Teacher trainee learning about inclusive practice in initial teacher education in England

The challenge for initial (pre-service) teacher education (ITE) to prepare all teachers to teach a diversity of pupils is recognized internationally and given impetus from widespread moves towards inclusive education (Booth, Nes & Stromstad, 2003; Sharma, Forlin & Loreman, 2008). We note and welcome the broadening of focus of inclusion to encompass diversity in a broad sense rather than a specific focus on special educational needs (SEN) and disability (Forlin, 2010); this chapter, however, centres on teacher education for this group of pupils – those designated as having SEN. In England, despite the Government’s expectation that newly qualified teachers should be equipped to carry out their responsibilities, concerns have continued to be expressed about the inadequacy of ITE in terms of preparing teachers to teach children with SEN (Ellis, Tod & Graham-Matheson, 2012; Ofsted, 2008). This chapter draws upon a detailed research project about the school placement (practicum) element of the ITE process with regard to trainee teachers’ ¹ learning around teaching pupils with SEN and inclusive practice. We have focused elsewhere on some of the views of the trainee teachers about their learning, what and how they learn about teaching pupils with SEN (Lawson, Norwich & Nash, 2013). In this chapter, we focus on the ‘insider’ views of staff within the schools: the teachers who tutor, mentor or supervise the trainees (school-based tutors; SBTs); ² the SEN Coordinators (SENCos); ³ and the senior member of staff in each school coordinating and responsible for ITE in each school (ITECs). ⁴ The following questions guide the chapter:

What are the perspectives of school leadership, teacher tutors and SENCos who coordinate and deliver ITE to trainees with respect to working with children with SEN?

What are their views about inclusion in the school and their views about the preparation of trainees for their school-based learning from the university component of their ITE programme?

What are the implications of the variability in these perspectives for ITE, teacher educators and university–school partnerships?