One of the aims of inclusive education is to bring diverse groups of pupils together within common learning communities. Although inclusive education is often discussed within the framework of special education, broader ethical and philosophical perspectives highlight that inclusion also concerns social categories such as social class, gender, and ethnic background (Tomlinson, 2017; Huilla et al., 2024). Educating all kinds of pupils under the same roof compels some schools and teachers to adapt their pedagogical practices and may require fundamental changes in how teachers understand their work and professional responsibilities (ibid).

Against this backdrop, I ask: how teachers describe their ideal study group? Theoretically, I draw on the Bourdieusian tradition and analyse the classed and normative dimensions that shape Finnish teachers’ preferences.

Howard Becker’s (1952) classical study showed that teachers held strong, shared notions of an ideal pupil—one who behaved properly and possessed adequate academic skills. Such pupils were easier to teach and enabled teachers to succeed, whereas pupils from lower social positions posed more challenges. The ideal also carried strong moral judgments regarding both pupils and their parents. In another influential study, Merrilee K. Finley (1984) demonstrated that when ability grouping was introduced, teachers actively competed to teach higher-track groups. Less experienced or part-time teachers were assigned to lower tracks, typically composed of pupils struggling with academic demands. Later large-scale American quantitative studies similarly show an unequal distribution of teachers across schools: more experienced and qualified teachers tend to apply to advantaged schools located in well-off neighbourhoods (Goldhaber et al., 2015).

European discussions on inclusive education show similar dynamics (Lindner et al., 2023; Huilla et al., 2024). It is not trivial for teachers who the pupils they teach are. Teachers have preferences. In Finland, subject teachers consider heterogeneous groups the most challenging teaching environments. Diversity in pupils’ backgrounds and academic readiness is perceived as a greater challenge than class size or pupils’ motivation (Kärnä & Rautopuro, 2013). In other words, teachers often prefer homogeneous groups. The Finnish education system carries implicit expectations grounded in a white middle-class norm. While some teachers overlook classed dynamics, others express a willingness to work with more disadvantaged groups (Huilla et al., under review). These preferences shape where teachers choose to work, which neighbourhoods they consider attractive, and what types of classes they want to teach (see also Keane et al., 2023).

Teachers’ descriptions and expectations have real life consequences. Studies across various European contexts indicate that teachers perceive and treat pupils differently depending on their backgrounds (Stevens & Vermeersch, 2010; Tarabini et al., 2022; Kneppers, 2023). The characteristics attributed to pupils often contain underlying classed elements, even when framed as psychological. Discourses of ‘ability,’ ‘skills,’ or ‘talent’ obscure the social conditions through which these qualities develop. Social class, ethnic minority status, and gender easily fade from view in school cultures dominated by psychological explanations. From a Bourdieusian perspective (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu, 1986), this constitutes symbolic violence: when pupils’ social realities and families’ capitals are not recognised, schools may inadvertently reproduce social positions. Inclusive education can therefore be seen as a way to counter symbolic violence. Its central ideal—seeing all pupils as equally valued and prestigious regardless of background or academic readiness—challenges the white middle-class norm embedded in European education systems (e.g. Tarabini et al., 2022; Kneppers, 2023).

To summarize, the aim of this study is to critically analyze how teachers describe their ideal study group and what kinds of normative and classed assumptions these descriptions shape.

The data of this study consist of 433 written responses from teachers in various positions across Finland to the question: “How would you describe your ideal study group?”. The responses were collected in 2022 as part of two large research projects examining teacher segregation—i.e., the potentially uneven distribution of qualified and long-term teachers across different types of areas (rural–urban; disadvantaged–advantaged) at the university of Eastern Finland. The respondents were working as class, subject and special education teachers with pupils between 6 and 19 years of age. In total, the nationally representative survey was answered by almost 3000 teachers out of which 433 answered the question analyzed for this study. I analyze the open-ended answers to the ideal study group question and critically examine the kinds of pupils teachers wish to teach. Methodologically, I utilize and adapt Foucauldian discourse analysis (Foucault, 2022). My aim is to identify and interpret the normative assumptions embedded in the responses and to examine how the idea of an ideal teaching group (and by extension, the ideal pupil) is constructed. In principle, it is a question of who is imagined as fitting into a classroom, and who is implicitly or explicitly positioned as not fitting. This approach enables me to reveal how teachers’ preferences reflect broader social norms and classed expectations.

An initial reading of the data reveals a strong ideal of middle class parenting in the responses. Teachers frequently describe parents who are able and willing to cooperate and who support their children’s schooling. Through a Bourdieusian lens, teachers express a desire for parents possessing forms of cultural capital that align with school expectations. The ideal teaching group is often constructed as one without pupils with special educational needs or behavioural challenges. Although class size and adequate resources are considered crucial, teachers also describe an ideal pupil as academically capable, respectful, and well behaved - traits aligned with middle class cultural capital. This raises a critical question: Does the school expect something from pupils and parents that it does not itself provide? Some responses were surprisingly conservative, which is important to acknowledge when implementing inclusive principles. The findings suggest that some teachers do not see teaching diverse groups as part of their professional role, which has implications for inequalities in the distribution of educational opportunities, both in Finland and in broader European contexts.

Becker, Howard S. (1952). Social-Class Variations in the Teacher-Pupil Relationship. The Journal of Educational Sociology 25(8), 451–465. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The Forms of Capital. Teoksessa Stephen J. Ball (toim.): The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Sociology of Education. London: Taylor & Francis, 15–29. Bourdieu, Pierre & Passeron, Jean Claude (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Finley, Merrilee K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 233–243. Foucault, Michel (2022). Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge. Goldhaber, Dan, Lesley Lavery & Roddy Theobald (2019). Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher Quality Gap Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students. Educational Researcher 44(5), 293–307. Huilla, H., Lay, E. & Tzaninis, Y. 2024. Tensions between diverse classrooms and inclusive educational practices: Pedagogues’ perspectives in Iceland, Finland and the Netherlands. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(1), 1–17. Huilla, Heidi, Kosunen, Sonja & Juvonen, Sara (under review). Social Class in the Class: Teachers’ Class Ignorance, Awareness and Consciousness. Keane, Elaine, Manuela Heinz & Andrea Lynch (2018). ‘Working-class’ student teachers: Not being encouraged at school and impact on motivation to become a teacher. Education Research and Perspectives 45, 67–92. Kneppers, Anneke M. A. (2023). Pedagogic practices and learner identities in two Norwegian primary school classrooms with contrasting social compositions. British Journal of Sociology of Education 44(1), 60–77. Kärnä, Pirkko & Rautopuro, Juhani (2013). Mitä oppimistulosten taustalla? Teoksessa Räisänen, A. (toim.): Oppimisen arvioinnin kontekstit ja käytännöt. Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 2013:3. Opetushallitus. Lindner, K.-T., Schwab, S., Emara, M. & Avramidis, E. (2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education 38(6), 766–787. Stevens, Peter A. J. & Vermeersch, Hans (2010). Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: exploring teachers’ perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams. Oxford Review of Education 36(3), 267–284. Tarabini, Aina, Marta Curran & Alba Castejón (2022). Ability as legitimation of tracking: Teachers' representations of students in vocational and academic tracks. British Educational Research Journal 48, 1049–1064. Tomlinson, S. (2017). A Sociology of Special and Inclusive Education: Exploring the Manufacture of Inability. London: Routledge. Van Houtte, Mieke, Demanet, J. & Stevens, Peter. A. J. (2012). Self-esteem of academic and vocational students: Does within school tracking sharpen the difference? Acta Sociologica 55, 73–89.