‘First and foremost, we are teachers, not refugees’: Requalification measures for internationally trained teachers affected by forced migration

Initiating a programme for so-called internationally trained teachers in Vienna

Initiated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Austria and in light of over 80,000 people having sought asylum in Austria (Bundesministerium für Inneres¹, 2018), a group of (junior) researchers at the Department of Education, University of Vienna, started exploring the educational background of secondary school teachers, taking a participatory approach. Research has shown that many of those internationally trained teachers (with a forced migration background)² were looking forward to returning to work within their profession but could not manage to do so. As the curricula for teacher training differ between countries, migrating teachers face barriers in recognition of their educational training (Kremsner et al., 2020: 32; Proyer et al., 2019a). Syrian teacher training, for example, consists of a bachelor’s degree in one subject. From the standpoint of Austrian recognition services regarding professional requirements for secondary school teachers, Syrian teachers with a bachelor’s degree in one subject lack formal education. Specifically, they lack a second subject, as well as the Basics in Education Studies (which is mandatory in Austrian teacher training)³. Therefore, recognition processes for teachers with teacher training that differs from Austrian teacher training⁴, result in a negative appraisal more often than not. What follows is de-qualification of their existing professional background, regardless of their teaching experience. This implies that many internationally trained professionals have no other option than to return to their studies until they meet the Austrian teacher training requirements and/or end up performing jobs way below their qualification levels, meaning underpaid work (Proyer et al., 2019b). This deficit-oriented view of foreign teacher training does not take teaching experience and other soft skills into account, and qualification acquired elsewhere (levels of transnational or transcultural professionalism) is unacclaimed. This refers to the quote in the title of the present paper, where one of the Certificate Course alumni proclaimed that emphasis is often placed on where someone is from and where they were educated, rather than on what one is actually capable of doing. Thus, not only formal, but also professional recognition of teachers suffers, such that internationally trained teachers are unable to return to teaching in (secondary)⁵ schools without enormous effort and requalification⁶, while experiencing a lack of recognition in four identified areas (Resch et al., 2019).

Reaching out to the target group of internationally trained teachers was hard at first, since asylum seekers are not allowed to work, and there are no data on professionals in the pedagogical field due to differing training profiles (Kremsner et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a participatory research group was set up in 2015 (consisting of three teachers from Syria and four academic researchers) to look deeper into the educational careers and barriers faced by internationally trained teachers with a forced migration background. This formation served as a starting point for participatory design measures of the Certificate Course while aligning with research efforts.

As a result of the facts stated above and the findings from our exchange and initial research with internationally trained teachers, the need for a requalification programme transpired. At first, ideas gathered around a programme to educate internationally trained teachers as either so-called “first-language teachers” or “inclusive educators.” First-language teachers are employed in Austrian schools as pedagogical support staff, as there are many students with first languages other than German. There is a lack of such teachers, but funding was drastically cut around 2017. In addition – and this is key to further course development – participatory work on a possible further education programme showed that internationally trained teachers were not aiming to work as pedagogical support staff but to be (seen as) regular and full teachers again.

These findings correspond with what we know about professional exchange- and requalification programmes that have been initiated throughout Europe⁷. One of the first was the Refugee Teacher Program, in Potsdam, Germany⁸. Nearly all of these programmes have different curricula: some include language courses, some not, but all have as their goal to minimise the barrier for teachers to return to teach in classrooms in their new host countries.

Certificate Course: “Basics in Education Studies for Displaced Teachers”

The participatory conceptualisation among the research group (see above) resulted in the Viennese postgraduate course “Basics in Education Studies for Displaced Teachers,” which is a Certificate Course tied to the University of Vienna Postgraduate Centre and – so far – the only academic programme of its kind in Austria. The course includes theoretical university lectures and an internship in cooperation with schools, and is accredited with 40 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) in total⁹.

The curriculum consists of eight modules and 250 hours of internship in secondary schools, with an overall duration of two semesters. The internship is divided into three parts and gradually leads the participants into teaching a whole lesson in their first subject, with German as their teaching language. In these phases, participants are guided and supported on a 1:1 basis by mentors, who are regular teachers in the school where the internship takes place. The course covers the basics in education studies found in regular teacher training, with some adaptations, such as an increased number of internship hours and slightly adapted content. Prerequisites for attending the Certificate Course are:

• (a) a completed bachelor’s degree in an academically recognised subject that is anchored in the Austrian curriculum;

• (b) teaching experience in a secondary school in any country;

• (c) verification of German language skills at level B2.2. (certified);

• (d) high school diploma (certified translation);

• (e) verification of positive asylum or subsidiary protection; and

• (f) residence in Vienna, Lower Austria, or Burgenland (due to the fact that the course is a full-time requalification programme held in Vienna).

Applicants have to fulfil all the prerequisites and undergo an application process which consists of an information event as well as a two-hour assessment, including interviews with written and oral components and an onboarding day. As a tailor-made postgraduate course for internationally trained secondary school teachers only, these prerequisites exclude various other groups and/or educational professions, such as kindergarten and elementary school teachers, teachers with migration backgrounds from, for example, neighbouring countries, or teachers with subjects not anchored in the Austrian school curriculum, such as Islamic theology or the Arabic language. The 40 ECTS of the Viennese programme can later be recognised as part of the training curriculum in Austria. Together with their already completed bachelor’s degree (pillar one in the Austrian teacher training system), the certificate of the course can be recognised as the second of the three pillars required for becoming a teacher in Austria. Having fulfilled these two requirements, alumni can start teaching on a special contract¹⁰.

The aims of the course are to: (a) convey Basics in Education Studies; and, by doing so, (b) provide the necessary formalities to start teaching in schools on a special contract. As the postgraduate course collaborates with school authorities, the second aim includes the possibility of future employment. After the course, alumni are advised to study a second subject in order to complete the Austrian teacher training and therefore have better chances of employment on a regular contract. Thus, they align with (or even surpass?) the professional level of Austrian teachers.

One might wonder why there is a need for this form of postgraduate course, as the alumni are advised to study the second subject anyway and therefore have to enrol in regular teacher training after completing the course. Beside the fact that the course has slight adaptations and is designed specifically for this group, one crucial argument is that, in Austria, students are not entitled to social benefits such as financial support or welfare in general. As the Certificate Course is full-time, this means that participants would be unable to take part without having enough savings to live for a full year and pay for course fees, or have other means of financial support. In addition, one precondition for enrolment at the University of Vienna is German language skills at level C1¹¹. Since the course is a postgraduate course, held at the University of Vienna Postgraduate Centre, this requirement could be dropped to level B2.2. Knowing the importance of having language level C1, not only for further studies but also for teaching in secondary-schools, a voluntary language course (C1) at the University of Vienna Language Centre is provided for participants. Unlike similar programmes in Europe, the C1 course is not embedded in the curriculum of the Certificate Course. As moving from B2.2. to C1 takes at least a year, starting with B2.2. and taking the language course parallel to the Certificate Course means that teachers benefit from not losing another year to language preparation. However, it makes the course even more intense, as it is taught on two afternoons a week.

Synergies manifested not only with the University of Vienna Language Centre, but also with other partners and institutions. This – at least at the very beginning rather unexpected – dynamic now reflects the collaborative character of the Certificate Course. Partners include:

• (a) the Viennese school authorities, which coordinate the cooperating schools with mentors for the internship;

• (b) the Austrian Employment Centre, which agreed to provide financial support in the form of a daily rate for participants attending the certificate programme; and

• (c) the European Union-project CORE (Centre for Refugee Empowerment) ¹², which supports the course with free use of facilities and payment of mentors.

At the time of writing (August 2020), the third cycle has been completed (November 2019–August 2020). This article focuses on data collected throughout the first round of the course (September 2017–June 2018). Due to – among other factors – political changes, funding partners changed from course to course. So far there are 69 alumni from the first three rounds. Participants came from nine countries and the aim of balancing the male/female ratio of participants was more or less achieved. At the time of writing, more than 50% of alumni from the first and the second rounds have found jobs in the education sector. Due to their recent graduation, employment data concerning the third round remain unclear.

Participatory approach: The foundation of the research activities

As mentioned above, the development of the curriculum and the research project accompanying the course was mainly based on a participatory approach. This remains true, as we retain a participatory research team consisting of alumni and participants, as well as academic researchers. This group meets regularly to discuss current questions and jointly conducts research. Thus, it aims not to undertake research into people or a specific group of people, but – in a spirit of equal cooperation – together with them (Bergold and Thomas, 2010: 333; Kremsner, 2017; Kremsner et al., 2016). As esteemed experts, members of socially marginalised groups – in this case internationally trained teachers with a forced migration background – are involved as active players in the research process. In particular, their perspectives, views, and experiences are the main focus of attention, and their expertise is central. In this regard it must be highlighted that the approach presented here is (mainly) about influencing or even changing the social reality in general, and the lives of those people who can be seen as the target group at the centre of this research in particular (Buchner et al., 2016). Another highly relevant aspect of this approach is that the “intended outcome is to produce an authentic and comprehensive account of problems/issues from all perspectives and, with that, appropriate solutions to bring about concrete actions and change” (MacFarlane and Roche, 2018: 56). In order for this to succeed, however, we first have to clarify the following question (see for example Von Unger, 2014): what beliefs are expressed and to what extent do these correspond to the reality of the lives of the people concerned? Indicated here is that participatory action cannot be undertaken without constant reflection (Von Unger, 2014: 10). According to Von Unger (2014: 2; 44), the participatory approach can be seen as a basic view; the representation of a specific perspective, which includes socio-critical aspects and not only places knowledge-production in the hands of academic researchers but also emphasises the abilities and the importance of knowledge from experts of their own life-worlds. Participatory approaches are primarily concerned with the appreciation and support of a dynamic research process that is characterised by flexibility and openness (Bergold and Thomas, 2010: 333; see also Von Unger, 2014: 1). Because of the different perspectives that need to be constantly integrated, it is necessary to keep in touch with each other through an eye-level dialogue that takes place on an equal footing between equal persons (Bergold and Thomas, 2010: 342). This means (ideally) consistently including all those involved and avoiding leaving any opinion unacknowledged. In particular, it includes research–ethical aspects, such as ensuring that specific power relations are not reproduced or that imbalances do not arise. This combination of varying aspects leads to responsibility being of the essence when conducting participatory research. Furthermore, participatory processes, in contrast to many other kinds of research, imply that “the co-production of knowledge hinges on relationality” (MacFarlane and Roche, 2018: 57; emphasis in original). In other words, participatory processes also imply that specific roles and identities – particularly present in traditional contexts of any knowledge production – may change, overlap, mix, or blur (MacFarlane and Roche, 2018: 57).

When developing the course in general (and its curriculum in particular) all these aspects were critically reflected upon and treated with the highest sensitivity (methodological possibilities and limitations were discussed, see Kremsner and Proyer, 2019). In addition, the research project accompanying the course was structured and designed in such a way as to account for the very individual interests of the course participants involved. In the course, when talking about the topic (re-)entry into the teaching profession and acclaiming (transnational) qualifications, but also in regular team- and reflection discussions and meetings, negative topics such as barriers and challenges and (more rarely) positive themes such as opportunities, successes, and developments were repeatedly made the subject of discussion. Especially, the title of the Certificate Course sparked ongoing discussion, summarised in the quote used in the title of this article. Participants kept questioning the need for their refugee status being pulled into the centre of attention. Unfortunately, funding options were limited and due to high demand for this type of programme also for other groups of newcomers to Austria (e.g., from Eastern Europe), we had to pragmatically decide upon a specific focus.

This shows the importance and necessity to provide opportunities for exchange and joint reflection, but it also reminds us that the voices of teachers remain unheard: they are usually not asked to speak at all. Many of the teachers had had very few chances or simply no opportunity in the past to exchange experiences and verbalise their interests, needs, and wishes – they had rarely been given the chance to feel recognised and heard as fully-fledged teachers. On the basis of the explanations here given (and also in conclusion), the following questions were generated by the academic research team (by considering the interests of the participants, but not in joint development):

1. Which chances and developments do alumni of the course identify?

2. Which barriers and opportunities stem from the course, according to alumni?

3. How are the co-researchers’ accounts contextualised, or which stories are being shared throughout the assessment of the course?

These three questions aim to uncover challenges related to lacking acknowledgement and the need to be requalified and how alumni were dealing with this. Basically, the survey was carried out in two main stages: in a first step, data collection was carried out in December 2017 and in January 2018, by conducting individual interviews with five participants (see Table 1). This was undertaken by a person, who was already well known to the participants, but who later became a teacher on the course, which can be considered an issue, mainly because it reveals an inequality in the distribution of power: it simply cannot be denied that the role of a person teaching on the course is not on an equal level with that of a student. However, due to structural constraints, this was not entirely avoidable. In March 2018, two sets of group interviews were conducted, again by an external – but this time neutral – person. The second stage of the individual interviews took place in July 2018, conducted by the same person. All interviews were checked using communicative validation (e.g., Steinke, 2004).

Table 1. Overview of the data collected.

Data were analysed using situational analysis (Clarke, 2005) – an approach that originates in grounded theory methodology, but connects with elements of discourse analysis. Its aim is to focus on the analysis of highly complex situations by mapping and illustrating their details. Applying a situational analysis approach is particularly fruitful in combination with participatory research, as it stems from a constructivist approach and therefore encourages researchers to consider their own personal experiences and points of view. Situational analysis uses three different kinds of maps, which were repeatedly produced and revised after the data were coded according to Charmaz (2014), as recommended by Clarke (2005):

1. situational maps serve as strategies for articulating the elements in a specific situation and examining the relations among them (Clarke, 2005: 86);

2. social-worlds/arenas maps are cartographies of collective commitments, relations, and sites of action (Clarke, 2005: 86); and

3. positional maps aim to simplify strategies for plotting the positions articulated and not articulated in discourses (Clarke, 2005: 86).

The available data were coded and partly analysed by applying situational maps in a workshop in spring 2018, together with thirteen participants who had volunteered to participate. A second workshop on data analysis – this time focusing on social worlds/arenas maps and positional maps – was planned for the summer of 2018, but failed to take place: former participants were busy finding jobs and restructuring their lives, which is why most of them were no longer available. The academic research team was confronted with the implications of participatory research, but as mentioned, it became quite necessary to combine different interests. The desire to successfully complete the research on a participatory level ran counter to the limited resources of participants. Against this backdrop, the outcomes were condensed in a model (see Figure 1), as also suggested by Clarke (2005), produced by the academic team only.

Findings: Layers of being and remaining a teacher

This section will describe the overall model developed (Figure 1) before taking a detailed look at the chronological passages (Figure 2).