Changing demographics of schooling and pressures to increase performance of all learners have led to calls for reforms in teacher education (TE). Scottish TE review Teaching Scotland’s Future has established the need to prepare teachers as prime agents in shaping and leading educational change (Scottish Government, 2011). In response, the government endorsed a revision of the professional standards for teachers to reflect a reconceptualised model of teacher professionalism embedding leadership across teacher standards. In other words, leading the change is likely to become a requirement for all teachers rather than a choice of some. In turn, TE is increasingly asked to provide evidence that all graduates are reaching the standards. In this context it becomes essential, equally for policy makers, teachers and those who educate them, to clarify what could count as evidence of teachers’ leadership and agency for change. One of the aspects of change to which teachers are expected to contribute is raising educational equality and school inclusiveness. The aim of this study is to develop a tool for assessing teachers’ capacity for leading such educational change. The main research question is: How does teacher agency for change manifest itself in teachers’ inclusive practices?

The theoretical framework is based on social theory of agency applied to teachers’ inclusive practices. Gidden’s (1984) theory of structuration, Archer’s relational theories of agency (Archer, 2000) and Biesta and Tedders’s (2007) ecological view of agency suggest a dialogical interaction between agency and structures (and cultures). ‘Agency’ is defined as an ability to make a difference by exercising human power to reflexively evaluate both self and social contexts, and to bring about their transformation, e.g. by conducting inquiry and using evidence to understand educational disadvantage, and creatively envisaging alternatives to address it. ‘Structure’ refers to the rules and resources implicated in the (re-) production of systems, e.g. (de-) centralisation of education systems, organisation of time and space for development etc. ‘Culture’ refers to the ideational contexts, e.g. ideology, societal or institutional views of educability and inclusion, etc. Agency depends on structures and cultures (which can either foster or suspend it) but also contributes to their transformation or reproduction overtime. In turn, agency itself is transformed in the course of structural and cultural transformations.  

In Europe a number of actions have been identified that can transform exclusion and marginalisation in education, such as heterogeneous student grouping, engaging families and communities, etc. (INCLUDE-ED Report, 2009). Teachers’ inclusive actions have been identified at the levels of:

• classroom, e.g. inclusive pedagogies and formative assessment (Black-Hawkins  & Florian, 2012)
• school, e.g. collaboration with others to address exclusion (Ainscow , 2005; Frost, 2006; 2012)
• policies and societies, e.g. addressing conditions that affect their teaching through professional networks (Frost, 2012; Liston & Zeichner, 1990).

We use these and other insights to develop a tool for assessing teacher agency for inclusive practices at different levels of their engagement within educational structures and cultures (classrooms, schools, education systems and policies, broader societies and cultures).

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4 Archer, M. S. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge University Press. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching, 1–18. Frost, D. (2012). From professional development to system change: teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 205–227. Frost, D. (2006). The concept of “agency” in leadership for learning. Leading and Managing, 12(2), 19–28. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press. Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical Communicative Methodology: Informing Real Social Transformation Through Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235–245. INCLUDE-ED project Report (2009). Actions for success in schools in Europe. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from http://www.ub.edu/includ-ed/docs/INCLUDED_actions%20for%20success.pdf Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1990). Reflective teaching and action research in preservice teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(3), 235–254. Scottish Government (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future - Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland. Report. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/01/13092132/0