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

The study reports on two data sets, gathered from participants on two separate iterations of Bridging Programmes designed to support the integration of Ukrainian teachers in Ireland. The first data set was generated through an evaluation and employment questionnaire with 50 participants. The second data set was generated through two questionnaires, an initial analysis of needs which was used to inform and tailor the content on a shorter introductory course to the Irish education system for 54 Ukrainian teachers, and a subsequent evaluation and employment survey. Both questionnaires were administered online, using MS Forms. Basic descriptive analysis was undertaken on the responses to the relevant quantitative questions, while qualitative analysis was undertaken using NVivo.

Key findings include that the teachers were highly experienced, with a mean of 13 years teaching experience. Six of the teachers had previous experience of teaching outside of Ukraine. Most were happy with the registration process with the Teaching Council and provided evidence of initial registration across both primary and post-primary levels of education and across a wide range of subjects at post-primary level. Almost all of those working in Irish schools were employed in roles supporting the learning of English. Less than 50% of the respondents indicated that they were working in schools in Ireland at the start of the second Bridging Programme; data on the success of the Bridging Programme in respect of employment for this cohort are yet to be generated; analysis of these data and their reflections on their experiences on the Programme will be presented. Participants had some general knowledge about differences between the Ukrainian and Irish systems of education, including gender separation and a more “gentle attitude towards children” in Irish schools. The key motivations for participating on the programme include to learn more about the Irish education system in general, to understand the legal basis of the Irish education system and to gain deeper knowledge around specific areas of curriculum and assessment.

Bense K (2016) International teacher mobility and migration: A review and synthesis of the current empirical research and literature. Educational Research Review 17: 37–49. Collins, J. and Reid, C. (2012) ‘Immigrant teachers in Australia’, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 38–61. Directive 2011/55. On minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0055 Miller, P.W. (2008) Overseas Trained Teachers in England: towards integration?, Professional Development Today, 10(3), 4-18. OECD. (2023) Teaching opportunities and support for Ukrainian educators. OECD Pietka-Nykaza, E., & Ratkovic, S. (2016). Forced Migration and Education: Refugee Women Teachers’ Trajectories in Canada and UK. In C. Schmidt, & J. Schneider (Eds.), Diversifying the Teaching Force in Transnational Contexts: Critical Perspectives (pp. 179-200). (Transnational Migration and Education; Vol. 3). Sense Publishers. Schneider, J., and Schmidt, C. (2016) (eds.), Diversifying the teaching force in transnational contexts: critical perspectives, Sense Publishers.