second step, the first author conducted the initial coding in line with our conceptual framing for the research: knowledge assumptions (the views of teacher educators regarding teaching about, to and for diversity as well as ‘other’ views’); the six ‘facets’ of practice for equity; and contextual factors (relevant standards, institutional factors and ‘others’). The coding process was supported by using the Atlas-ti programme (version 22). Text fragments, which varied in length between short phrases and paragraphs, were assigned to codes and some were assigned with multiple codes. The second author checked all initial codes carefully. This was followed by a discussion between the two authors, resulting in refinement of the description of the initial codes. In the third step, the first author summarised all segments per code resulting in a description of themes within each code, as well as a description of additional themes that seemed relevant but could not be coded by the a-priori codes. The fourth step consisted of a review of these themes in a discussion between the two authors, which resulted in the fifth step of the final labelling and description of themes and the sixth step of writing the results of our analyses (see Appendix 1 for the final coding scheme).

Following interview data analysis, qualitative content analysis of course documentation and relevant policy documents produced additional insights to the interview findings (Bowen, 2009).

The components of content analysis as described by Krippendorff (2019) served were followed, consisting of three main steps: data making, abductively inferring contextual phenomena and narrating the answer to the research question. In the first data making step, five core documents were scrutinised with a focus on the central theme of the study, that is diversity and equity. They provided declarative information about programme vision and goals statements, programme structure, curriculum content, student self-review guidance, information about school placement arrangements, mentor roles and training, quality assurance and the programme equity, diversity and inclusion policy statement. The second step developed interpretation of the documentation related to the research goals, identifying its salient features, consistencies within and between documents and between the documentation and accounts of the programme offered in the interviews data. The third step consisted of narrating the implications of the analysis in a way that is comprehensible to others After both authors read all documents carefully, the second author conducted the second and third step of the content analysis, discussing each result in detail with the first author aiming for shared scrutiny of underlying meanings and implications (step 2) and comprehension of the narrative (step 3).

Findings

Participants’ views and programme documentation indicate the dominance of knowledge assumptions related to teaching for diversity, reflecting social justice goals for ITE as a force for change; however, the facets of practice that are identified suggest there is a misalignment between views, document contents and some aspects of enactment. Context factors only partly account for this misalignment. A main feature is the need among teacher educators for constructively critical and candid dialogue around diversity, acknowledging the importance of autobiographical perspectives in the learning of both teacher educators and student teachers.

Thematic analysis: Views

Teaching about diversity

Views reflected the importance of learning about different types of difference among learners, comprising: population characteristics regarding migration; aspects such as culture, religion and values; and patterns of difference in life chances and academic success, manifesting in achievement, opportunity or attainment gaps. There was commitment to these ‘topics’ as part of the ITE curriculum. One respondent emphasised the importance of including these explicit ‘topics’, for both student teachers and teacher educators to continually learn: ‘I can still remember one of the first lectures that brought it home to me when the lecturer gave statistics of the number of black doctors or black consultants (…) figures and statistics that were really shocking’.

Teaching to diversity

Several fragments referred to catering to the needs of diverse learners by encouraging student teachers to get to know the pupils, their attitudes, behaviours and interests and their home situations, including refugee status, in order to support them and adapt pedagogy. One respondent stated that some student teachers from higher socio-economic status backgrounds needed support to appreciate the perspectives of pupils from diverse backgrounds. Participants argued that pupil differences should inform pedagogy, adaptation and support. They emphasised the importance given to using children’s literature that represents diverse backgrounds, developing pedagogy for English as an Additional Language (EAL) and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) learners and the importance of noting the differences between SEND and EAL. Participants asserted that it is important for student teachers to understand that pupils are not at an equal starting point: ‘Providing equality of opportunity is actually understanding, doing, putting additional things in for certain children so that barriers can be removed’. Some participants were critical of the current level of implementation of these beliefs, suggesting there was insufficient attention to EAL or refugee education. They felt that the programme could do more to help student teachers to resist deficit concepts of learners in order to develop inclusive pedagogies.

Teaching for diversity

All 11 participants indicated that teacher education is a catalyst for achieving social justice. Many remarks contain evidence of reflexivity, referring explicitly to diversity in combination with educational aims of achieving justice and fairness, addressing unconscious bias and the damaging effects of stereotypes. There were concerns to support student teachers in dealing with these phenomena in the classroom and to help them to critique stereotypes and understand how language reinforces these (e.g. terminology like ‘low kids’ in ability-grouped classrooms). Teacher education was considered to be a site for change, potentially making a big impact on children’s lives; attention to diversity and equity should never be a ‘tick-box’ exercise. Related to this, participants suggested that diversity and equity goals should underpin the whole programme, expressing a need to review how these values are embedded in policy and curriculum design.

Dialogue with colleagues emerged as an important topic. ‘We-ness’ is a feature, that is, the frequent reference to ‘we’ as collective ways of thinking and acting as teacher educators. Participants conveyed a strong sense of collective responsibility, which may make it more possible to engage with discomforting ideas about further change that several suggest is needed. Some participants describe how they talked about these topics with colleagues, while others emphasise that more discussion is needed:

We do talk about that and we do talk about poverty. We talk about the impact on children's lives and parents. … I think we do, we do talk about, we do touch on racism, but I don’t think it’s a comfortable subject that we talk about in enough detail. And it’s certainly something that I'm conscious I want to do more of.

Perspectives were informed by their own differences and there was realisation that a diverse student teacher and pupil population needs to be acknowledged beyond ensuring ‘adaptation’ of core ways of teaching. The argument was that equity means treating learners differently: some groups need more advocacy than others. Curriculum needs to be fit for a global world, countering dominant white representation, ‘you need to be very critical as a…teacher, about who’s designed that curriculum, what’s informed that curriculum, who the curriculum is for, what the purpose is’.

Autobiography

Not all fragments could be coded using Rowan et al.’s (2021) tri-part categorisation of knowledge assumptions about diversity and equity. These remarks mainly referred to complex autobiographical dimensions of being a teacher educator. Many references were made to personal experiences that raised awareness and criticality. Participants shared personal stories, for example, about the impacts of being a child with a ‘foreign’ sounding last name, being parents of children with additional learning needs and having friends with migrant backgrounds. Participants empathised with being excluded and have translated these experiences into their views and often into their practices in ITE and appreciation of intersectionality. One refers to her religious background in interaction with the colour of her skin and observes that discussion about diversity with colleagues mainly revolved around skin colour. Rowan et al. (2021) note such a phenomenon within the implicit risk hierarchy in understanding ‘types’ of diversity and how insufficient attention is paid to intersectionality and multiple forms of inequities that impact learners. This indicates the problem with a ‘curriculum' approach to diversity. The curricularisation of educating for equity manifests for some participants as allocating diversity into component parts and categories of discrimination. This was not appropriate to the agentive agendas of some teacher educators. For example, one participant stated that ‘I will not be satisfied until our staff body reflects our student body that reflects the community and society’.

Multiple remarks refer to knowledge of non-linear ways that are needed to educate student teachers for diversity and equity. These refer to complex relations at work in constructing ‘difference’ in schools and the ways that teachers can learn to navigate these, drawing reflexively on their own identities and shifts in beliefs: ‘all we can do is move students’ attitudes along a continuum and hope that they’re moving from perhaps a more … ignorant position or a more entrenched position to something that’s more aware and more flexible’. This requires teacher educators to help student teachers to reflect deeply on their identities and consciously recognise ‘differences in views between yourself and the school, what kind of teacher do you want to be?’. The remarks suggest the challenges of arriving at a shared deep understanding and practice of teacher education – that praxis is complex in this area because it is bound up with autobiographical dimensions and collective responsibility to bring about change.

Thematic analysis: Practice ‘facets’

All practice facets were visible in the data. Addressing inequity was coded most often, and funds of knowledge was the least often coded facet. Adaptive teaching, high expectations, inquiry as stance and relations took the middle position in terms of frequency of codes. Descriptive analysis is used to examine the ways in which participants reasoned about each of the facets is described.

Addressing inequity

Participants referred to directly addressing issues of poverty, discrimination, prejudice, bias and deficit thinking, as well as references to resources that address these topics. Examples included: asking student teachers to complete the university’s unconscious bias training and discussing the results of the self-audit in a class; inviting students to share personal stories about diversity and discussing how these relate to their role as a teacher; and using children’s literature as a prompt to discuss racism. Discussions with student teachers were based on viewing a film about a school in an asylum centre; considering unconscious bias and unawareness of sexual orientation; and reflecting on the EDI policy statement. Inequity was also addressed by adapting curriculum, for example, by including contributions from other than white western perspectives, including contributions from women in science and discussing gender stereotypes. More generally, the participants advocated addressing inequity by attention within ITE to decolonising the school curriculum but only some seek to directly question the status quo in their placement schools with student teachers, asking ‘Why do we have certain racial groups, certain economic groups always being in the bottom group [in school ability setting arrangements]?’

Some participants suggested that not all teacher educators understand issues of equity because they lacked personal experience of discrimination or because of unconscious bias. The importance of talking explicitly about diversity and equity was emphasised, but often considered not to be an easy conversation. Participants noted a reluctance in talking about this and the need for a framework to be able to do so, for example, ‘I think it’s uncomfortable for the students that we are uncomfortable about it. I think we need to actually just be braver. In saying we need to talk about these things’.

Adaptive teaching

Examples were given of adaptive teaching for student teachers and regarding student teachers’ own teaching of pupils. References were made to meeting student teachers’ needs and reckoning with their stage of development and/or their backgrounds, in terms of pedagogy, work patterns, or ways of communicating. After noting a pattern in lower attainment in assignment outcomes for some minoritised students, one respondent described how she changed her approach to feedback to support progression. Adaptive teaching was advocated for student teachers to think deeply about their pupils and their approaches to enabling learning, for example, by thinking critically about ability grouping of pupils and trying alternative ways of meeting their needs:

They have to teach a couple of lessons when they’re on placement, particularly thinking about one child who falls into one of those categories and how they are adapting their teaching to particularly cater for the needs of that child.

However, there was critique of the time constraints that impacted on how much attention was given to adaptive teaching in examples like this.

Funds of knowledge

Funds of knowledge (FoK) refers to incorporating the interests, experiences and languages of learners as a foundation for teaching. It draws on the participants’ backgrounds to inform how they prepare student teachers for diverse classrooms. Participants gave examples from their experiences as former teachers of using home languages, asking pupils to bring in props from their home, or inviting parents to share knowledge and experiences of their home cultures, ‘things like saying good morning in different languages…we made sure we celebrated lots of different festivals depending on the children’. Memories like these suggest the investment of teacher educators’ identities as former teachers in their current practices related to diversity, ‘I do try to link to the home situation’. Some remarks expressed the importance of student teachers learning about two-way home-school relationships, for example, using home languages to communicate with parents about ways to support their children. Participants emphasised the importance of using student teachers’ own FoK, asking them to share experiences and their stories of growing up within diverse communities. Again, it was noted that more should be done.

High expectations

High expectations refer to views of challenging pupils, student teachers and teacher educators themselves. It involves offering learning opportunities by questioning student views and presenting contrasting perspectives. High expectations prompt student teachers to think deeply about the rationale for their actions. Few fragments mention the importance of high expectations explicitly. One example described what needs to be communicated to student teachers:

Seeing that in the children sitting in front of you…the potential child who is going to discover the cure for cancer. And having the child, potentially, who is going to solve this climate crisis, having to see that in all the children.

Most references to high expectations inferred that they were implicit. Participants expected student teachers to be able to answer challenging questions and reflect critically on their roles. They described helping them to support pupils to meet their potential, which includes addressing deficit thinking and understanding what children bring to the classroom. Student teachers were encouraged to seek experience in ‘challenging’ classrooms during the programme, in order to learn more. High expectations were also reflected in statements about how more could and should be done in the programme itself, including by teacher educators themselves.

Inquiry as stance

Tutors invited student teachers to reflect deeply (‘who am I?’, ‘who do I want to be as a teacher?’) supported by using theory and research on effective teaching. The most dominant practice was inviting student teachers to think critically about a variety of equity-related topics. Ability grouping was mentioned; tutors asked their students to consider relevant research evidence, the effects on children in lower sets and why ability grouping is so pervasive when the evidence shows its detrimental effects. Other examples required student teachers to reflect on the experiences of refugee children, children’s funds of knowledge, the importance of music and heritage to their learning and the impacts of stereotypes. Participants used structured tasks to stimulate students to reflect critically:

We encourage reflection not just about how did that lesson go, but how did I react to that? How did I react to that incident that just happened? And although we might not be as explicit as we might sometimes want to be about issues around race and diversity, I would hope that what we are inculcating into our students about being reflective practitioners may help them to do that in that area as well.

Inquiry as stance contained highly reflexively critical potential in tutor’s own self-questioning:

You need to go into those schools and those communities and spend some time just observing. Because just by observing your biases, your assumptions may well be challenged because you may find out things about those communities that have been formed in your head without proper evidence.

Tutors’ research on the attainment gap among students from minority ethnic backgrounds is an example of inquiry as stance with reflexive potential to change practices. Many participants questioned their own role in this gap, reflecting on assessment approaches and why these students can be reluctant to seek support.

Relationships

Practices focus on participants’ concerns with: building relationships with student teachers; between student teachers and pupils; and among student teachers. Participants referred to adopting strategies to build relationships and indicated the importance of good relationships with student teachers, which should be supportive but demanding. They emphasised the importance of enabling good relationships between the student teachers and their pupils, learning about their pupils and their needs:

Teaching is a human endeavour: …it’s going to be really important that they feel …on the course, that they feel listened to and that they develop the capacity to listen to their [pupils].

Thematic analysis: Contextual factors

We invited reflection on contextual factors that enable and constrain teacher educators’ being able to address equity. The responses were coded in two categories: factors related to national regulations and standards; and factors related to the university and its partner schools’ institutional contexts.

External regulations

All participants referred to the impacts of national regulations, particularly the constraints of limited time being available to provide the university-based programme sessions.

We do incorporate equality, diversity and inclusion into the professional studies part of the course …where we are looking at practice and pedagogy and assessment and things like that … but that’s been squeezed. That’s kind of because the government has asked us to do more in schools.

Some also stated that it is difficult to pay attention to diversity and equity as they are not a perceived government priority, unlike subject knowledge or core practices around ‘working memory’. Several interviewees made a plea for including equity and diversity in the new CCF, ‘because then we would be forced to make space for it’.

Institutional factors

All 11 participants mentioned institutional factors that impacted teacher education practices related to diversity and equity. The most stimulating factor seemed to be the EDI policy, which provoked deep levels of reflection. A main driver was an institutional study showing an attainment gap among different student groups. Most explanations for the gap referred to under-representation of diversity among both university staff and in placement schools. Student teacher diversity is not matched by staff diversity across the partnership, although this varied from school to school. Another tutor concern resulting from the institutional study was that many minoritised students were reluctant to ask questions. In line with the EDI policy, a focus group session was organised during which student teachers explained their reticence because ‘they have spent their life trying to prove that they are good enough’.

An institutional factor that clearly seemed to hinder addressing equity issues constructively concerned the difference between university and schools’ views and/or the lack of explicit focus on this within the partnership. School-university relations are sensitive and university partners are careful to acknowledge partner perspectives, ‘not feel that they’re being kind of, you know, I don’t know, patronised or spoken to about how they should do it’.

Several remarks indicated differences between university and schools with regard to ability grouping:

For two-thirds of the time students go in to schools where it’s common practice … for children to be referred to as the low ability group, that’s a low ability child … then we have the students who come back and they’re using that language and they’re writing that language in essays.

One respondent was designing professional development for school mentors and described an online platform where schools and the university share resources on equity. Overall however, the topic of diversity is not or rarely addressed in the context of school partnerships.

The challenges not only surfaced in the context of school partnerships but also as a major constraining factor within the university itself. It was generally noted that teacher educator expertise related to diversity could be developed, with self-identified needs being expressed by some:

If I’m honest, you know, I think, goodness, have I said the right thing? … you might think you’re saying the right thing and you’re feeling that you’re being supportive, but you might not actually be saying the right thing…I need to develop my own knowledge of that and talk about it more myself.

Underlying the low levels of confidence for some staff seems to be general discomfort in talking about the topic amongst colleagues. Many note that much more talk about diversity is needed, including a safe space for staff who do not yet feel confident in talking about equity issues.

Content analysis: Four key areas

Qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2019) of programme and policy documents uncovered four key areas that contextualise and elaborate the interview findings:

Institutional vision and values

Explicit attention to diversity is expressed in programme statements of values, such as ‘Preparing students to teach all pupils’ in a programme that ‘privileges and nurtures diversity’, constituted by a widely representative student teacher demographic, working with diverse partnership schools in terms of the Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) (Programme Briefing Sheet). The Primary PGCE Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy Statement includes the aim for the staff and student body to be ‘truly representative of all sections of society and communities we serve’. There is recognition of under-representation and unequal outcomes among PGCE student teachers that needs to be ‘challenged through positive action programmes’ which are ‘empowering’, ‘accessing’ and ‘supporting’.

The institutional vision thus reflected the dominant views related to teaching for diversity within the interview data. This alignment between institutional policy and teacher educator staff is important as it can be a strong driving force for change (Ziebell and Clarke, 2018). Programme documentation reflects values and content that are designed in by the team however, rather than in response to mandatory requirements of the CCF. Interview data had criticised this lack of explicit reference to diversity, equity and inclusion in the government requirements.

Support for student teachers to engage with diversity

The curriculum aimed to develop critical thinking and values orientation that can support student teachers to engage with diversity (Primary PGCE Curriculum Content Overview). A focus on supporting the transformational aspects of learning to teach and practitioner identity is a feature of the Professional Studies topics ‘Teacher Identity’, ‘Aims and Values’, ‘Becoming a Reflective Practitioner’, ‘Adaptive Teaching’, ‘Reflective Practice in Action’ and an ‘Inclusion Task’. Adaptive teaching was stated as a main way the students are prepared to ‘teach all pupils’. The programme EDI statement included aims to support the PGCE community ‘to have sensitive conversations about protected characteristics (e.g. Race and sexual orientation)’ and to receive training in Unconscious Bias. Commitment to an inclusive pedagogy and to listening to student teachers is expressed, ‘particularly those from minority groups’ and tutors have dedicated roles in supporting equity-related concerns at university and whilst on school placements. There is consistency therefore between the EDI infrastructure and the participants’ perceptions of enacting support for diversity. A dominant theme in the interview data was, however, that more support is needed to prepare students for teaching in diverse classrooms in ways that address the complexities involved. It seems that the supporting policy infrastructure can only go so far towards enabling teacher educators to prepare student teachers with the epistemic knowledge required to teach for diversity.

The teacher education curriculum

The programme EDI statement claims to increase equity by ‘seeking to develop and build an inclusive curriculum which avoids stereotypes in curriculum content and resources, and actively using resources that represent our community’. The focus on developing inclusive curriculum and pedagogy is based on re-visiting various elements of this through a spiral approach throughout the programme, rather than locating ‘issues’ in single sessions (Curriculum Statement), although a day was dedicated to ‘Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, Assessment for Learning, Metacognition’ (Primary PGCE Curriculum Content Overview). Inter-connections between sessions across the ITE curriculum can be identified in discrete sessions on adaptive teaching (Programme briefing sheet). Moreover, there is an elective offer of seven specialist sessions for students who chose to focus on teaching pupils with SEND via a ‘SEND Pathway’. Interview data suggested that curriculum sessions did address specific forms of differences among pupils but were limited by the restricted number of days permitted to attend university. Mostly however, more time was needed for a wider focus on embedding a diversity focus and addressing inequities across the ITE curriculum.

Partnership with schools

‘Breadth and diversity of school experience’ is a core programme feature, with student teachers placed in at least two contrasting schools, specifically focussing on those in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage (Programme briefing sheet). Correspondence between school experience and university teaching is made clear: ‘students are required to plan lessons that are adapted to meet the diverse needs of children in their classes; these adaptations are evaluated and discussed with mentors and tutors’. Documentation did not make explicit statements about shared values and perspectives among schools and the university related to diversity, although mechanisms are in place to develop this, such as the Primary Partnership Advisory Group. It was an aim of the programme EDI policy to work with schools to become ‘more attuned and responsive to potential discriminatory behaviour’. Annual conferences for mentors have included input from national experts in inclusion, EAL and SEND. The lack of explicit statements about shared values and perspectives are reflected in one of the main constraining factors described in the interviews: diversity and equity are hardly ever discussed between university tutors and school mentors, due to the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of the topic and due to university staff concerns of appearing ‘patronising’.

Discussion

Our study takes up an important recommendation of a recent review of research into attention to diversity in ITE programmes (Rowan et al., 2021): to investigate the voices of teacher educators. With some notable exceptions (e.g. D’Haem and Griswold, 2017) they have received little research attention, despite playing a vital role in the preparation of teachers to meet the needs of heterogenous learners. The extensive review of literature in the field conducted by Garratt (2021) reflects a majority of international research that has been conducted with student teachers, carried out institutional analyses and constructed theory-building. Rowan et al. (2021) note that ‘an increased focus on teacher educators’ epistemic cognition can provide a way to shift thinking and knowing about diversity’ (p. 17). They suggest more professional learning is needed among teacher educators as well more interrogation of their own knowledge and practices. This can be translated into a need for more research on, and preferably, with teacher educators on the topics of diversity and equity. In our analysis, teacher educators’ perspectives reflected all three ‘knowledge assumptions’ identified by Rowan et al. (2021): reflected teaching about, teaching to and teaching for diversity. There was evidence of some participants’ critical agenda around the dominant perspectives related to teaching for diversity, with teacher education being ‘a site for change’ and the need for ‘more advocacy’ for minoritised students. There are examples of some (but not all) participants’ desire to be change agents, of being part of the struggle for equity and the belief that teacher educators should take a stance, to challenge the status quo to ‘counter the white representation’. This is where ‘we-ness’ is strongly present in the data, focussing on the need and potential for collective articulation of values and practices, advocating for what needs to be talked about through ‘risky talk’ (Eraut, 2000) in the workplace, with student teachers and among teacher educators.

However, the findings indicate the struggle to translate critical perspectives on teaching for diversity into ambitious enactment within teacher education practices. The vulnerabilities of some participants were quite visible and were informed by their own racialised, gendered and other forms of experiences of difference. For white participants, this is consistent with findings reported by Hobson and Whigham (2018, in Arday and Mirza, 2018: 20) related to the need to foster critical self-reflection on whiteness: fear of getting it wrong, concern to get it right, the need felt by some to learn how to better address inequities and the conviction among most that addressing inequities directly is vital and should be an increased focus of learning to teach and resource allocation. The findings are consistent with arguments to problematise the concept of ‘safe spaces’ for ITE to address racism, echoing Garratt’s (2021) question ‘Who does the space need to be made safe for?’ (p. 33). Leonardo and Porter (2010) have urged white teacher educators to ‘take ownership of feeling uncomfortable in critical race dialogue’ (p. 153), harnessing discomfort as a vital pedagogical tool in teacher education: ‘When paired with clarity in purpose and solidarity with the other, where judgement is practiced but one is never judged, discomfort can be liberating because it enables whites and people of colour to remove the mask’. Related to this, autobiographical factors featured strongly in information volunteered by the participants. Many explained their views by describing the dilemmas they encountered in their own interactions with multiple, intersectional dimensions of diversity. Autobiographical stories often formed a basis for these explanations, including experiences with their own children with SEND, their religious backgrounds, their skin colour. Extensive emotional and identity work is involved. Teaching is a relational practice and the social and emotional space between tutors and student teachers is where people become vulnerable. The analysis reflects D’Haem and Griswold’s (2017) finding that teacher educators experience ‘doubts regarding their own ability to educate students regarding families from different cultures’ (p. 81). Low levels of confidence and self-perceived expertise contribute to general discomfort in talking about the topic amongst staff. Many note that much more talk about diversity is needed, including creating support for staff who, for varied reasons, do not yet know how to talk with their colleagues about equity issues. They are calling for what Leonardo and Porter (2010) and Garratt (2021) called a meta-dialogue (p. 153) within the academy that is fundamental to promoting growth in addressing inequalities.

All six facets of practices for equity (Grudnoff et al., 2017) were visible in the data, with addressing inequity directly as the most prominent and funds of knowledge as the least prominent facet. The distribution of code frequency may indicate the frequency of application in practice. However, greater participant reference to specific facets (resulting in more coded fragments) does not necessarily verify that the facet is applied more often. In other words, we need to be careful with drawing inferences from the distribution and future research, including observations of practice, should address this limitation. The focus in the current study was on how the respondents reasoned about their equity practices. Participants shared examples of how they addressed equity and diversity directly, how they teach adaptively, how funds of knowledge can be employed, how they express high expectations and instill inquiry as stance with student teachers and build relationships with them. Underlying all these practices, however, was the recurring remark that ‘more should be done’. Although document analysis identified an explicit commitment to equity and diversity that was incorporated in the ITE programme and reflected in in the interviews, overall the participants felt this was not enough to make the impacts that are needed when it comes to enactment. There was a critique of the external policy environment for its lack of explicit support for directing programme content and pedagogy towards directly addressing inequities and advocating a positive stance towards difference. Like Olsson Rost et al. (2020) there was concern regarding the negative impacts of the current ‘climate of standardisation’ (n.p.) and the absence of inclusive and anti-racist goals from statutory requirements for ITE.

Contextual factors were viewed as considerably impacting the ways in which participants felt able to engage with equity. Precarious but high stakes school partnerships and restricted time for university provision were viewed as particularly contributing to tensions around establishing a transformational agenda for teacher education at the core of ITE. The CCF places considerable emphasis on what is learnt in school, especially from mentors. This represents a core dilemma – the university works with over 200 partner schools and there is no obligation for schools to adopt particular EDI strategies. Schools do not have to become ITE partners and universities in England have diminished roles; many teacher educators expressed concern about their restricted influence. ITE practices and goals that are promoted by universities can be disruptive of school norms. The goal of a shared ethos is challenging in a wider policy context that shapes school environment within a marketised, school-led, results driven policy environment (Daly, 2023). Schools are not always hospitable places for minoritised (student) teachers, resulting in higher attrition rates (Tereshchenko et al., 2020; Worth and Faulkner-Ellis, 2022). This is further compounded by a national inspection regime which regulates compliance with government requirements. Several participants noted the need for skill in navigating this environment where statutory frameworks do not prioritise teaching for diversity. Further research is needed into the ways in which school partnerships can contribute to the epistemic reflexivity that is needed for teacher educators to prepare teachers to teach for diversity. The study did not include school mentors’ or student teachers’ perspectives on teacher educator practices, a limitation for future research to address.

Despite the context factors, the main focus of participants’ critical perspectives was their expectations of themselves as a teacher education community. ‘More should be done’ referred to the capacities and responsibilities of teacher educators to create conditions in which student teachers learn to challenge; for teacher educators to further advance critical thinking to identify social injustices and the actions that teachers can take to address the ways these manifest in the classroom. The data suggest that the teacher educators are in various stages of moving towards the epistemically focused reflexivity called for by Lunn Brownlee et al. (2017). Epistemic reflexivity can lead to teacher educators taking dedicated action to design ITE programmes towards explicit goals for teaching for diversity; this is based on developing deep and discerning forms of knowledge about diversity, drawing on critical literature and incorporating critical evaluation of the autobiographical dimensions of learning to teach. The potential to further harness these ‘ways of knowing’ is present in the interview data and in the institutional policy provision. Rowan et al. (2021) suggest that there is little research into how teacher educators learn to work like this. We argue that the in-depth interview process enabled articulation of critical review of forms of knowledge and practices, within autobiographical standpoints that elicited the desire to ‘do more’. Ultimately, the findings suggest that teacher educators primarily look to their own community to talk explicitly about the experiences, barriers and self-concepts that emerge strongly as contributing to ways of knowing and doing. This is a positive pre-requisite for growing agency, by creating spaces to talk and ‘be brave’.