Across global education systems, the imperative to prepare teachers for inclusive education has intensified (Florian, 2022; UNESCO, 2020) amid what Morin and Kern (1999) describe as a “polycrisis”, a convergence of social, political, environmental, and technological disruptions that reshape the conditions under which knowledge is produced, mobilised, and enacted. In both European and non-European contexts, teacher education is increasingly positioned as central to sustaining democratic and equitable schooling systems aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations, 2006). This paper examines how teacher preparedness for inclusive education is conceptualised and governed in two contrasting yet interconnected contexts: Australia and Scotland (with specific attention to Glasgow as a major urban school district). By placing these cases in dialogue, the paper offers insights of direct relevance to a European audience concerned with the future of inclusive teacher education policy and the operationalisation of European inclusion frameworks.

Drawing on the ECER 2026 theme “Knowing and Acting: The changing conditions and potentials of education research,” this paper investigates how knowledge about inclusive education is codified in national policy and translated into expectations for Initial Teacher Education (ITE). Using documentary analysis, we examine key legislative and regulatory texts shaping teacher preparation in Australia and Scotland, including the Disability Standards for Education (Australian Government, 2005), the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2017), accreditation requirements for ITE (AITSL, 2019), the Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act (Scottish Government, 2004), the GIRFEC framework (Scottish Government, 2008), and the GTCS Professional Standards (GTCS, 2021). These are analysed through the lens of the CRPD (United Nations, 2006) and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education’s Profile of Inclusive Teachers (European Agency, 2012), a key reference point for European teacher education reform.

Existing research highlights persistent tensions between inclusive rhetoric and classroom realities (Anderson & Boyle, 2015), variability in preservice teacher preparedness (Arias-Pastor et al., 2023), and the need for sustained, systemic capacity-building to support inclusive practice (AckahJnr et al., 2024). Evidence also points to the importance of teacher beliefs and self-efficacy in shaping inclusive enactment (Woodcock et al., 2023), alongside the role of evidence-informed pedagogies (Mitchell, 2017).

The analysis identifies key convergences across contexts, including a shared rhetorical commitment to inclusion as a rights-based imperative, recognition of teacher responsibility for all learners, and alignment with international and European discourses of equity, diversity, and participation. However, significant divergences emerge in how preparedness is framed. In Australia, policy texts emphasise compliance, accountability, and demonstrable competence aligned to national standards and accreditation processes, reflecting broader reform agendas (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014). In Scotland, inclusion is more explicitly embedded within professional identity, collegial responsibility, and inter-agency collaboration under GIRFEC, positioning inclusive practice as relational and systemically shared.

These differences reveal contrasting constructions of the “inclusive teacher”: as technically proficient and standards-aligned practitioner in one context, and as relational, reflective, and socially accountable professional in the other. For a European audience, this comparison underscores the importance of critically examining how European and global frameworks such as the CRPD and the Profile of Inclusive Teachers are translated within national governance systems. Teacher preparedness cannot be reduced to a checklist of competencies; it is discursively constructed within policy regimes that prioritise particular forms of knowledge, evidence, and professional action. By situating national policy within a broader global and European architecture of inclusive education, this study contributes to Network 04’s ongoing discussions about the future of inclusive teacher education in times of polycrisis.

This study employed qualitative documentary analysis to examine how teacher preparedness for inclusive education is constructed within national policy frameworks in Australia and Scotland. Documentary analysis is well suited to comparative policy research because it enables systematic interrogation of how professional knowledge, values, and expectations are codified in authoritative texts and embedded within governance structures. The analysis was informed by contextual policy analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994), which emphasises the importance of situating policy texts within broader social, political, and institutional conditions. Documents were analysed through a theoretically derived framework based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education’s Profile of Inclusive Teachers. The CRPD provided a rights-based lens foregrounding participation, accessibility, non-discrimination, and systemic responsibility. The Profile offered a professional-capabilities framework organised around four core values: valuing learner diversity, supporting all learners, working with others, and engaging in ongoing professional learning. Data analysis followed the procedures of inductive content analysis as outlined by Mayring (2014). The process involved: (1) clarifying theoretical and research foci (CRPD principles and the Profile’s core values); (2) defining document selection criteria for each national context; (3) developing an initial coding framework combining deductive categories (derived from the CRPD and Profile) and inductive categories capturing constructions of preparedness (e.g., competence, compliance, relational practice, collaboration, ethical stance); (4) revising and refining categories midway through analysis; (5) coding the remaining documents; and (6) consolidating higher-order themes. After approximately 50% of the dataset had been analysed, the researchers reviewed and refined the coding framework collaboratively. The remaining documents were then coded independently, followed by cross-checking, discussion, and inter-coder agreement to enhance analytic rigour. A final comparative phase examined patterns of convergence and divergence between Australia and Scotland, with particular attention to how global inclusion discourses are recontextualised within national accountability systems. The dataset comprised key legislative, regulatory, and professional texts shaping Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and inclusive practice. Australian documents included the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, ITE accreditation standards, and the Disability Standards for Education (2005). Scottish documents included the GTCS Professional Standards, the Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act, and the Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) framework. This approach enabled critical insight into the evolving conditions under which teachers are prepared to know and act in times of polycrisis.

This comparative documentary analysis demonstrates that while Australia and Scotland articulate strong rhetorical commitments to inclusive education aligned with the CRPD (United Nations, 2006) and European inclusion frameworks (European Agency, 2012), the policy architectures shaping teacher preparedness differ significantly. Both contexts affirm diversity, participation, and equity as central educational aims. However, the translation of these commitments into Initial Teacher Education (ITE) policy reveals distinct constructions of professional knowledge, responsibility, and action. In Australia, preparedness is mediated through standards-based accreditation and accountability mechanisms (AITSL, 2017; 2019), reflecting reform agendas that prioritise classroom readiness and measurable impact (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014). Consistent with longstanding critiques of policy–practice gaps (Anderson & Boyle, 2015), inclusion can become framed as a technical competency to be demonstrated against descriptors rather than as an ongoing ethical and relational commitment. In Scotland, by contrast, inclusion is articulated as a foundational professional value embedded within the GTCS Standards (2021), the Additional Support for Learning framework (Scottish Government, 2004), and GIRFEC (2008). For a European audience, these findings underscore the importance of examining how international and European frameworks are enacted within national governance systems. Alignment with the CRPD or the Profile of Inclusive Teachers does not automatically ensure teacher confidence, efficacy, or sustainable inclusive practice (Arias-Pastor et al., 2023; Woodcock et al., 2023), nor does standards-based reform alone secure the capacity-building required for inclusive systems (AckahJnr et al., 2024). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in times of polycrisis therefore requires more than formal compliance. It demands attention to the policy conditions, professional cultures, and knowledge practices that enable teachers to enact inclusion as ethical, evidence-informed, and context-responsive work.

Ackah Jnr, F. R., Abedi, E. A., Udah, H., & Ackah, M. J. (2024). Essentialising teachers’ education for inclusive education: The forms, characteristics, and synergies that support capacity building for sustainable inclusive practice. Support for Learning, 40(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12516 Anderson, J., & Boyle, C. (2015). Inclusive education in Australia: Rhetoric, reality, and the road ahead. Support for Learning, 30(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12072 Arias Pastor, M., Van Vaerenbergh, S., Fernández Solana, J., & González Bernal, J. J. (2023). Perceptions and preparedness of secondary teacher trainees to foster inclusive schools for all. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1242623. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1242623 Australian Government. (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005. Department of Education. https://www.education.gov.au Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2019). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures. AITSL. Duncan, J., Punch, R., & Croce, N. (2021). Supporting primary and secondary teachers to deliver inclusive education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n4.6 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2012). Profile of inclusive teachers. https://www.european-agency.org Florian, L. (2022). Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_39 General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2021). The Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.gtcs.org.uk Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 Mitchell, D. (2017). What really works in special and inclusive education (2nd ed.). Routledge. Morin, E., & Kern, A.B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Milennium. Translated by Sean Kelly and Roger LaPointe. Hampton Press. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). Routledge Scottish Government. (2004). Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk Scottish Government. (2008). A guide to Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC). https://www.gov.scot Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Australian Government Department of Education. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/disabilities. UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report Team, and International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. (2020). Inclusive teaching: preparing all teachers to teach all students, Global education monitoring report: policy paper, 43 Woodcock, S., Gibbs, K., Hitches, E., & Regan, C. (2023). Investigating teachers’ beliefs in inclusive education and their levels of teacher self efficacy. Education Sciences, 13(3), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030280