Previous experience, trickle-down training and systemic ad hoc-ery: educators’ knowledge acquisition when teaching refugee pupils in one local authority in England

ABSTRACT

Schools play a key role in the lives of young refugees and asylum seekers, yet it is unclear to what extent educators are prepared to effectively teach this population. In this study, we examined how educators acquire knowledge relevant to teaching refugee pupils through a survey (n = 295) and nestled case studies of 17 teachers at two schools in England. Educators reported learning mainly through experience—both personal and professional—and they emphasised informal, ad hoc support from colleagues over formal training courses. English as an Additional Language leaders at the two case study schools were particularly relied upon to pass on relevant knowledge they had acquired across their careers. These findings have implications for school staffing and professional development in English schools, as well as contributing to broader discussions about the decentralisation of some education systems and the efficacy of different types of professional development for educators.

KEYWORDS:

• Knowledge
• professional development
• refugee
• asylum-seeking pupils
• England

Introduction

Child refugees and asylum seekers face a series of life stresses that do not necessarily end when they arrive in their new country. Although they may have left trauma and a long journey behind, the ‘secondary trauma’ of settling into a new country can be demanding (Fazel & Stein, 2002). Not only must they learn a new language, culture and customs, but they may encounter racism, xenophobia and prejudice, and, in the case of unaccompanied young people, may be thrust into adulthood as children (Arnot & Pinson, 2005). Perhaps unsurprisingly, young refugees and asylum seekers present higher levels of mood and anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder than the population at large (Bronstein & Montgomery, 2011; Fazel et al., 2005; Jakobsen et al., 2014), with the stress of settling into a new country known to be a contributor (Tyrer et al., 2014).

Schools play an important role in young refugees’ lives, with good educational experiences linked to faster, fuller social integration and higher well-being (Candappa & Egharevba, 2000; Chase, 2017; Fazel & Stein, 2002; Hek, 2005). In part, this link is due to the opportunities schools provide to learn the host country language, which is central to accessing further education and employment (Ott & O’Higgins, 2019; Tip et al., 2016). Just as importantly, however, schools can provide young refugees with important non-academic experiences—such as daily routines, friendships, and a sense of identity—all of which protect against poor mental health (Chase, 2017; Fazel, 2002) and support social inclusion. Whilst it is important to recognise the heterogeneity of young refugees—some may not have previously attended school while others may be literate in several languages; some may experience post-traumatic stress disorder and others may have high levels of well-being—it is also important to recognise that as a group, this population has several overlapping features that can make them vulnerable. Compared to other immigrant groups, refugee and asylum-seeking children generally face more educational barriers (Crul et al., 2017). Their educational needs may not be recognised and met without acknowledging their particular status and experiences (Peterson, Meehan, Ali et al., 2017), and therefore refugee and asylum seeking children are worthy of special attention within educational systems.

Refugees in the UK

For the purposes of this study, the term ‘refugee pupils’ encompasses both refugees and asylum seekers—children who arrived in the UK with refugee status (for example, as part of a resettlement scheme) or who arrived seeking asylum (applied for refugee status after entering the UK). The term ‘refugee pupils’ also includes unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), which is the UK government’s term for asylum seekers under 18-years-old who are not in the care of their parents or usual caregivers.

Although the UK is not a global leader when it comes to welcoming refugees and asylum seekers, they still do receive a significant number each year. From June 2018 to June 2019 18,519 people were resettled or granted asylum, 7,351 of whom were children (Home Office, 2019). Within the category of asylum seekers, as of March 2020 there were 5,000 UASC in England, around 6% of all children in care (Department for Education, 2020). Finally, within the category of resettled refugees, since 2015–2016 the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme have targeted families with children to move directly from locations in the Middle East and North Africa to the UK, with a target of resettling 23,000 people across the two programmes.

The role of educators

Within the school context, teachers and other school staff play an integral role in refugees’ educational experiences. The literature suggests that best practice with young refugees is a holistic approach taking into account multiple possible needs of individuals (Arnot & Pinson, 2005; Block et al., 2014; Taylor & Sidhu, 2012). English language and tailored academic support are central, but so is a welcoming environment and meeting any social-emotional or psychological needs (Peterson, Meehan, Durrant et al., 2017; Rutter, 2006). Some studies report that educators are unprepared to teach refugee pupils (Biasutti et al., 2020; Guo, Maitra and Guo, 2019; Due et al., 2015; Matthews, 2008; Reakes, 2007), whilst others have found that educators with previous experience of teaching refugees—or pupils with shared characteristics—are more knowledgeable and better prepared (Arnot & Pinson, 2005; McIntyre and Abrams, 2021; Ofsted, 2003; Whiteman, 2005). Not enough is known about why some educators are more prepared than others and how they become prepared, making it difficult for schools and policy makers to plan effective, targeted improvements.

This study aims to address this gap in the literature by addressing the following question: How do educators acquire pedagogical knowledge relevant to teaching refugees in one local authority in England?

This question is relevant to the education of refugee pupils in England and beyond, since good academic and well-being outcomes are desirable both for refugee pupils themselves and for host societies. However, this study also speaks more broadly to the question of educator knowledge acquisition and the role of continuing professional development, particularly in education systems that have recently undergone significant changes in terms of policy, organisation, or population served.

Notes on the English educational context

Education in the UK is a devolved matter, with England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland responsible for their own systems. Conversely, immigration is a reserved matter controlled by British Parliament for the four UK countries. This study took place in England, thus the use of England or English to refer to educational matters but UK or British to refer to immigration matters. In England, a large proportion of schools have become ‘academies’—schools funded by the state but outside the jurisdiction of the local authority (local government)—with over half of state school pupils now attending these schools (Department for Education, 2019).

Method

The data presented here comes from a larger body of work exploring the interactions between educators’ knowledge, attitudes and practices when working with refugee and asylum seeking pupils in one local authority in England. This larger project included a questionnaire completed by practicing primary and secondary educators (n = 295) and nestled case studies of 17 educators at two schools, employing participant observation, educator and pupil interviews, and school document analysis. This article is based on data collected from the survey and case studies relevant to the question of how educators acquire knowledge about teaching refugee pupils. The research was approved by the Central University Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford (reference number ED-CIA-18-174).

Participants for the survey were recruited through their schools of employment by phoning and/or emailing each state-maintained school in the county (n = 300). At schools where leaders chose to participate (n = 25), educators were given an electronic or paper questionnaire to complete, normally during staff meeting time. Participant schools were not selected to be representative of the region or country as a whole; however, a range of schools took part in terms of pupil demographics, rural versus urban location, and school performance in government exams and inspections.

The two case study schools were selected for their relatively high proportion of refugee pupils served: 1) School A, an academy secondary school with a specialised English as an Additional Language (EAL) provision for beginners in the higher grades that many UASC attend and 2) School B, a primary school that received a recent influx of refugee families, mainly through the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. While School A had a ‘Good’ rating from Ofsted, the government inspection agency, School B had most recently been rated ‘Inadequate’ but had undergone several changes since, including the employment of a new head teacher and conversion into an academy—and since the data collection period has been upgraded to ‘Good’. Both schools have a higher than average proportion of pupils with EAL or who receive free school meals.

Surveyed educators were asked—if they currently taught refugee pupils—where they got information that helped them (see Appendix A). Case study data collection comprised of participant observation and semi-structured interviews with educators (n = 17). A researcher (CMP) observed lessons and other school activities, consisting of approximately 280 hours of observations total, 140 hours across 8 weeks at each school. The researcher acted as a volunteer teaching assistant, with the level of participation varying depending on the wishes of the class teacher and the level and subject of the class. Each of the educators was officially interviewed on one occasion, for a total of 17 interviews, although informal conversations were common and also contributed to the overall body of data. See Tables 1 and 2 for characteristics of participant educators. Interview themes included how prepared educators felt to teach refugee pupils and how they acquired relevant knowledge.

Table 1. Characteristics of case study schools

School A	School B
Secondary academy	Primary, recently ‘academised’
40% English as an Additional Language (EAL)	45% EAL
33.5% free school meals (FSM)	20.8% FSM
History of receiving refugee pupils and Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children	Recent influx of resettled Syrian families
EAL Department and special EAL sixth form, mix of mainstreaming and separate provision	Immediate mainstreaming of all pupils

Table 2. Characteristics of survey respondents

	Number of participants (%)
Female	230 (82.7%)
Male	48 (17.3%)
Immigrant	20 (7.2%)
Non-immigrant	257 (92.8%)
White British	247 (88.5%)
Not White British	32 (11.5%)
0–2 years teaching	32 (11.2%)
3–5 years teaching	58 (20.3%)
6–8 years teaching	45 (15.7%)
9–11 years teaching	43 (15.0%)
12+ years teaching	108 (37.8%)
Furthest level of education
Some secondary school	3 (1.1%)
Qualification at 16 years (General Certificate of Secondary Education—GCSEs)	17 (6.1%)
Qualification at 18 years (A-levels or equivalent)	17 (6.1%)
Undergraduate university degree	106 (38.1%)
Postgraduate university degree	135 (48.6%)

Totals do not equal 295 due to missing responses (from 3.1% for number of years teaching—located at the beginning of the questionnaire—to approximately 6% for other categories—located at the end of the questionnaire).

Table 3. Characteristics of interviewed educators

	Number of participants (%)
Total	17
Female	13 (76.5%)
Male	4 (23.5%)
Immigrant	4 (23.5%)
Non-immigrant	13 (76.5%)
0–2 years teaching	1 (5.9%)
3–5 years teaching	4 (23.5%)
6–8 years teaching	2 (11.8%)
9–11 years teaching	2 (11.8%)
12+ years teaching	8 (47.1%)
Class teacher	9 (53.0%)
EAL specialist	3 (17.6%)
Teaching assistant	4 (23.5%)
Inclusion manager	1 (5.9%)

Data from observations and interviews was analysed in NVivo using thematic analysis to find repeated patterns of meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006), using a mix of deductive and inductive coding. Prior to analysis, codes related to the research questions—such as level of preparedness—were created. However, a number of codes were added throughout the analysis process, such as ‘funding’ and ‘refugees are all different’. Data analysis was also guided by the conceptual framework detailed below.

Acquiring pedagogical knowledge: a conceptual framework

Studies of educator knowledge are often framed in terms of how improved knowledge contributes to better classroom practices, with the assumption that changes in knowledge lead in a linear, unidirectional manner to changes in practices. Given that good practice is a main goal of researchers and practitioners, this focus primarily on classroom practices as an outcome is understandable. However, a number of researchers have noted that the relationship between knowledge and practices is more complex and multidirectional, with teachers’ practices shaping their knowledge as much as knowledge shapes their practices (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; T. Guskey, 1986; T. R. Guskey, 2002). This study utilised this more complex, multidirectional model of knowledge and practices, looking for ways in which knowledge shapes practices as well as how previous, job-embedded experience—including practices—shape knowledge, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A multi-directional model of knowledge and practices

Results

Across both the survey and case studies, educators emphasised learning from colleagues and through experience—both professional and personal—over formal training.

Ask a colleague

For surveyed educators, the most common source of information selected by far was ‘colleagues and friends’, followed by other sources as displayed in Table 4.

Table 4. How do you currently get information that helps you teach refugee and asylum seeking pupils?

	Source	n	(%)
1	Colleagues and friends	72	68.6%
2	Online teacher networks (e.g., Times Educational Supplement, Guardian Teacher Network)	36	32.7%
3	Training sessions by staff at school	28	26.6%
4	Government guidance (e.g., Ofsted, Department for Education)	27	25.7%
5	Non-governmental organisations (e.g., Red Cross, Refugee Council)	19	18.1%
6	Training sessions with the Local Authority or other outside organisations	13	12.4%
7	Other	12	11.4%
8	Professional associations or unions	7	6.6%
9	Virtual school	1	1.0%

(Percentages do not sum to 100 because respondents could select multiple options.)

Similarly, case study teachers foregrounded colleagues’ informal support when asked where they acquired knowledge relevant to teaching refugee pupils. At School A, most mainstream educators referenced the English as an Additional Language (EAL) head Margaret¹‘s willingness and helpfulness—and indeed the whole of the EAL department staff—when providing ad hoc, as-needed support. Even within the EAL team, the other staff cited informal learning from Margaret as key to their knowledge base. Whilst EAL teacher Fiona said that she did not have ‘formal qualifications’ specific to teaching refugees, she said she had learned extensively from Margaret and another supervisor who was on leave: ‘I’d say over the last three years I’ve learned huge amounts from them about things that work, things that don’t work, things to be aware of, assumptions not to make, you know, that kind of way. So I feel relatively confident.’

At School B, educators also reported that they frequently asked each other for ideas and support regarding refugee pupils. They most often referenced the EAL lead Safiya as their source of knowledge, saying she would either give targeted advice and assistance or direct them to the EAL resource drive she had created.

Several educators at School B also mentioned ad hoc translation by colleagues as an informal source of support; both Safiya and teaching assistant Habibah spoke Arabic, which was the most common language of recently arrived refugee families. Occasionally translation was arranged in advance—for example, for a scheduled meeting with a parent—but more frequently translation was carried out informally, as-and-when it was needed. Habibah, for example, said she had recently been called out of class by the main office because a newly arrived pupil felt unwell. Not only did she speak with the child to find out what was wrong, but she also ended up speaking with his mother and helping them make a doctor’s appointment over the phone. Likewise, in my observations Safiya frequently conversed with refugee parents at drop-off and pick-up, sometimes discovering useful background information about their children as well as translating and explaining English-language letters and documents they brought her.

Although the content of the pedagogical knowledge is not the focus of this paper, knowledge was often explicitly about one area but implicitly about others. The main type of knowledge case study educators asked a colleague for help with was EAL/language related, but implied in the language knowledge was also knowledge of cultural competency, understanding of educational history and curriculum, and sensitivity towards past experiences. When prompted, some educators mentioned additional areas such as knowledge about trauma and mental health, special funding sources, and the children’s social care system.

Confidence from experience

At both School A and School B, case study educators largely reported feeling confident in their knowledge and skills when teaching refugee pupils, stating for example: ‘(I’m) confident in the sense that I’ve been doing this for nearly 30 years and I’ve learned a hell of a lot’, and ‘I would say fairly confident. I mean, I suppose I’ve had quite a lot of experience.’ Indeed, simply by being employed at one of the case study schools participant educators had relevant experience. School A, the secondary, had a long history of educating refugees, and School B, the primary, had had a large EAL population for many years, though less experience with refugees until recently. All participant educators had been at their school for more than two years; therefore, at the very least, they had two years relevant experience at schools that were accustomed to educating children with EAL, if not specifically refugees.

Several educators also referred to their personal experiences as relevant to their knowledge base when teaching refugees. At School B, for example, class teacher Kasia reflected that although she did not have specialist training in the area, she had an intimate understanding of the processes children go through when adjusting to a new language and culture, primarily through watching her young son go through a ‘silent period’ when they moved from Poland to the UK. She acknowledged that her circumstances were profoundly different from the refugee families she now serves (‘[We’re] not exactly from a refugee tent in Jordan’), yet noted how the experience of moving countries had helped her understand what they might be going through upon resettlement—not only in terms of language learning, but in terms of shifting identity:

I know what it is like to be of certain status in your first country and to come to a new – and you kind of carve a niche for yourself which is a very different niche. And to have all of those old memories of old country where things were easier … So when refugee parents tell me, and when refugee kids tell me – and I’ve heard this three times already, from different mums – we were always saying once we come to England our problems will be over. So I – it’s not that I understand intellectually, I understand emotionally. I know what they’re saying. I can – I empathise with them.

Similarly, the EAL lead Safiya—while acknowledging that her Arabic language skills and TESOL training were relevant and useful—emphasised her personal experiences when explaining where she acquired knowledge relevant to teaching refugee pupils:

As a person from another country, let’s put it this way, I think I know their needs. I know [what] their language barriers are, I know their situation, I understand where they come from – their cultural background … I come from a similar country, let’s put it this way. Third world country, I know how is the economic situation, the educational situation, so I think this helps me a lot in meeting their needs.

The complex role of formal training

At both schools, most formal training was internally sourced and had at its hub the EAL leaders. At School A, EAL head Margaret had extensive relevant training across her career including a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) certificate, a Master’s degree in linguistics, and a counselling course; numerous educators named her as the source of in-school training they had received. The other EAL teachers, Eleanor and Fiona, also had TEFL training and supported educators across the school with EAL pedagogy. Although much of this support was ad hoc and informal, as described above, some was more scheduled and formal—such as in school training days, EAL-themed staff meetings, and planned ‘learning walks’ to observe subject teachers in lessons.

Interestingly, only a few educators at School A besides Margaret said they had ever received formal training on issues specific to refugees—as opposed to EAL more generally. EAL teacher Eleanor had recently attended a course outside of school on ‘asylum seeking children and their needs and behaviours’. Additionally, subject teachers Michael and Syed noted that although the in-house training they received through the school was not necessarily advertised as refugee-specific, much of it was relevant to teaching refugees—such as safeguarding, literacy, and mental health. Michael also said that on a school professional development day recently there had been a speaker who discussed the refugee experience in the local area and what types of issues families could be encountering outside of school. Presumably, other staff at School A were present for at least some of the training sessions mentioned by Michael and Syed. The fact that they did not mention it could be due to it not being advertised as ‘refugee training’ and therefore they did not think of it when asked. It could also, however, reflect the value—or lack thereof—that they placed on the training. Subject teacher Catherine, for example, said, ‘somebody somewhere will kill me for saying this—but I can’t remember specific training’ and then followed up with a detailed description of information sharing between colleagues and how much she had learned over the years through experience rather than training.

At School B, the formal training situation was also complex and focused mainly on EAL pedagogy. Following the completion of a TESOL postgraduate diploma at a local university several years previously, EAL coordinator Safiya had led staff training on EAL as well as bringing in one of the tutors from the university to run training sessions. However, the school had undergone a number of changes since then, including staff turnover, and Safiya noted that many current educators had not been at the school for these sessions. Even so, inclusion manager Ruth said that further EAL training was not at the top of the school priority list since EAL pupils were performing well:

There isn’t a kind of training plan around EAL or our Syrian refugees, because they do very well. So often when you’re planning a school’s training, you’re looking at where are the gaps and what do people need training in, and actually our EAL children do well.

Safiya concurred that children with EAL—including refugees—at School B were doing well; however, she emphasised that it was not a natural phenomenon and required plenty of work in the background. She listed the numerous programmes that newly arrived children were able to access, from home tutoring by volunteer university students, to free English lessons for mothers, to classroom activities that educators could access on the EAL resource drive she had created. ‘It’s all embedded,’ she said.

And maybe they don’t know I go and check with the teachers what’s going on. Behind closed doors, let’s put it like that. And to them when they look at the data, our EAL are actually better or working in line, so to them it’s not a worry.

Thus, at School B knowledge acquisition related to refugee pupils appeared to have transitioned from a formal continuing professional development programme to job-embedded, ad hoc support provided by the EAL coordinator.

Discussion

Educators in this study placed a strong emphasis on learning through experience, concurring with previous studies that found educators to be better prepared to teach refugee pupils when they had previous experience doing so (Arnot & Pinson, 2005; Ofsted, 2003; Whiteman, 2005). A multidirectional framework of interactions between knowledge and practices was therefore found to be relevant to educators in this study; as much as their knowledge shaped their practices, their practices also shaped their knowledge.

The results also indicate that ad hoc, informal learning about educating refugees is common and that formal learning that does occur is largely provided in-house by ‘expert’ colleagues. This finding has important implications for the systemic consistency and sustainability of refugee education—and education more broadly—in England and elsewhere, raising questions about how schools without in-house expertise can access relevant knowledge and how schools with expertise located in a few individuals can sustain this knowledge in the future.

Informal support and ‘trickle down’ knowledge

Educators mainly reported improving their knowledge through informal means, often from colleagues who they named as more experienced and knowledgeable. Survey participants ranked formal training as less than half as utilised as asking a colleague. Case study educators often said they had not received any formal training and brought the conversation back to the informal support they received from colleagues. These findings are consistent with other literature on educator knowledge acquisition, where teachers report asking friends or colleagues as their most utilised source (Cooper et al., 2017; Dimmock, 2016). It suggests that educators were either not accessing formal training, not finding the training relevant or memorable, or perhaps just finding it less useful or convenient than the ad hoc support they were accessing from colleagues on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, numerous studies have found that teachers often find formal continuing professional development (CPD) programmes to be irrelevant to their daily work (Boston, 2014; Wilson & Berne, 1999) and evidence regarding what types of continuing professional development programmes are more successful highlight the importance of experiential, inquiry-based learning for teacher participants (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Timperley et al., 2009; Vangrieken et al., 2017).

However, whilst educators in this study did not emphasise formal training in their knowledge acquisition—and indeed sometimes rejected the idea that it played a role—it is possible that they under-recognised its importance as an indirect contributor to their learning. At both case study schools, educators reported that their main source of informal knowledge acquisition was the EAL leader and other EAL specialists. Collectively, these in-house experts had attended extensive formal training covering topics ranging from EAL pedagogy to trauma-awareness to issues specifically related to refugees. Thus, the experts had acquired their expertise not only through practical experience but also through formal training over the course of their careers and were now able to disseminate this knowledge to colleagues in a ‘trickle-down’ fashion based in previous formal training.

Ad hoc-ery and academisation

Overall, educators’ knowledge acquisition about teaching refugees was found to rest on fragile, ad hoc responses rather than consistent, sustainable systems, thus potentially leaving many vulnerable pupils without a provision appropriate to their needs. In the two case study schools, systems of in-house training and informal knowledge transfer appeared to be functioning well—that is, educators at these schools felt prepared to teach refugee pupils and refugee pupils were assessed as performing well. This suggests that it is possible for schools to carry out their own programmes of CPD and support without higher, centralised coordination—if trained, experienced colleagues are present. However, schools without expert staff—such as the smaller or more rural schools that were part of the survey sample—do not have this option. Meanwhile, given the UK government’s policy of ‘dispersing’ refugees across the country, it is likely that educators without relevant experience or training will increasingly encounter refugee pupils in their classrooms. This situation is not unique to the English educational system. In Sweden, for example, researchers found that although positive and ambitious national policy is in place, there is no coherent strategy for implementation, so schools vary greatly in the provisions they actually provide (Nilsson & Bunar, 2015; Norberg, 2017). Furthermore, the gap between ambitious policy and what is practicable on the ground can turn school leaders and individual educators into ‘street level bureaucrats’ who prioritise which aspects of policy to implement according to their own criteria (Svensson, 2019).

In England, a further driver of ad hoc-ery in training provision could be the recent increase in the ‘academisation’ of schools, given that local authorities—previously the locus for school support and educator development—have lost much of their funding and support capabilities. Ellis et al. (2020) argue that as power has shifted from state to ‘shadow state’ actors—such as the private and charitable institutions that run academies—CPD for educators has become increasingly fragmented. An increase in groupings or ‘federations’ between academies has not necessarily resulted in increased quality or consistency of CPD (Chapman & Salokangas, 2012). Similarly, a study of charter school teachers in the US found that they had fewer opportunities for CPD than their traditional public school colleagues and that this was a possible contributing factor to higher staff turn-over (Wei et al., 2014). While this study did not specifically examine how school type affects formal training opportunities, loss of local authority support was a theme present in interviews and was referred to as a previous source of knowledge that expert staff were able to pass along to colleagues. This could be an informative area for further study, particularly given its salience for teacher knowledge acquisition more generally—in England and in similarly decentralised contexts such as charter schools in the US.

Implications for policy and practice

This study has policy and practice implications in two main areas: refugee education and teacher learning. Firstly, given that most educators get their information about teaching refugee pupils from colleagues, it would be advisable to provide training in relevant areas—such as EAL pedagogy and trauma awareness—to at least one educator at each school. Otherwise, the quality of provision for refugee pupils is likely to be inconsistent and luck-based, and therefore problematic from both practical and ethical perspectives.

In terms of improving practice, the case study data from this study has potential for transferability to other schools in the local authority, in England, and beyond. School A and School B and their staff were found to be highly resourceful in terms of expanding knowledge related to teaching refugee pupils—particularly given the lack of external support or national guidance. By capitalising on the expertise of existing staff members, these schools were able to promote informal learning about education for refugee pupils at a level that their colleagues reported as sufficient. However, as discussed above, while it is optimistic that ‘trickle down’ learning was functioning at the case study schools, relying on a few experienced staff does not constitute a systemic response and would not currently be possible for most schools.

It is important to acknowledge, though, the emphasis—and often preference—educators in this study placed on informal, practice-based learning. Evaluative studies of educator CPD have found that embedding professional development in practice is highly effective compared with more traditional training courses that simply deliver knowledge and expect changes to practices (Darling-Hammond, 2017; DeMonte, 2013). Gaining knowledge in a job-embedded, practice-based manner, therefore, is not by necessity ad hoc or inconsistent in quality—rather this was found to be the case in regards to refugee education in the context of this study. Ideally, educators could count on a programme of training and development that is both practice-based and systematic, like the collaborative systems found in countries such as Singapore and Japan (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012; Jensen, 2016).

Worldwide, forced migration is predicted to increase in coming years. Given the important role of education for young refugees and asylum seekers, it is essential that educators—in England and beyond—have access to relevant training opportunities, and that these opportunities are sufficiently coordinated to comprise a system of high quality education.

Acknowledgments

We thank colleagues at The Rees Centre for their valuable feedback and insightful comments in the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council

Notes

1. Names have been changed.

Appendix A.

Questionnaire item

How do you currently get information that helps you teach refugee and asylum seeking pupils? Tick ALL that apply.

1. I do not teach refugee or asylum seeking pupils

2. Training sessions by staff at school

3. Training sessions with the Local Authority or other outside organisations

4. Professional associations or unions

5. Colleagues and friends

6. Virtual school

7. Online teacher networks (e.g., TES, Guardian Teacher Network)

8. Government guidance (e.g., Ofsted, Department for Education)

9. Non-governmental organisations (e.g., Red Cross, Refugee Council)

10. Other ________________________________________________

11. No information accessed because