Towards a critical transformative approach to inclusive intercultural education

ABSTRACT

Education has often acted as a social microcosm that reflects the growing levels of religious and cultural diversity in Australia, with educators facing the daily task of responding pedagogically and interculturally to the challenges this evolving context brings. This paper engages critically with intercultural initiatives and policies and their role in fostering inclusivity and cross-cultural understanding in education practice across Australia. It explores the discourses, policies, and curricula developments that attempt to address growing levels of diversity both within and beyond educational settings. The paper argues that policy statements and educational policies alone are not sufficient to ensure broader uptake of an intercultural pedagogic ethos. Rather, such initiatives need to be augmented by broader institutional leadership, adequate resourcing, and context-sensitive enabling strategies. This argument is corroborated by current evidence indicating that principled approaches to introducing intercultural perspectives in education require certain conditions before they can disrupt long-standing racist attitudes and exclusionary discourse. The implementation of systematic and transformative intercultural approaches in schools can create more inclusive pedagogic practices and respectful intercultural relations that transcend the boundaries of the schoolyard and extend into broader society. Targeted, long-term intercultural understanding trainings can also engender more constructive discourse within and beyond schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural diversity
• social inclusion
• intercultural education
• discourse
• multiculturalism

Introduction

Rising levels of ethno-cultural diversity in contemporary societies are shaping how education is delivered and how learning is experienced in modern schools. This development has generated growing interest in multicultural and intercultural approaches to education, particularly since the late 1990s when rising migration and the arrival of international students in Western countries started to raise questions about how education is planned and delivered (Manning, Baruth, and Lee 2017; Marginson and Sawir 2011). This debate has intensified as cultural diversity becomes an enduring global reality the governance of which has raised significant debates in public policy and academic research (Mansouri and Modood 2021; Catarci and Fiorucci 2015; Irvine 2003; Leeman and Reid 2006). Today, one of the key challenges facing diversity governance and discourse in education relates to the production of deeper cross-cultural pedagogic knowledge and associated intercultural understanding (ICU: Rapanta and Trovão 2021). As schools continue to experience the complex manifestations of intersecting forms of ethno-cultural diversity – often referred to as ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec 2007, 2019) – approaches that emphasize a critical intercultural discourse, move beyond the recognition of difference, and promote more engagement and transformative knowledge will be critically needed. In the absence of a deeper intercultural dialogue, rising levels of ethno-cultural diversity amid persistent social fissures and entrenched inequalities may adversely impact the experiences of minorities in education and the broader society. Bridging the growing cultural-divide in schools and addressing the lack of effective pedagogic tools and policies for creating ICU thus becomes an urgent issue for educators and policymakers (Casinader 2016; Miller, Ziaian, and Esterman 2018; Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013). This paper responds to this challenge by critically examining the discourses of equity, diversity, and inclusion in Australian education and by reviewing the policy environment and its pedagogic applicability in schools. It contributes to cultural discourse studies through a critical review of diversity policies, and emphasis on the need for intercultural competency, deeper intercultural knowledge and greater cross-cultural engagement in schools premised on inclusion and plurality of cultures (Shi-xu 2005).

Internationally, the challenge posed by super-diversity has impacted many multicultural societies where changing cultural and religious demographics in schools have prompted significant public debates and conceptual contestation regarding optimal approaches to inclusive diversity governance (Ainscow and Sandill 2010). Such polarized debates around inclusive education and diversity governance paradigms are not subsiding, as the pace and level of diversity grows through increased mobility and intercultural encounters (ABS 2021; Cardno, Handjani, and Howse 2018). Despite the recent slowdown in human mobility due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for greater policy clarity and conceptual focus remains critical while the intercultural approach needs a re-examination with more emphasis on new and emerging social, cultural, and political challenges to living with everyday difference (see also, Dietz and Cortés 2021; Elias, Mansouri, and Sweid 2021; Kulich et al. 2021). This may pave the way for an inclusive educational environment that recognizes the importance of understanding different cultural perspectives, values, and practices, and engagement in respectful and constructive discourse transcending cultural boundaries.

In Australia, the need for policies fostering social inclusion has become intertwined with security concerns felt across society including within educational settings. Yet, a dearth of culturally appropriate pedagogies has exacerbated these challenges as many schools continue to operate amid significant demographic changes associated with intergroup tensions (Irvine 2003; Mellor and Corrigan 2004; Miller, Ziaian, and Esterman 2018). Many studies have reported ubiquitous racial vilification and discrimination in schools, at odds with the expected role of education in promoting social inclusion, mutual respect, and cross-cultural understanding (Kamp and Mansouri 2010; Priest et al. 2019).

Against this evolving social landscape, there is growing interest in pursuing intercultural perspectives in education (Casinader 2016; Coulby 2006; Mellor and Corrigan 2004) to address ever-growing realities of super-diversity through transformative, critical, and responsive pedagogies (Faas, Hajisoteriou, and Angelides 2014; Portera 2008). The dearth of cultural diversity programmes and practices in Australian schools is linked to a lack of critical intercultural lens and deeper cross-cultural engagement (Watkins and Noble 2019). Therefore, an intercultural framing of the education system may help engender inclusive dialogic exchange, cultural transformation, and respectful understanding across differences (Gorski 2008).

This paper, therefore, reflects on the significance of a critical transformative approach to intercultural education. It highlights this by examining the extent to which Australian schools have successfully implemented intercultural education strategies and whether such approaches can engender more inclusive practice and improved intercultural relations. Considering Australia’s cultural diversity and multicultural policy environment, the paper discusses optimal policy and curricula tools for pursuing a transformative intercultural ethos in education to promote deeper intercultural knowledge and discourse, and greater cross-cultural engagement within schools. The paper begins by discussing the intellectual and policy directions of the intercultural paradigm. It then empirically examines the policy and practice of intercultural education and discusses some emerging empirical data, before concluding with highlights of optimal conditions for pursuing intercultural education.

The historical context

Australia is a settler-colonial country established as a Western nation-state on unceded lands of First Nations Indigenous communities. This former British penal colony was initially settled by convicts and officers and comprised predominantly Anglo-Celtic whites (Hughes 1988). Throughout its short colonial history and until the late 1960s, Australia saw itself as an essentially ‘white’ society deliberately excluding Indigenous people and systematically restricting non-white immigration. This has created a narrative of a Western society in a predominantly Asia-Pacific regional neighbourhood. While it retains an Anglo-white core, Australia has evolved into a diverse multicultural society, with a population of 25.4 million people, of which 27.6% are born overseas, 19% are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and 3.2% are Indigenous (see Table 1; ABS 2021). The 2021 ABS census shows that almost half of Australians are overseas-born or have at least one overseas-born parent. These changing demographics and their associated cultural diversity evolved against a context of early European colonization fraught with fractious race relations between Anglo-Europeans and the Indigenous population, and later with migrants. Throughout its history, and until the adoption of multiculturalism in 1970s, ethno-cultural and religious diversity continued to grow significantly with more recent migrant intakes originating from non-European regions. As such, the once predominant Anglo-European migration has changed with migrants arriving from across the world. For example, between 2015 and 2021, India (14.8%), China (19.3%), the UK (8.7%), and the Philippines (6.4%) were the four largest migration sources (Department of Home Affairs 2021).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of Australia.

Description	Total	%
Population	25,422,788
Gender, female		50.7
Median age, years	38
Overseas born		27.6
English only spoken at home		72
Median household income, local currency	1746
People with certificate or above qualification		63
Indigenous people		3.2
Migrants by visa streams^[a]
Skilled	1,266,580	58
Family	683,603	32
Humanitarian	214,656	10

Sources: ABS Census QuickStat, 2016. [a] ABS (2018). Understanding Migrant Outcomes – Insights from the Australian Census and Migrants Integrated Dataset, Australia.

Following the adoption of multiculturalism, Australia took a more progressive approach to managing migration and cultural diversity. In addition to migration-driven ethnoreligious diversity, other forms of cultural diversity in Australia have accelerated, becoming more visible in everyday life largely because of the growing international education sector. Indeed, owing to its well-developed higher education system, Australia has become a major destination for international education, attracting a sizable inflow of students from across South and South-East Asia, reflected in the steady rise of enrolments since 2002 (see Figure 1 below). According to data from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE), the highest pre-pandemic year-to-date (YTD) enrolment rate of international students (2019) was from India (37.3%) and China (20.5%) with the top-ten source-countries accounting for 84.4% of all overseas enrolments. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted international students’ inflow with data from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR 2021) indicating that international student arrivals in YTD May 2022 were 36% lower compared to YTD May 2019. But these figures are already rebounding and will continue to build towards pre-pandemic levels, thus ensuring that international students and other temporary migrants will once again become major contributors to Australia’s socio-cultural fabric.

Figure 1. International student enrolments in Australia since 2002. Source: Data from Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Basic pivot table 2002–2020, March 2021. VET = Vocational Education and Training, ELICOS = English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students.

Notwithstanding these fluctuating dynamics, cultural diversity remains a strong demographic feature in primary and secondary schools, with students reporting speaking more than 200 languages at home and more than 230 Indigenous languages (Census 2021). However, Australia’s education system faces increasing challenges linked to inadequate fundings and educational resources on one hand and divergent socio-economic differences among students on the other, in combination undermining the prospects for cross-cultural interaction among students (Rowe and Perry 2022). In addition, challenges remain related to inclusion, belonging, and deeper intercultural communication across the education system (Watkins, Lean, and Noble 2016).

Promises of the intercultural paradigm

Multicultural and intercultural education have emerged as two distinct, at times, competing approaches for managing diversity in the education system (Modood and May 2001). The multicultural approach focuses on ensuring equality in educational opportunity for students from diverse cultural, ethnic, social class, religious, and linguistic backgrounds (Banks 2020). Some of the key dimensions of multicultural education include a diversity of voices in content generation, critical knowledge deconstruction, an equity-driven pedagogy, and empowering school culture for cultural minority students (Banks 2020; Gorski and Swalwell 2015). As more emphasis on anti-racism and social cohesion grew, there have been calls for adopting an intercultural approach to diversity governance in education (Cummins 2015; Gundara 2003).

In this context, a gradual shift towards the intercultural education paradigm has taken place, over the last three decades (Gorski 2008; Gorski and Swalwell 2015; Portera 2008). Nevertheless, there remains conceptual fuzziness around the theoretical and pedagogical implications of this shift (Mansouri 2017; Coulby 2006). This conceptual imprecision partly relates to the interchangeable usage, in the literature, of ‘multicultural’ and ‘intercultural’ education, assuming mere semantic differences (Guilherme and Dietz 2015; Mansouri and Modood 2021; Leeman and Reid 2006). However, these two approaches are conceptually distinct with multicultural education privileging social justice, equal citizenship, anti-racism, and recognition of minority rights (Banks 2020; Leeman and Reid 2006), whilst intercultural education emphasizes the relational goals of inter-personal interaction, participation, and shared values (Catarci and Fiorucci 2015; Gorski 2008). Furthermore, the intercultural framework seeks to transform the education experience at the micro-pedagogic level to create a supportive environment for positive cross-cultural transformation (Coulby 2006; Elias and Mansouri 2020). Intercultural education, therefore, purports to move beyond recognition of differences and ‘aims to promote understanding among different groups while [valuing] the contributions of minority groups in mainstream society’ (Catarci and Fiorucci 2015, 4). It views inter-personal contact, dialogue and understanding as critical for sustained, positive attitudinal change, while it recognises racial equality and social justice as important structural conditions for inclusion and recognition.

The difference between the two approaches is, therefore, not semantic but reflects underlying theoretical assumptions about how cultural diversity is understood and managed in society, specifically within educational settings (Catarci and Fiorucci 2015; Elias and Mansouri 2020). We argue that such a shift should signal a move away from a mere acceptance of different cultures co-existing peacefully, to an augmented relational exchange and respectful dialogue that can engender transformative attitudinal change across cultural differences (Halse et al. 2015; Gorski 2008; Rapanta and Trovão 2021). This approach has significant implications for how pedagogy, school leadership, and resourcing associated with cultural diversity are approached, conceptualised, and implemented. Yet, the pursuit of such an intercultural agenda in Australian education has thus far lacked conceptual clarity regarding specific pedagogic goals and assessment frameworks (Mansouri 2017). The global intercultural communication literature offers a range of strategies and assessment tools which can help mitigate these constraints (Bennett 2008; Deardorff 2016; Fantini 2009).

At a macro, epistemological level, intercultural education requires an ethical, inclusive approach to decolonize knowledge and challenge ‘dominant hegemony, hierarchies, and concentrations of power and control’ (Gorski 2008, 515). Here, notions of ‘inter-epistemic and decolonial criticalities’ are key for developing transformative process of understanding and knowing (Guilherme 2019). The intercultural approach, in this context, is premised on creating conditions for deep and meaningful exchange emphasizing both the ‘knowing’ (awareness and understanding) and ‘doing’ (practising and promoting) aspects of cross-cultural encounters (Halse et al. 2015). It also seeks to overcome perceived limitations of the politics of recognition by emphasizing a new ethos of ICU, active citizenship, and social engagement (Benhabib 2002; Isin 2000). By creating a space for more deliberative engagement, an intercultural paradigm aims to nurture and develop the skills and knowledge required to successfully interact and engage in dialogue with diverse others.

In educational settings, the intercultural approach requires schools to become spaces where teachers and students critically and reflexively engage with different cultural norms, values, and heritage repertoires. This entails that all learners should acquire the necessary ‘cultural knowledge, attitudes and skills that enable them to contribute to respect, understanding and solidarity’ among diverse social groups (Catarci and Fiorucci 2015, 5). However, learning and unlearning different cultures should be seen as a dynamic process. Intercultural education should be seen not as a static notion of possessing skills to deal with other cultures (i.e. intercultural competence), but as a dynamic and performative undertaking where students engage in meaningful interaction involving a genuine and reflective process of intercultural dialogue (Rapanta and Trovão 2021). This dialogic intercultural communication enables students to take cross-cultural perspective transcending cultural boundaries, learning to accept and adapt to other cultures (Bennett 1998).

Intercultural education policy in Australia

Australia is one of a few countries in the world with an official commitment to multiculturalism (Catarci and Fiorucci 2015). Abandoning previous restrictive immigration policies, it afforded opportunities for greater cultural recognition of and settlement service provision for migrants. Such a turn in immigration policy came in 1973 when Australia formally adopted a multicultural strategy. Following the 1978 Galbally Report, Australia has established a sophisticated infrastructure for various multicultural policies and institutions, ranging from migrant resource centres and ethnic representation in media to language programmes and education support (Koleth 2010; Leeman and Reid 2006). Despite this early multicultural promise, only three states in Australia’s federated system – New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia – have multicultural legislations articulating a coherent vision around values, institutional arrangements and enabling strategies. Furthermore, Australia does not have a federal multicultural legislation so far, equivalent to Canada’s 1988 national Multicultural Act.

Despite these legislative inadequacies, multicultural education has nonetheless been practised in Australian schools for several decades. Its implementation involved programmes to prepare students to actively participate in a culturally diverse society and address the needs of students from non-English backgrounds. A range of programmes were developed, including: ‘English as a second language, multicultural perspectives in the curriculum, anti-racism initiatives, community languages, community relations’ which draw on ‘cultural maintenance, social equity, community harmony, [and] cultural awareness’ (Watkins, Lean, and Noble 2016, 47). But there are questions about the abiding relevance of these programmes. Do they reflect Australia’s contemporary multicultural environment and the complexity of super-diversity, as originally envisaged in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young (hereafter Melbourne Declaration: MCEETYA 2008; Watkins and Noble 2019)?

In contrast, intercultural education is relatively new in Australia and emanates from broader critique of ‘multicultural education for its focus on deficiencies in cultural and home backgrounds, and enactment as tokenistic or tourist curricula’ (Miller and Petriwskyj 2013, 254). The discourse on the intercultural approach has not taken hold as firmly in Australia as it has in Europe and Canada, largely due to broad and consistent public support for multiculturalism (Leeman and Reid 2006; Markus 2017; Elias, Mansouri, and Sweid 2021). Nevertheless, in education, there has been a push since the mid-2000s for a national approach to incorporate interfaith and ICU into Australian curricula to foster tolerance and prevent racial segregation and violent extremism (Halafoff 2015; Halse et al. 2015). The Australian Government had agreed in 2015 to support new education initiatives aimed at building understanding between Australian Muslim and non-Muslim communities that resulted in the National Action Plan (NAP) for addressing discrimination in schools (Halafoff 2015). Prior to the NAP, comprehensive national data on schools’ practises of interfaith and intercultural engagement were not available. The NAP was one of the key recommendations in the then Department of Education, Science and Training study (Carbines, Wyatt, and Robb 2006) that gathered and analysed data from schools across New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland. The study called for a coordinated national curriculum that integrated an intercultural approach, arguing that the ‘potential for successful school-based programmes’ appeared to be greater under a curriculum that incorporated ICU at all levels and subject areas (Carbines, Wyatt, and Robb 2006, viii).

This has signalled an era of significant changes in Australia’s curriculum towards the intercultural approach (Casinader 2016; Halse et al. 2015; Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013). In 2008, the Education Council of Australia supported the Melbourne Declaration, which acknowledged the growing diversity and associated challenges, and the need to improve all young Australians’ educational outcomes. This led to the establishment of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), an organization responsible for designing the national curriculum, administration of national assessments, and associated reporting on schooling in Australia (Halse et al. 2015).

Although the Australian Curriculum acknowledges the need to incorporate pedagogical perspectives, reflecting the growing levels of diversity in the country, a nationwide agreement on an implementation strategy is yet to be achieved (Mansouri 2017). Indeed, the Melbourne Declaration broadly articulated the ‘need to nurture an appreciation of and respect for social, cultural and religious diversity, and a sense of global citizenship’ (MCEETYA 2008, 4). It equally framed schools as platforms for the provision of discrimination-free education and the creation of a socially cohesive society (MCEETYA 2008). However, the national curriculum has been criticized for its failure to incorporate perspectives on diverse religions, spiritualties, and ethics. For example, students lack the opportunity to develop a deep understanding of the knowledge, histories, and cultures of First Nations people and the effects of systematic, structural racism on their communities (Lowe and Yunkaporta 2013). In addition, no direct relationship exists between the curriculum and actual classroom activities, with inadequate attention being given to assessment, evaluation, and pre-service training (Halse et al. 2015; Luke 2010).

Currently, the pedagogic capability envisaged in an ICU of the Australian Curriculum comprises three elements: (1) recognizing culture and developing respect; (2) interacting and empathizing with others; and (3) reflecting on intercultural experiences and taking responsibility (Casinader 2016). For intercultural education, the second element is particularly significant as it reflects the theoretical assumptions underpinning interculturalism, namely the potential for transformative change, meaningful interaction, and relationality across differences. Since the adoption of the Australian ICU curriculum, numerous studies have attempted to examine its implementation and impact on learning and intercultural relations (Cole-Adams 2013; Denson et al. 2017; Diaz 2013; Greco, Priest, and Paradies 2010; Halse et al. 2015; Moss, O’Mara, and McCandless 2017; Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013). Some of these studies focus on specific thematic aspects of the ICU curriculum, including its conceptualization and implementation, and optimal methods of assessing intercultural competence (Denson et al. 2017; Halse et al. 2015). They draw on the intercultural communication literature which offers a large array of training methods in classroom settings. Intercultural competence is a multidisciplinary notion combining a set of attitudes, knowledge, and skill needed for appropriate and effective interaction across cultural difference (Byram, Nichols, and Stevens 2001). Drawing on cross-cultural psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and communication studies, it emphasizes the value of understanding, effectively navigating and adapting to cultural differences to establish positive relationships and coexist in culturally diverse environments (Landis, Bennett, and Bennett 2004). Below, we discuss a case study that sought to identify what factors impede or facilitate student intercultural capabilities. We show that the role and positive impact of intercultural education depend on how sustained and carefully calibrated it is to the school context.

Assessing the role of ICU in education

In 2015, a study – the Doing Diversity Project, co-led by one of us (Halse et al. 2015) – examined the factors that facilitate or impede the development of intercultural capabilities in students, teachers, and school leadership. The project assessed the impact of the ICU approach on student attitudes towards cultural diversity (Halse et al. 2015). The study involved staggered ICU professional development and was provided to teachers and school leaders involving a maximum variation sample from six primary and six secondary schools in metropolitan Melbourne. For the main study, interviews, focus groups, and surveys were conducted over three years. We report here data for primary schools involving students. Before and after the training, surveys were administered to the students at 3-timepoints: before training as well as two months and 18 months after training. A total of 41 questions were asked reflecting views towards cultural diversity, with 4-point Likert scale responses (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Response rates were 78% at T1 and T2, and 67% at T3.

Table 2 summarizes the main findings from a Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and paired t-tests for each group of students, indicating changes over time. The paired t-test result showed that changes were more likely in the long term compared to the short term. A comparison of T1/T2 scores indicates that statistically significant changes were observed in just three items, increased acceptance of diversity, a reduction in a narrow understanding of Australian identity, and more prejudice. However, from T2 to T3, we observe statistically significant changes across 21 items, indicating increased levels of intercultural capabilities and ICU among students. Similarly, a comparison of T1 and T3 scores indicates that statistically significant positive changes, i.e. increased levels of intercultural understanding and improved intercultural capabilities were realized among the students. The only exception is related to being OK with prejudice, where a slight but statistically insignificant increase was observed.

Table 2. Immediate and delayed impact of intercultural capability training.

Question item related to cultural diversity	Primary students
	T1 score	T2 score	T3 score	Significant levels
				T1/T2	T2/T3	T1/T3
Making friends	3.20	3.20	3.31		**	**
Feeling with diversity	3.08	3.08	3.25		**	**
Discomfort with diversity	1.98	1.94	1.71		**	**
Surprise at difference	2.48	2.46	2.18		**	**
Understanding others	3.14	3.18	3.33		**	**
Understanding migration	3.18	3.28	3.42		**	**
Acceptance of diversity	3.27	3.39	3.47	*	**	**
Expected getting along	3.10	3.17	3.27		**	**
Witnessing unfair treatment	2.11	2.12	1.93		**	**
Perception of difference	2.57	2.64	2.45		**	**
Assimilationist views	2.27	2.17	2.03		**	**
Openness toward diversity	3.26	3.33	3.46		**	**
Support Australian status quo	2.67	2.68	2.58		**	*
Narrow Australian identity	2.18	1.95	1.78	**	**	**
Cultural generalisation	2.29	2.28	2.09		**	**
Difficulty understanding others	2.54	2.62	2.40		**	**
Enjoy intercultural talk	3.19	3.21	3.34		**	**
Friends expect getting along	2.82	2.78	2.96		**	**
Being OK with prejudice	2.44	2.59	2.50	**	*
Diversity in media	2.92	2.99	3.01			*
Appetite for Asian language	2.01	2.02	2.27		**	**
Learn about Asia	1.99	2.05	2.13		*	**

Note: Source Halse et al. (2015). Results from pre- and post-intervention survey of students in Australian schools (n = 556). Significance levels **p < .01, *p < .05.

The study’s findings show that statistically significant change over time (long-term) was observed in students’ intercultural attitudes and behaviours. A short-term, one-off intervention may have limited and sometimes negative effects on student behaviours. However, the Doing Diversity Project focused on embedding structural changes to build intercultural capabilities and generated longer-lasting and positive changes in students’ views and attitudes.

Overall, this study showed that intercultural capabilities represent a valuable framework for school practice and for race/ethnic relations. The findings confirm the imperative of intercultural professional learning for principals and teachers, which informs pedagogic practice and builds social inclusion and ICU.

Re-imagining intercultural education today

Empirical research shows the value of an intensive and sustained intercultural approach in facilitating student ICU (Denson et al. 2017; Diaz 2013; Greco, Priest, and Paradies 2010; Halse et al. 2015; Moss, O’Mara, and McCandless 2017; Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013). It offers a framework for addressing critical challenges in education, particularly regarding the need to seriously address issues of structural inequalities, social inclusion, local belonging, and meaningful cross-cultural engagement.

The past three years have highlighted the critical role of intercultural education, both in terms of the digital learning experience as well as cross-cultural contact and ICU, because of the limitations imposed on mobility and social interaction (Kulich et al. 2021). Because of physical separation and limitations in accessing digital technology, the capacity to engage in meaningful intercultural exchanges was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The whole diversity and intercultural dialogue agenda, in Australia and globally, has been constrained by unequal access to digital platforms and resources barring individuals and communities from engaging in alternative cross-cultural activities. The pandemic has, therefore, had an adverse impact on the broader intercultural dialogue and anti-racism agenda. The simultaneous rise in ethnocultural racism during the pandemic also exacerbated the negative experiences of minority groups (Elias, Mansouri, and Sweid 2021; Ho 2021). Against this background, the challenge of ‘moving from a pedagogy of cordial relations or respect for the cultural ideas of others to a pedagogy for difference involving critical reflection on’ institutional approach to social justice has become more pressing (Miller and Petriwskyj 2013, 255).

In view of this, intercultural education needs a re-examination to augment its successful implementation in Australian schools. Research indicates that the incorporation of an intercultural approach in education requires some fundamental conditions before it can achieve the desired outcomes (Crichton and Scarino 2007; Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013; Mansouri and Trembath 2005; Leeman 2003). Halse et al. (2015) identified eight key principles for building intercultural capabilities in schools, including an environment that nurtures the necessary skills and competencies for intercultural interaction and the availability of the required tools for evaluating such skills and competencies. Below, we briefly discuss three main factors that embody the critical conditions for successful intercultural education: (1) leadership and vision (Leeman 2003); (2) contents and skill sets (Crichton and Scarino 2007); and (3) assessment (Deardorff 2016).

Role of leadership

Research has shown that leadership is critical to the successful inclusion of intercultural practice in schools (Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Halse et al. 2015). As demonstrated in many studies across primary and secondary schools, active leadership and the engagement of school management teams can make a difference in the introduction and achievement of intercultural competence (Halse et al. 2015; Leeman 2003). Well-calibrated professional development plays a vital role in supporting leadership and ensuring greater uptake of intercultural perspectives (DeJaeghere and Cao 2009). The intercultural education approach among Australian school principals has previously been limited to cross-cultural interactions and reflections. It lacks deep sophisticated perspectives on the challenges associated with super-diversity and intercultural relations.

Similarly, research indicates that professional development is essential for teachers to enhance their capacity to facilitate intercultural pedagogic practice (Halse et al. 2015; Mansouri et al. 2009). Teachers identified the lack of resources and assessment tools as practical day-to-day challenges within the Australian school system (Diaz 2013). This indicates a need for professional development for teachers that focuses on intercultural competency skills that can foster ‘the ability to support student ICU development through effective teaching and learning practice’ (Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013, 10).

Furthermore, research highlights the need for holistic approaches to intercultural practice to develop skills and attitudes including empathy, openness, respectfulness, perspective-taking, and resolving conflict (Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013). Schools need to practise intercultural engagement meaningfully and through systematic implementation across all levels of the education ladder. However, intercultural practices can be constrained by the (lack of) availability of cultural space within the school environment, as both ‘place’ and ‘space’ are not necessarily power-neutral (Moss, O’Mara, and McCandless 2017). A holistic approach to intercultural practice in schools would, therefore, incorporate recognition that school spaces are critical determinants ‘for enabling or impeding rich intercultural education’ (Moss, O’Mara, and McCandless 2017, 970) and that spatial architecture, including ordinary sites, such as foyers within schools, have an impact on knowledge-construction that has an intercultural dimension.

Resourcing

One of the key challenges to the design of intercultural curriculum as reported by school leaders and teachers is the dearth of suitable pedagogic resources (Halse et al. 2015). Potentially, some international tools can be adapted to specific local conditions. For example, UNESCO and the International Bureau of Education offer training tools for the development of an internationally applicable intercultural curriculum (IBE-UNESCO 2016). UNESCO has also been advocating for global citizenship education (GCE) to promote intercultural understanding and equip individuals with intercultural competencies. While there is considerable debate around the ambiguity and Euro-centricity of GCE, several countries have incorporated some of its aspects into their curricula, recognizing the value of preparing students for the challenges of a globalized world (Goren and Yemini 2017).

In Australia, there have been efforts to design support resources for teachers who wish to incorporate ICU into their classroom activities. On its website, the Victorian State Government provides a list of local and international websites that provide specialized, searchable resources for teachers who want to incorporate intercultural capability into their classrooms. Mansouri et al. (2009) offer an interactive online teacher-support tool that can enhance the intercultural experience of all stakeholders. This guide introduces interactive online teaching modules that educators can adapt and incorporate into their curricula. It also encourages an inclusive approach where parents can play a role in shaping ICU perspectives between teachers and students. Cole-Adams (2013) provides online modules that can be adapted and incorporated into English, History, Geography, Civics, and Citizenship lessons for grades three to ten. Despite this, resources for intercultural practice within schools are generally scarce, and teachers often indicate difficulties in developing adequate intercultural resources (Diaz 2013). Moreover, these efforts are often constrained by an absence of a single national portal, with many teachers often spending too much time searching for suitable resources.

Assessment

Another key challenge for ICU is the complexity of assessing and evaluating intercultural competence in schools. An array of models is available in the literature for assessing IC as an effective and appropriate set of behaviour and communication skills in intercultural situations (Deardorff 2009). For example, Fantini (2009) assessed hundreds of instruments that showed varying degrees of reliability and validity. This is based on an understanding of IC assessment as an ongoing process that evaluates students’ attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity), critical-thinking skills, and ability to perceive others’ perspectives (Bennett 2008; Deardorff 2016). Assessment is often perceived as a task involving the:

need to coordinate efforts among willing staff in different learning areas across the curriculum and to provide evidence of mapping a coherent, cumulative, sequentially-developed path for intercultural understanding. (Diaz 2013, 15–16)

Research evaluating successful intercultural learning has grown exponentially in recent years, and a consensus has emerged regarding the conceptual framing of intercultural competence and its measurement based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural characteristics and skills (Bennett 2008; Denson et al. 2017; Deardorff 2016). In Australia, the paucity of empirical evidence on the assessment and evaluation of intercultural competence in schools has been an area of concern (Moloney 2009). Denson et al. (2017) developed a validated instrument for assessing ICU among teachers and students at primary and secondary schools. They argue that the successful incorporation of ICU among teachers depends on factors such as culturally inclusive teaching strategies, reflexivity, adaptability, and an openness to diversity. Among students, intergroup contact and openness to cultural diversity were found to be the most critical factors (Denson et al. 2017). This study offers a starting point for school-level assessment and evaluation of ICU. However, the generalizability and adaptability of such instruments across schools in Australia will require more thorough and (inter)nationally representative analyses.

As the above discussion shows, the successful pursuit of intercultural education in Australian schools cannot be achieved with mere policy statements and good intentions. There are substantive reforms that need to be adopted, ranging from school leadership and pedagogic practice to assessment and community engagement. For ICU to be achieved and sustained, a whole-of-school approach is needed where significant resources, clear enabling strategies as well as curriculum innovation are integrated as cross-cutting capacities across the curriculum rather than as a standalone teaching unit.

Intercultural education: the way forward

The growing literature around intercultural education initiatives and practices in Australia has some commonality with experiences in other multicultural societies while also being unique. This is due to the distinctive, local policy approaches reflecting Australia’s specific demographic composition, migration history, and Indigenous population (ABS 2021; Koleth 2010). For example, unlike Canada’s multi-level approach including national multiculturalism and Quebec’s interculturalism, Australia’s multiculturalism has been able to incorporate intercultural practices seamlessly and without much polarized, indeed futile debates around the superiority and utility of one approach (interculturalism) over the other (multiculturalism). Besides, Australian multiculturalism has deployed features associated with interculturalism – for example, learning other languages, reflective intercultural interaction, and experiences – to accommodate the increasingly diverse population. The implications of these multi-dimensional approaches go beyond diversity governance to a range of critical social, economic, and cultural outcomes.

In Australia, multicultural policies have enjoyed strong public and policy support, though the need to recalibrate them through a more inclusive intercultural approach is increasingly being recognized (MCEETYA 2008; Mellor and Corrigan 2004). Despite this broad support, implementing pro-diversity approaches in education remains a challenge, due to inadequate resourcing and professional development (Halse et al. 2015).

Globally, public discourse on ethnic and cultural diversity and the need for inclusive policy environments reflects the tension between individual and group contours of diversity policies (Coulby 2006; Mansouri and Modood 2021). Education is one of the key sectors directly impacted by growing diversity and the policies put in place to address these tensions (Faas, Hajisoteriou, and Angelides 2014). This diversity governance dilemma continues to affect many multicultural societies to varying degrees including Australia. In Australia, intergroup disparities in educational achievement remain an ongoing challenge, adversely affecting Indigenous communities and other racialized minority groups (Ford 2013; Mansouri and Trembath 2005). Studies indicate that the inadequacy of inclusive practices in schools contributes to this under-achievement and that addressing this challenge within schools requires the implementation of culturally appropriate curricula that are inclusion-driven and interculturally oriented (Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Portera 2008).

Despite the growing interest in diversity policy approaches in Australia’s multicultural society, there has been limited progress towards a pro-diversity agenda in education (Halse et al. 2015; Cardno, Handjani, and Howse 2018). Although some curriculum statements and broader educational policies that encourage and support inclusion do exist, these remain insufficient to ensure the broad uptake of a policy paradigm shift that can effectively nurture interculturality and inclusivity. Adequate resourcing and enabling strategies should accompany and augment these policy statements if they are to yield the desired intercultural transformative outcomes. Many national and international empirical studies have shown that systematic pedagogic interventions within coherent curricula can make a significant impact on intercultural attitudes and race relations transcending the school boundaries (Greco, Priest, and Paradies 2010; Halse et al. 2015). Systematic approaches to intercultural perspectives in education have the potential to disrupt racial attitudes and social inequalities, and in doing so can engender more inclusive and respectful social milieus, enabling all learners to achieve optimal educational outcomes in a culturally supportive environment.

Conclusion

Interculturalism has emerged as an important policy interlocutor informing broader debates around social cohesion, migrant integration, and diversity governance (Zapata-Barrero and Mansouri 2022; Mansouri and Modood 2021; Mansouri 2017). In this paper, we examined the intercultural framework as a supportive influence within education settings, focusing particularly on Australian education (Halse et al. 2015; Mansouri et al. 2009). The importance of an intercultural education lies not just in its normative value as a good practice in diverse environments. But the intercultural approach also offers a framework for promoting deeper intercultural knowledge and greater cross-cultural engagement (Coulby 2006).

Thus, research on inclusive, equitable approaches to education should examine more rigorously the social and cultural benefits of an intercultural approach that prioritises facilitating contact, dialogue, cross-cultural understanding, and transformative engagement (Faas, Hajisoteriou, and Angelides 2014). An intercultural approach that promotes criticality and enhances transformative learning has the potential to engender positive changes in student attitudes toward ‘other’ cultures.

This paper discussed and highlighted the significance of a critical transformative approach in intercultural education. It engaged critically with the discursive debates on multiculturalism policies and intercultural curricula in Australia, both within and beyond the educational setting. The theoretical analysis and empirical evidence reported in this paper indicate that policy statements and educational policies alone are not sufficient to ensure broad uptake of such policy paradigm shifts. Our research evidence (e.g. Halse et al. 2015; Mansouri et al. 2009) suggest that adequate resourcing and enabling strategies that foster effective and sustained transformative changes should accompany and augment existing and new policies. Current evidence shows that systematic approaches to introducing intercultural perspectives in education can produce meaningful and positive change in race relations as well as educational attainment. Such initiatives have the potential to improve school standards, ameliorate racist attitudes, and create more inclusive and respectful social milieus in the schoolyard and beyond. Australia has engaged to varying degrees with the intercultural paradigm as a key instrument in the diversity governance toolbox, with divergent outcomes. The current challenges facing the broader diversity agenda, race relations, the ongoing challenges in post pandemic social recovery and intensifying global geo-strategic imperatives all seem to suggest, however, that a more systematic, sustained, and robust commitment to intercultural understanding is urgently needed.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleague Andrew Stapleton for copy-editing this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Amanuel Elias

Amanuel Elias is a Research Fellow at Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship & Globalisation, Deakin University. His research focuses on race relations, ethnic inequalities, and cultural diversity. Dr. Elias received Ph.D. in economics from Deakin University and has co-authored the book: Racism in Australia Today (2021).

Fethi Mansouri

Fethi Mansouri holds a research chair in Migration and Intercultural Studies (2008) and the UNESCO Chair for comparative research on cultural diversity and social justice (2013). He is the founding Director of the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University and editor of the Journal of Intercultural Studies. He has authored twenty scholarly books including most recently Racism in Australia Today (2021).