Reflecting on Teacher Habitus – the Potential to Support Inclusion in the Classroom

Introduction to Topic

We know that teacher habitus is contextualised within one’s own knowledge, behaviour, and social influences. Teacher habitus is also increasingly becoming the focus of a reflexive examination of pedagogical discourse. Habitus, as a person’s overall appearance and internalisation of social and cultural norms of one’s social class (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), is significantly shaped by a person’s background and biographical (and school) development. In this regard, the discourse on teacher habitus is also linked to the issue of educational inequality, because schools play an important role in producing and (re)producing class inequalities (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1979). Our expectations, assumptions, relationships, and interactions are closely linked to our beliefs (and biases) about what is considered ‘normal’ and ‘capable’. Habitus significantly determines and influences teacher action and thus student development (Helsper, 2015; Lange-Vester, 2015). Discrimination, stigmatisation, and the (re)production of social inequality can play a significant role in this.

In relation to teacher habitus, different types can be distinguished (Lange-Vester 2015). Concepts of the normality of teachers are closely linked to the respective (ability) expectations. In the context of teacher habitus, questions for consideration include to what extent my own habitus influences my everyday pedagogical work and/or which prejudices influence me as a teacher? Also, which experiences and habitual patterns remain invisible in everyday school life and are excluded in the sense of a hegemonic effect?

Knowing that power is immanent in the context of schooling, inclusive pedagogy, or inclusive teacher education faces the challenge of revealing and questioning habitus patterns in a power-critical way. This chapter explores the meaning and importance of teacher habitus, how it is affected, and considers the implications of the lack of diversity in the teaching profession in Ireland, Italy, and Germany (the authors’ countries of origin). The chapter outlines the possibilities there are for confronting one’s own habitus as a teacher in an inclusive pedagogical everyday environment.

Considerations for developing habitus sensitivity are used as potential for change. As a result, implications on two levels for self-reflective engagement are highlighted. On the one hand, on the level of the teacher and, on the other hand, on the level of the students or the school culture.

Key aspects

The Meaning of Teacher Habitus

The term ‘habitus’ refers to the dominant norms and practices of particular social classes or groups (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Central to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus is that in society certain classes use their social, cultural, and economic capital, to reproduce themselves and secure their dominance in society (Thomas, 2002). Thomas (2002) argues that habitus refers to more than norms or values because it is so embedded, often subconsciously, in everyday life and interactions (Thomas, 2002). In Bourdieu’s sense, habitus can be described as “schemata or relations of perceptions, sense-making, and actions and their social conditions” (Höhne, 2013:261, Author’s translation) and is essentially shaped by one’s own experiences and social structures. It is thereby something “internalised, something that demarcates me and my world from another world” (Thümmler, 2022:220, Author’s translation) and is not cognitively caught up, but finds expression in a person’s practices (cf. te Poel 2022:142 after Kramer, 2019, Author’s translation).

The meaning of social class, for example, plays an all-encompassing role in our contemporary society (hooks, 2020). Nevertheless, reflection on social processes critical of classism, is only hesitantly moving into the focus of public discourses (ibid.). In the field of education, however, the question of origin and its effects in the context of educational (in)justice is increasingly discussed (e.g., El-Mafaalani, 2020 or Behrmann, 2013). The topic discussed in this chapter, therefore, focuses on the concept of habitus and its impact on (inclusive) educational processes. The habitus of the elite are well suited to thrive in formal educational environments that are (deliberately) structured to meet their needs while the needs of other groups are far more likely to be divorced from the habitus of formal educational institutions. These can be summarised as structural barriers in education, particularly financial barriers, a disconnection between the students’ habitus (values, norms, and culture) and the ‘middle-class’ habitus of schools, universities, and elite institutions, where students can experience education as a ‘struggle’ with a strong sense of ‘not fitting in’ or ‘not being good en    ough’.

Habitus is of great importance, especially in the context of school: as Perrenoud (2001) states, it is the generative grammar of all practices. Teachers come to school with their “habitual orientations that have developed in their social environment” (Thümmler, 2022: 221, author’s translation). The so-called teacher habitus is therefore an important part of current educational debates. In this context, Helsper (2018) differentiates the concept of habitus into four parts of an overall habitus of teachers, which are interconnected in terms of processes. First, Helsper identifies the primary habitus of origin. This is based on the cultural practices of the family and one’s own social environment. It forms the basis of the overall habitus. From this, an individual habitus (second) develops, which is reciprocally strongly influenced by one’s own life path and shaped by experiences in environments and spaces outside the family (ibid. & te Poel 2022). Depending on the contact with other environments, this can also lead to habitus transformations, in relation to the primary habitus. In addition, teacher habitus (third) and student habitus (fourth) are still essential field-specific formations of the overall habitus of a teacher, which in turn strongly influence each other. Thus, “teachers design student images equivalent to their own teacher habitus, which tend to remain concealed” (te Poel 2022: 142, Author’s translation). Thus, the question is what learned behaviours, perceptions, and experiences determine teachers’ behaviour? What notions of normality or difference influence teachers’ concrete practices? What forms of ‘othering’, discrimination or stigmatisation are associated with habitual imprints? Lange-Vester (2015), for example, distinguishes three different habitus types among teachers (personal responsibility and inclusion, integration and equal opportunities, and order and discipline), which in turn are each linked to specific expectations of students and can lead to different patterns of action. Thus, the view of social inequalities differs across patterns, and expectations of students are linked to them. For example, who receives recognition for which skills, or who is expected to succeed in school and who is not?

Considering your own habitus as a teacher: why is it important?

Much has been written in pedagogy books on what it means to be a good teacher, on how to welcome and value diversity from an intersectional perspective, on how to implement inclusion (Azer, 2005; Biesta, 2017; Ida, 2017). However, every teacher, even the one with the most refined and precise academic preparation, knows the feeling when certainties break down in front of a group of students who are decidedly different from the typical cases presented in university textbooks. No two students are the same and there is no single way to be a good teacher. However, reflection on habitus is useful in this perspective and is connoted in terms of equity and social justice (Bell, 2016; Carlisle et al., 2006; David et al., 2001; Hackman, 2005). The issue is to ensure excellent educational opportunities for all, and it can be achieved mainly through teachers.

Teachers can be agents of change by exerting transformative and ameliorative potential for their students’ school paths and lives (Brown et al., 2021; Cooper et al., 2015; Pantić et al., 2022), but they can also reproduce and produce inequalities because of their stereotypes and prejudices and their idea of schooling that may not match that of some students and families. (Collins, 2009; Ferrero, 2023; Reichelt et al., 2019; Behrmann 2013). This is certainly not a new dynamic (Bourdieu, 1966; Mickelson, 1987), but in the context of current emergencies (the pandemic, the geopolitical crisis, energy, and food autonomy), it becomes essential to affirm the crucial role of schools and teachers in supporting equal opportunities and social inclusion for all.

As we have outlined earlier in this chapter, each teacher is a person with their own ideas, values, beliefs, history, and culture. Everyone reads and understands reality with their own interpretative schemes, not being free from stereotypes or prejudices that have an influence on their educational relationships with students (Inan-Kaya & Rubie-Davies, 2022; Mason et al., 2014; Sabarwal et al., 2022) and on evaluative practices (Beg et al., 2021; Triventi, 2019). In this context, not all teachers will value diversity in all its forms: there are some more likely to accommodate cultural diversity than sexual orientation, others more comfortable with disability than religious difference, still others more likely to appreciate socioeconomic diversity than family composition (Granata, 2016).

Considering one’s own positionality is critical to fully analysing reality, tracing unknown stimuli back to known categories, counteracting false and inflexible processes (Allport, 1979) that risk producing and reproducing inequalities. This is why it is essential for each teacher to consider their own habitus and to reflect on their own modes of professional action. Considering one’s own habitus as a teacher and consciously working on one’s own way of constructing educational relationships, of communicating with students and families, means valuing the ethical and deontological dimension of educational professionalism (Damiano, 2007; Milani et al., 2021; Morin, 2004), i.e. on their own educational role and on how their actions convey meanings and have consequences on students’ educational pathways.

Habitus is a central aspect of teaching professionalism because actions and practices must change to respond to the diversity of the classroom: there is no one size fits all, but it is necessary to understand which strategies will meet the needs of the students. It is imperative for every teacher to consider their habitus and perceive themselves as agents of change for each individual student. Both in the choice of materials to be adopted and in the operations to create an open and inclusive environment, one’s own view of the world comes into play; being aware of this means paying attention to the effects that one’s ideas about education may have on the students and on the (lack of) appreciation of everyone’s uniqueness.

Understanding habitus is first and foremost a reflection on oneself, which connotes professional action for which creativity, empathy, and emotional intelligence are required to increase their view of the world (Feucht et al., 2017; Zembylas, 2014). In this perspective, attention to the teacher’s habitus is indispensable in order to let its transformative potential emerge, not only regarding the individual, but also for the school culture in which one is immersed (Balkar, 2015; Feldman, 2016). Asking questions about the organisation we are in and questioning it (Cansoy & Parlar, 2017; Mincu & Granata, 2021; Yusof et al., 2016) can change what produces inequalities.

The teacher can be an agent of change not only for students, but also for school life. Equity and inclusion are systemic issues for everyone; schools, teachers, and students. From the teacher’s perspective, considering one’s own habitus and taking a reflective posture is important because it supports professional growth, change, inclusion, and equity.

Talking to all, representing all: How diverse is the teaching profession in Ireland, Italy, and Germany? What needs to change to achieve inclusion?

Based on the importance of teachers reflecting on their own habitus, the diversity of the teaching profession in Ireland, Italy, and Germany (the authors’ countries of origin) is described in the following section.

In all three countries, various similarities emerge in the composition of the teaching profession. Regarding the availability of data on the characteristics of teachers, differences also emerge. In Germany, for example, it has not yet been comprehensively researched “how heterogeneous or homogeneous the habitus patterns are within a teaching staff” (Thümmler, 2022: 222, author’s translation). However, it can be observed that teachers mainly come from upper and middle social milieus (ibid.) and that there are still discriminatory barriers to entry when it comes to accessing the teaching profession. In Ireland, teachers are predominantly white, Irish, female, settled, Catholic, and middle class (Heinz & Keane, 2018). In Italy, the situation is quite similar, although there is a lack of specific studies on the composition of the teacher and student population in teacher education. Cultural and religious diversity is poorly represented (Colucci & Gallo, 2017) and there are few teachers with disabilities or other special needs (Bellacicco et al., 2022). Data on sexual orientation and family composition are lacking. In Italy, more than 90% of kindergarten and primary school teachers are female, and this gender also predominates in the other school types, albeit to a lesser extent (OECD, 2017; 2018).

Access to teacher training programmes in all three countries is only possible through access to higher education. In Germany for example you need a Master’s degree, state examination or university part-time training as a lateral entrant to work as a teacher. This means that access to be a teacher isn’t yet very inclusive because universities or university colleges of teacher education are strongly characterised by an “aura of exclusivity” (Alheit, 2014), so that access to this form of knowledge (re)production cannot be thought of independently of privileges and marginalisations (cf. Leonhardt, Schuppener, Goldbach, 2022 & Goldbach et al., 2022). Thus, teacher education is already affected by the fact that it only recognises certain habitual patterns and denies different groups of people access to the university system. Even though there are now opportunities for lateral entry into the profession, this too is tied to university training (exemplified by Leonhardt, 2020). In Germany, the issue of class affiliation is still very much reflected in educational success, which is well illustrated by the recurring PISA results, among other things. This means that access to the teaching profession requires successful passage through the school system (see Helsper 2018 & El-Mafaalani, 2020).

Regarding access to teacher education in Italy, for kindergarten, and elementary school teachers there is a qualifying master’s program. For middle and high schools there are disciplinary master’s programs that must be accompanied by qualifying courses that are subject to constant reforms (Mortari & Silva, 2020). In general, access to the profession is difficult and, in many cases, expensive due to the high cost of teacher education courses. Students from low or middle socioeconomic and sociocultural backgrounds acquire fewer linguistic and logical-mathematical skills than their peers (INVALSI, 2022) and less affluent students choose high schools at the age of 14 that restrict their opportunities to pursue professional programmes of study (Benadusi & Giancola, 2021), resulting in a homogeneous teacher population.

In Ireland, while there has been significant investment in widening participation in higher education and some reduction in inequality, access to higher education remains highly stratified (Higher Education Authority, 2015:14). National policy has focused on increasing the number of higher education entrants from lower socioeconomic groups, first-time entrants, mature entrants, students with disabilities, part-time and flexible learners, continuing education degree holders, and Irish Travelers (HEA, 2015: 34). Inequality in education is reflected in inequity in access to high-status professions, such as law, teaching, and medicine (Keane & Heinz, 2016) resulting in a homogenous teacher population (Heinz & Keane, 2018) Ireland’s National Plans for Equal Access to Higher Education (2015-2019 and 2022-2028) (Higher Education Authority 2015 and 2022) include a focus on diversifying initial teacher education as a key national strategic priority stimulating the development of projects nationally that focus specifically on broadening the diversity of teachers in Ireland.

The diversity (lack of diversity) of the teaching profession in all three countries described above highlights the possible disconnection between the habitus (predominantly ‘middle-class’ values, norms, and culture) of many teachers and the habitus of many students (working class, students with disabilities, students from different ethnic minorities for example).

The impact of teacher habitus on students

As Sebastian Nemeth’s words make clear, norms associated with the teacher habitus can lead to discriminatory actions, which in turn have a strong influence on students’ biographies. Helsper (2018: 118, Author’s translation) also points out that the “conflation of habitus and teacher orientation” can contain a “potential for problems”, for example, when teachers have little or no understanding of life situations or lifeworld’s due to their own habitus. In turn, unconscious teacher behaviour develops from their own learned ideas, as can be seen in the previous example. In this regard, te Poel (2022) also shows that these habitual student images can be linked to recognition orientations. This means that recognition or lack of recognition towards pupils can arise from learnt beliefs. As described earlier, internalised norms and prejudices relate to habitus, which can have an influence on who we recognise and value.

Following this thought and knowing that habitus also guides action, a direct connection between the habitus of the teacher and the possible recognition behaviour towards the students becomes apparent. Accordingly, the development of a sense of belonging is strongly tied to teacher orientations or beliefs. Empathy can be a great challenge if there is no habitual ability to fit in with the students (ibid.), so that there is no access to their lifeworld. One’s own prejudices and conceptions of norms can therefore have a great influence on the development of pedagogical relationships (cf. Chapter Pedagogical Relationships in this     book).

Teacher habitus has a major impact on students’ orientations, their sense of belonging, of being valued, of being heard (Helsper, 2018; Thümmler, 2022). The question of who I expect to be successful or which student do I trust with which skills can therefore strongly influence students in their learning and in their educational biography. These habitual teacher orientations can thus contribute to the stabilisation and further development of educational trajectories or (re)produce (educational) inequalities.

The confrontation with your self – challenges of engaging with your own teacher habitus

The influence of the teacher habitus is extensive and remains mostly unconscious. It is therefore very complex and difficult to break through these internalised norms. Looking at one’s own status and confronting one’s own privileges is often emotional and painful, especially since these are biographically rooted. Studies and biographical descriptions have shown that challenging one’s own habitus is complex and can also lead to tensions (e.g., with one’s own family environment or milieu of origin). Furthermore, self-reflection from one’s own point of view will always be limited, as this is done from a restricted position influenced by one’s own norms and prejudices. Certain perspectives on discrimination are thus denied through pure self-reflection. Perspective on the subject matter may also be limited because many teachers themselves have been successful in (and therefore value) established systems. They value the system, and the definitions of success, which has advantaged them. Self-reflection in the context of school cannot replace a ‘pluraliaation of perspectives’ as exemplified by Emcke (2019).

In addition, school is always subject to and characterised by powerful structures and cultures (cf. Leonhardt et al., i.p.). Breaking through this ‘grammar of school’ (cf. Feichter, 2020) as a teacher is associated with strong limitations, so that confronting one’s own habitus and its effects can lead to feelings of powerlessness in challenging norms. Efforts to change habitual effects cannot be viewed in isolation from societal (norm) ideas and structures. For example, schools play a significant role “in ableist subject formation” (Buchner, 2022: 207, author’s translation) in that students are “confronted with specific ability-related imperatives and norms and forced to relate to them.” This makes it clear that even when teachers are highly motivated, socially produced “patterns of perception, thought, and action […] are not simply suspended” (ibid., 211, author’s translation). Furthermore, such a reflexive examination requires time, which is too often not available in everyday pedagogical life since it can also only be considered as a process.

Developing empathy for students and their lifeworld can be challenging when mutual (learnt) beliefs do not match. In addition, it cannot be the goal to create a complete habitual fit between teachers and all students. Students are characterised by high diversity, and it seems impossible that all lifeworlds are reflected in one’s own experiences and conceptions of norms (cf. Helsper, 2018). Rather, it should be about the formation of empathy that enables the development of relationships with students. In this regard, concrete strategies will be described in the following sections.

The teacher reflecting on their own habitus: a systemic task

Reflecting on your own teacher habitus requires the ability to stay in ambiguous and even contradictory situations without letting yourself be overwhelmed and turning mistakes, or critical episodes, into opportunities. Schön’s (1987) well-known image of the teacher as a reflective operator is fundamental. Questions that you can ask yourself might include, for example, what does it mean for me to be a teacher? How does my value system influence my educational practice? How can I be a good teacher and an agent of change for equity and social justice? Asking these questions is not an exercise in style, but an indispensable operation to illuminate teaching as a socially and politically strategic profession that promotes empowerment and conscious development in the people of today’s and tomorrow’s society (Biesta, 2017).

Dewey (1910; 1929) talks about reflexive action, which develops from a situation of cognitive unease, doubt, perplexity, hesitation, to evolve into an act of investigation and research that can overcome the initial uncertainty. Faced with the complexity present in a school classroom, each teacher has no choice but to abandon one’s certainties and explore new possibilities for action. Reflection on your own habitus, on the cultural aspects of teaching, on the students’ responses to the curriculum, on the school culture and its effect on the students, is essential to connote teaching in terms of inclusion and equity (Beck & Kosnik, 2001; Jaeger, 2013; Umutlu & Kim, 2020).

A starting point to work in this direction, beyond rhetoric, is collegiality (Khourey-Bowers et al., 2004; Shah, 2012): a person discovers more about themselves through dialogue with others, so it is desirable to imagine opportunities for dialogue between teachers to discuss issues that raise questions, ethical dilemmas, and may produce inequalities in students’ everyday school life (Thomas et al., 1998). Examining experiences together, confronting one’s own personal beliefs, and understanding how one’s own values, ideas and stereotypes influence one’s actions serves to become aware of one’s habitus as a teacher.

There is an opportunity for shared reflection at the individual school level.  By holding focus groups during the school year, teachers from the same school can confront each other on issues felt to be urgent and relevant, building a professional community capable of self-analysis and having a transformative potential on everyone’s professional self, school culture and students’ learning paths (Choi Fung Tam, 2013; Hadar & Brody, 2010). Of course, it is work that can never be considered finished, because no acquisition is valid forever and one must always be prepared to increase one’s degree of equity as a professional community, as a school, and as individual teachers. All means All, but the word all can acquire different meanings every day, welcoming new uniqueness’s that must be valued.

Serious and constant work on your own habitus as a teacher, therefore, serves to be open to diversity, to welcome it without homologating it, and to be an agent of change and equity.

Through a better awareness of teacher habitus, what is the potential to support inclusion in the classroom?

As outlined earlier in this chapter, the term ‘habitus’ refers to the dominant norms and practices of particular social classes or groups (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). In reference to Lange-Vester & Teiwes-Kügler (2014: 177, author’s translation) we “understand habitus sensitivity as a kind of distinct feeling for the counterpart, as a key competence, and prerequisite in the everyday pedagogical work of teachers, which comes very close to ‘understanding’ in Bourdieu’s (1997) sense. What is meant is the ability and willingness to put oneself mentally in the social place that a student occupies. This chapter has explored the disconnection between the habitus (values, norms, and culture) of some students (for example, those working class students, students with disabilities, students from different ethnic minorities) and the predominantly ‘middle-class’ habitus of schools, universities, and elite institutions. In these spaces, some students can feel a “kind of habitus dislocation,” a disconnection between their own background and culture and the habitus of educational institutions where they experience education as a ‘struggle’ with a keen sense of being different, of ‘not fitting in’ or ‘not being good enough’ (Lehmann, 2009: 638).

As educators there are a range of practical strategies that you can consciously adopt to address this ‘habitus dislocation’ and to support inclusion in the classroom (Zoletto, 2010).

• Awareness of one’s own habitus

The most powerful tool is to have a better awareness of your own habitus, to empower and challenge yourself by considering your own social background, your own values, norms, and culture. Consider your own positionality, your own biases, privilege, and prejudice. Exploring these issues at times specifically structured for this purpose is a key dimension of each teacher’s professional action, both as an individual and within the network of collegial relations. You are then better placed to recognise and address inequality (and privilege) in the classroom, school, as well as in broader societal systems and structures.

• How I understand ‘difference’

Consider how ‘difference’ is positioned in society and mirrored in the education system. Historically ‘difference’ has long been associated with ‘deficits.’ Disability, for example, has been conceptualised as an inherently negative, pathologised, individual, and undesirable state of difference and deficit, assuming dependency and necessitating charity (Abberley ,1987; Braddock and Parish, 2001; Barnes, 1991; Cottini, 2017; Finkelstein, 1980; Oliver, 1990; Pavone, 2014; 2015). These conceptualisations and historical contexts continue to influence the lives of people with disabilities today, where to have a disability is to have ‘something wrong with you’ (Oliver, 1996: 30). The medical model of disability has relevance as it has been the dominant perspective in education, suggesting that the deficit lies within the child rather than in the education system. Thus, it is desirable to move to a biopsychosocial model that enhances the strengths of individuals and their abilities: the question is to imagine interventions not on the individual, but on life contexts so that they become capacitating and not limiting.

Similarly, in society the “negativity associated with the working class is ubiquitous” (Skeggs, 1997: 75). In Ireland, being ‘working class is widely represented and stereotyped as ‘an underclass’, associated with drugs, criminal gangs, crime, and welfare dependency (Finnegan, 2012). Also, in Germany classist advantages are very powerful in society (ct. Kemper & Weinbach, 2009) and in the pedagogic field (ct. El-Mafaalani, 2020). Thus, many teachers’ “own middle-class affiliation […] conditions their preference for the education-motivated and upwardly mobile middle class-similarity is preferred and their own culture is reproduced” (Behrmann, 2013: 262 with reference to Lütkens, 1959; Bernstein, 1977; Schumacher,2002 & Birkelbach, 2011). In Italy, too, there is a very strong socio-cultural reproduction dynamic, with students from low or lower-middle status families achieving lower test results, dropping out of school, and not accessing higher and university education (Benadusi & Giancola, 2021; Giancola & Salmieri, 2020). These conceptualisations of social class underpinned by assumptions of deficit, difference, and inferiority, continue to influence the lives of working-class students in education today. Like the stigma associated with disability, there was and continues to be a strong belief that to be ‘working-class’ is negative, that to be working-class is an individual deficit and that it “is to get things wrong, to fail, to be lesser” (Fleming et al., 2017:155), a label that signifies “all that is dirty, dangerous and without value” (Skeggs, 1997: 74). Many of these themes, of difference, deficit, segregation, and individual failure, are common to the experiences of many marginalised groups.

As an educator, consider how the construction of social identities, and the assumption of homogeneity within these identities, has created common hierarchies of inferiority, and privilege, and positioned individuals within these hierarchies as polar opposites, the ‘ideal’ and ‘normal’ versus the ‘undesirable’ and ‘abnormal’, the ‘able’ versus the ‘disabled’, the ‘working class’ versus the ‘middle class’, with a clear distinction between those that are valued and those that are not. As an educator, you can champion change by challenging these deficit models, challenging the individualisation of difference, positioning difference as ‘a problem,’ and locating that problem within the individual. Consider instead how structures and systems produce and reproduce inequality in education and in society. Think how powerful the institution of school is (Leonhardt et al., i.p.; Pescarmona, 2012), the influence of institutional discrimination (Gomolla & Radtke,2009) and how this effects your own professional actions.

• How ‘difference’ is constructed in my school

Consider how difference is constructed (and operationalised) in your classroom or school. Negative assumptions around disability, sexuality, social class, and ethnicity for example, can be endemic among students and teachers. Consider carefully how children and young people negatively experience being ‘different’. In Ireland, the sense of social class, for example, for students is pervasive and impactful and had a bearing on each individual’s sense of self as well as on student experiences, trajectories, and outcomes across the education system (Fleming et al., 2017). Lynch and O’Riordan (1998) suggested that the experience of working-class students in education in Ireland is one where working-class culture and background is positioned as inherently inferior in schools and that low expectations and the perception of being an ‘outsider’ in a dominant middle-class culture had a pervasive impact on students. In Ireland, there is evidence that teachers had lower academic expectations of students with disabilities even when this was not consistent with ability (Shevlin et al., 2002; O’Donnell, 2003; Rose and Shevlin, 2004; Rose et al., 2010). With reference to Dederich (2007), it is also clear that these low expectations can lead to what is called learned helplessness, as is particularly common among students with disabilities (see also Schuppener, 2021). Buchner (2022) also shows that differences are produced by ableist notions of norms and notions of ability. He shows the importance of dealing with one’s own (school) biography and the ‘work on the self’.

• The power of language

As part of a more inclusive classroom and practice, consider the power of language and how language can reinforce negative stereotypes. The language of disability for example can be highly medicalised with reference to ‘chronic disease’, ‘illness’, ‘malfunction’, ‘malformation’, ‘disease’ and ‘conditions.’ The language used to portray disability and the images used to represent disability continue to label and to portray people with disabilities as “…deficient, pitiable, wicked or malign, dangerous or valueless” (Hosking 2008: 14). Powerful professionals diagnose some students with learning difficulties, syndromes, issues, impairments, problems, and disorders. This is the negative language of disability that all students internalise and navigate in education and society. Social class operates just as powerfully on an individual and on a collective level as “class is deeply embedded in everyday interventions, in institutional processes, in struggles over identity, validity, self-worth and integrity” (Reay, 2005: 924). Reflect on the language that you use, and the language used in the classroom and the school. Consider how powerful and impactful language is and use inclusive language in all environments.

• Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

How you teach also matters! ‘Universal Design for Learning’ has been defined in US legislation as ‘A scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that provides flexibility in the way information is provided, in the way students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the way students are (Higher Education Opportunity Act, Sec. 103, Additional Definitions). In Ireland, there is a recognition that ‘Providing a fully inclusive learning environment is complex and creating a culture of engagement and inclusion that works for all students requires a shift in thinking and a change of behaviour at an institutional level… Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides an effective framework to improve the learning experience of all students within the mainstream teaching environment’ (AHEAD, 2017). Adopting UDL teaching practices in your classroom means challenging the status quo of the traditionally advantaged learner, recognising that students have different ways of experiencing the education system and learning (Cottini, 2019; Savia, 2016).

As an educator, think about your own practice and how you can respond in an innovative way to diversity in the student population. Think about redesigning your own educational practice with diversity in mind, to create an inclusive, accessible, and welcoming learning environment for all students. Think about multiple means of presenting materials, multiple means of action and representation and multiple means of engagement. If you do this, it will reduce the need for individual adaptation, while likely increasing the motivation of all learners. It also means critically considering the curriculum where many students do not see themselves reflected in the text or the images.

For many children and young people being different has a negative connotation and is often highly stigmatised (Banks et al., 2015; McCoy et al., 2016). Students suggest that inclusive teachers who provide support in an inclusive way are important and that students do not want to be singled out or to be treated or labelled as being different, which was seen to be implicitly negative (Squires et al., 2016; Barnes-Holmes et al., 2013). As an educator, consider how you can create a culture in your classroom, and in your school, where there are high expectations for all students and where diversity is celebrated, and all students are equally valued. Ultimately, a better awareness of teacher habitus can empower you to better understand your own habitus and to consciously act to improve your educational practice. As a teacher, you can be an agent of transformation and change consciously fostering a sense of belonging for everyone in your school community, supporting inclusion, transforming student opportunities, experiences, and outcomes.

Conclusions

Reflection on the teacher’s habitus is crucial for individuals and schools that want to promote equity, inclusion, and social justice.  It is about a production of empathy through reflection that allows for an openness to the other.

The generative grammar of all practices, as habitus is defined by Perrenoud (2001), should be the subject of a reflection that examines biographical experiences, their interpretations, and the implicit habitual orientations that accompany them. In summary, biographical work (Miethe, 2011) and habitus sensitivity work (Sander, 2014) is critical for the formation of a professional habitus, because it allows for the confrontation of “intuitive beliefs” (Helsper, 2018: 133, author’s translation).

The issue is intimately connected with the reduced human capacity to form an adequate image of other people (Emcke, 2019).

Sensitivity to habitus can support the development of a good working alliance between teacher and student (Helsper, 2018), who get to know each other, recognise each other, and establish an authentic educational relationship. The teacher is the one who has the professional responsibility to open a dialogue with all their students, ensuring no one is excluded (Mbembe, 2000; Burgio, 2022; Milani et al., 2021; Zoletto, 2010) and understanding that individual action can create opportunities for equity. Reflection on one’s habitus is fundamental to being agents of change and having transformative potential in terms of inclusion and equity.

From the point of view of educational action in the classroom, the focus is on how to ensure that all students have what they need to learn. Mincu (2012) “inclusive pedagogy stands for a school in which differentiated empowerment should take place, but which does not produce differences.” Thus “traditional performance orientations and related orientation patterns are challenged and adapted from the perspective of recognition theory and democracy” (Buchner, 2022: 210, author’s translation), so that everyone has the same opportunities to learn and realise their aspirations.

Understanding habitus reflection as collegial work to bend school culture in a direction of inclusion and equity is the consequence of the reflections elaborated so far: teachers are nodes within a larger system, which has its own culture and rules of operation. Being agents of change means venturing into unexplored avenues not only in one’s own classroom, but also and above all, in imagining alternative organisational modes that can foster effective inclusion of all diversities.

Local contexts

Literature

About the authors

name: Nico Leonhardt

Nico Leonhardt is research assistant at the Leipzig University (Institute of Special Education). His work and research focuses are inclusive school development and social space orientation, inclusion-sensitive higher education development, accessible language, participatory research and teaching.

name: Rose Ryan

Dr Rose Ryan is Director of Access at Maynooth University with responsibility for leading strategic change in relation to widening participation in higher education in Ireland. Dr Ryan leads the Maynooth University Access Programme (MAP) which works in partnership across the University and alongside under-represented learners, schools, and communities to increase equity of access and support student success.

name: Valerio Ferrero

Valerio Ferrero does research in the field of intercultural education, focusing on equity and inequality in schools. He is also interested in community philosophical practices, on which he also carries out training activities. Before starting his research work, he was a primary school teacher.