Creating and sustaining LGBTQ+ inclusive communities of practice in UK primary schools: an interpretative phenomenological analysis

Abstract

Educating for LGBTQ+ inclusivity continues to be both challenging and controversial for many teachers and often falls on the shoulders of sexual minority teachers or motivated individuals rather than taking a school wide approach. Deeper understanding is needed of how school communities can better support one another to develop knowledge, practice and resources to sustain LGBTQ+ inclusivity. This article argues that Lave and Wenger’s (Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, 1991) concept of the Community of Practice can offer new insights into how teachers can sustain heteronormative disruption over time. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was undertaken through 12 interviews with UK primary teachers who had created LGBTQ + inclusive CoP over at least two years. Findings from this approach include fostering robust and unified responses to external challenges and an ongoing commitment to adapting the resources and collective knowledge of the CoP are crucial in sustaining the disruption of heteronormativity over time.

Keywords:

• Heteronormativity
• cisnormativity
• LGBTQ+
• communities of practice

Introduction

Since the 2003 revocation of Section 28 which forbade the promotion in schools of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship (Thatcher, 1987), there have been some advances in LGBTQ + equality legislation in UK schools; to tackle homophobia (Jennett et al., 2004), promote equality (Equalities Act, 2010) and compulsory relationships and sex education provision (Department for Education, 2019). Alongside shifts in legislation and policy, there has been a steady increase in research dedicated to the study of gender and sexuality within education notably the participatory action research (PAR) project of the ‘No Outsiders’ team (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009b) which explored the disruption of heteronormativity in UK primary schools through books and curriculum resources that depict and celebrate LGBTQ+ lives.

Despite these advances, UK schools continue to be characterized by an absence of curriculum materials that celebrate LGBTQ + identities (Woodson, 2017) and educating for LGBTQ + inclusivity in UK primary schools continues to be both complex and controversial. Teachers often feel ill-prepared for this work citing lack of training (Meyer, 2008; Richard, 2015), concern emanating from the dominance of wider discourses around maintaining the ‘innocence’ of children who need to be protected from wider society (Morgan & Taylor, 2019), worry about the language and terminology of LGBTQ + issues and fear of causing offense (DePalma & Jennett, 2010). Moreover, the 2019 backlash to the LGBTQ + inclusive ‘No Outsiders’ charity project (a separate project inspired by the original PAR research) (Ferguson, 2019) tangibly highlighted fears teachers have around parental backlash (Flores, 2014) and sensationalist media coverage (Morgan & Taylor, 2019).

Concurrently, LGBTQ + youth continue to be a vulnerable sub-section of society and at high school age (11–18) are experiencing higher rates of bullying (Gower et al., 2018), depression (Birkett et al., 2009), heavy drinking (Coulter et al., 2016) and contemplation of suicide (METRO, 2016) than their heterosexual peers. And with more young people not identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth (GIDS, 2021), there is an urgent need to develop robust LGBTQ + inclusivity from an early age.

There is a growing field of research highlighting the benefits of LGBTQ + inclusive curriculums in high schools including findings that these cultures reduce bullying and harassment (Toomey et al., 2012) often through the development of Gay Straight Alliances (Poteat et al., 2013) which benefit all students not just those who identify as LGBTQ+ (Espelage & Swearer, 2008) and can increase childrens’ empathy and acceptance capacities (DePalma & Jennett, 2010). The same cultures committed to LGBTQ + inclusivity have not been researched to the same extent in primary schools. This research demonstrates the benefits of LGBTQ + inclusivity work for LGBTQ + youth mental health and wellbeing which could be further strengthened through more widely developing these cultures at primary level.

Disrupting heteronormativity and cisnormativity in primary schools

Heteronormativity or the ‘organizational structures in society that support heterosexuality as normal and everything else as deviant’ (Donelson & Rogers, 2004, p. 128) is a concept originating in Queer theory and reflects its efforts to trouble, destabilize and disrupt to ‘take a stand vis-à-vis the authoritative standard’ (Dowson, 2000, p. 163). In Queer theory, identity is conceptualized as a historically-contingent and socially-constructed fiction (Giffney & O’Rourke, 2009) ‘performative’ (Butler, 1990) in nature which can be transgressed, subverted and reformulated to expand the continuum of normality (Do Mar Castro et al., 2011). Likewise, cisnormativity refers to gendered practices and policies that uphold gender binaries and reflect who can and cannot be included in school curriculums (Mackenzie & Talbott, 2018) with cisgenderism pathologising non-cisgender identities (Ansara & Hegarty, 2012).

Despite advances made in Queer theory, heterosexual, cisgender norms remain embedded throughout institutions (Do Mar Castro et al., 2011) pervading school cultures as an everyday part of classroom life (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009a). Teachers manifest heteronormativity and cisnormativity through curricular silence around LGBTQ + identities (Ryan, 2016), teaching materials that predominantly depict binary gender identities and heterosexual relationships (Parise, 2021) and students internalize these norms through their talk and activities (Myers & Raymond, 2010). At its extreme, heteronormativity and cisnormativity manifest as verbal and physical violence through acts of homo, bi and transphobia (Stonewall, 2019).

With teachers ill prepared for this work and with heteronormativity and cisnormativity as potent forces within school institutions, how then are teachers able to successfully sustain their disruption? A strong starting point is to develop relationships with those who pose a challenge to this work, for example, adopting an anti-bullying approach when working with religious conservative schools (Carlile, 2019). Also, teachers can slowly build up LGBTQ + themed resources like picture books and carefully integrate them throughout the curriculum (Logan et al., 2016). DePalma and Atkinson (2009a) in their comprehensive ‘No Outsiders’ (2005–2008) project into disrupting heteronormativity through participatory action research projects in 15 UK primary schools found that spaces must be consciously designed to challenge heteronormativity and envision new ways of marrying policy and practice to recognize and interrogate the discourses underpinning heteronormativity (DePalma & Atkinson, 2010).

However, in 2021 Atkinson (2021) found through an in depth ethnographic study on one of the schools involved in the original project that the LGBTQ + inclusive learning environment the teachers had originally envisaged had eroded over time marked by an increase in homophobia and reinforcing the need for proactive and sustained approaches to disrupting heteronormativity. The force of which if not consistently contested will soon reestablish itself as the norm. Part of the problem of sustaining LGBTQ + inclusive cultures in schools is that it often falls on the shoulders of LGBTQ + teachers (Richard, 2015) which can be psychologically exhausting (Gray, 2013) demanding complex identity work (Llewellyn & Reynolds, 2021) and can mean good practice falls away when these teachers leave a school community.

Evidently, there is a need to understand how schoolwide cultures can be fostered that sustain the disruption of heteronormativity over time, cultures where all staff regardless of gender or sexuality prioritize this work and are committed to its implementation. This article addresses this gap by arguing that the concept of Communities of Practice can help teachers to sustain disruption of heteronormativity and cisnormativity.

Communities of practice in education

There is a long history of learning as a communal activity with many theorists and researchers highlighting the importance of developing teacher and student collaboration and criticality to realize more socially just education spaces (see Dewey, 1933; Freire, 2003). The term ‘Community of Practice’ (CoP) developed from the research of Lave and Wenger (1991) and is characterized by a commitment to the same domain of knowledge or common interest (Wenger et al., 2002) which is developed through a shared domain of interest, collaborative practice and a collection of shared resources used to develop practice (Wenger, 1998).

In education, CoP are types of learning community (Wenger et al., 2002) built to promote change (Bolisani et al., 2021), innovate teaching, share practice and build collaboration (Adams & Mix, 2014). Their collaborative nature has been credited with helping teachers combat the isolating nature of teaching practice through sustained dialogue and interaction with colleagues (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2010). CoP can exist online and provide a forum to develop a research community which was an intention of the original No Outsiders research project (DePalma & Teague, 2008). These networks empower teachers and help them to accomplish projects they might not achieve on their own (Minckler, 2014). Furthermore, CoP research in schools has highlighted how purposeful collaborative networks help teachers take risks in a ‘safe space’ which develops teacher identity (Luehmann, 2007), promotes wellbeing and lowers teacher attrition (Mack et al., 2019).

The concept of CoP can provide insights into how teachers collaborate in facing challenges posed by engaging with ‘difficult knowledge’ where teachers refrain from taking risks in favor of safer, established pedagogy (Britzman, 1998) and develop sustainable networks (Wenger, 1998) to create and perpetuate their LGBTQ + inclusive practice. Additionally, the lens of a CoP can facilitate an exploration of how teachers build and share repertoires of resources which help members make sense of new knowledge (Li et al., 2009) related to heteronormativity and cisnormativity disruption and how that knowledge is reconfigured and adapted over time.

Evidently, a group of like-minded individuals do not automatically become a CoP. A lack of openness to new ideas can hinder development and a lack of criticality of its practices and resources can result in ‘group think’ (Li et al., 2009) constraining the growth and development of innovation within the CoP, a necessary factor when aiming to disrupt the all-encompassing force of heteronormativity and cisnormativity over time. Additionally, DePalma and Teague (2008) found the process of CoP construction to be complex, uncertain and painful with the democratic ideal of community and co-construction of knowledge often difficult when different agents within the research have different goals and understandings, in this case a desire on the part of teachers not to ‘rock the boat’ (448) in their communities and for academics to prove their academic worth to justify funding. These differing intentions left unresolved could have contributed to Atkinson’s (2021) revisiting of one of the original schools to find the CoP diminished.

Methodology

An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was selected to investigate the lived experience of teachers creating and sustaining LGBTQ + CoP. IPA research aims to make sense of the experience of a small number of individuals (Smith et al., 2009). Consequently, upon ethics approval from the University and in alignment with BERA guidelines (2018), a process of purposive sampling was undertaken through a call for participants in a teaching union magazine, social media and direct contact with schools. 12 teachers from 12 schools met criteria of demonstrating a sustained commitment (over two years) to developing LGBTQ + CoP in their schools. The schools were in a mix of urban and rural settings with a majority (n = 6) based in Greater London, all were state publicly funded. In selecting one representative from each CoP the aim was to compare successful features of several CoP rather than to conduct an in-depth case study of each CoP which would be a valuable area for further research. The participant selected was often the ‘change agent’ who had initiated the development of the CoP.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who were asked to reflect upon their motivation for developing an LGBTQ + inclusive CoP, any challenges they had faced and how they had sustained the CoP over time. I was mindful of being present in the interview, keeping my gaze on what is being said (Gadamer, 1990/1960) and interpreting later. This helped develop a hermeneutic of empathy in the interview and one of suspicion during the analysis process (Smith et al., 2009). Staying close to the participants’ words helped me to bracket or suspend some of my bias as a gay, white, cisgender man and help mitigate against the expectations of what I would find, although I acknowledge the impossibility of arriving at a final point of bracketing (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). Each interview lasted between one and two hours, was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and stored on an encrypted, password protected device. Once transcribed, the data was member checked by the participants and two participants added additional information upon reflection to enhance the ‘trustworthiness’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and validity of the findings (Table 1).

Data was transcribed, read several times to get a feel what was being said. It was then coded line by line, memos were added to note linguistic choices (e.g. repetition, metaphor) and eventually emergent themes were interpreted and identified as ‘singing from the same song sheet’, ‘negotiating parental challenges to the CoP’, ‘the emerge of space for non-normative gender and sexuality in class’, ‘deploying accountability structures’ and ‘long-term cultural shifts’. What follows are the findings and discussion of the data.

Table 1. Participants demographic information.

Participant pseudonyms	Gender	Sexuality	Ethnicity	Age	Years teaching	Years developing LGBTQ + CoP
Alexander	M	Gay	White British	26	4	4
Charlie	M	Gay	White British	28	5	5
David	M	Heterosexual	White British	32	10	4
Eve	F	Heterosexual	White British	29	7	3
Jayani	F	Heterosexual	Asian British	45	4	3
John	Gender fluid	Queer	White British	24	2	2
Nicole	F	Heterosexual	White British	38	13	4
Olivia	F	Heterosexual	White British	30	7	3
Petra	F	Heterosexual	White other	28	4	3
Sarah	F	Heterosexual	White British	31	8	5
Sophie	F	Heterosexual	White British	25	2	2
Stephanie	F	Heterosexual	White other	30	7	4

‘Singing from the same song sheet’

Motivations for starting LGBTQ + inclusive CoP ranged from participants’ own childhood experience of homophobic abuse from peers and teachers (John, Charlie) ‘there was a lot of derogatory and homophobic language that was used and wasn’t dealt with very well’ (John) and even teachers ‘I was told to expect it [homophobic bullying] because of the way I was acting’(Alexander). This resulted in a strong desire to ensure the children in their care did not experience the same level of stigmatization. Others were motivated by family members coming out (Sarah), the suicide of a trans colleague (Nicole) and encountering suicide statistics of LGBTQ + youth (Olivia). These moments often involved a period of ‘repositioning’ (Apple, 1995) were teachers could see how institutions marginalize the oppressed and grapple with the privilege afforded by their own gender or sexuality, a process crucial to their efforts to disrupt heteronormativity (Potvin, 2016). These motivations spurred teachers to enhance their knowledge of LGBTQ + inclusivity through training provided by local charities (Stephanie, David, Charlie) and support offered by the union (Nicole). These networks were described as vital in providing signposts to appropriate resources which could be used for training the wider staff within their own practice.

Once participants had secured their own knowledge to develop an LGBTQ + inclusive CoP, common to all participants was a recognition that they could not achieve change individually. Consequently, each participant described developing key alliances within the school leadership team to drive organizational change, Jayani explained how she felt supported by the Head around equality issues:

You never felt that the school wouldn’t stand up for you with parents who were trying to stop conversations about ways of being.

Having a supportive Head made her work easier. Teachers understood that they couldn’t achieve the disruption of heteronormativity and cisnormativity on their own (Richard, 2015) they needed a majority consensus to develop LGBTQ + CoPs across their schools. Others, like Sophie, arrived in fields where key players (in her case the Head) had started the work and she could build upon the foundations and embed it further. Endorsement and promotion of LGBTQ + inclusive norms by leadership directly challenges the specter of Section 28 within school classrooms and shifts teacher focus from avoidance of non-normative sexualities to seeking out opportunities to explore them throughout the curriculum.

With leadership support secured, participants attempted to recruit colleagues to their cause. Each participant undertook school-wide training either developed by themselves (n = 9) or charities (n = 3):

I knew the EYFS (Early Years Foundation Stage) lead was keen to run with this work in Early Years and I had a friend in Year 4 who had already done some [LGBTQ + inclusivity work] in the History curriculum. We kind of buddied up. (Petra)

Furthermore, participants recognized that all staff need to be trained to tackle homo, bi and transphobia and need a competent knowledge of language around gender and sexuality. Charlie detailed a process that was typical of many of the participants:

Everyone has to be involved; cleaners, kitchen staff, caretakers, office staff, all the teachers, all the LSAs [Lunchtime Supervisor Assistants]. I want everyone involved as if we are doing safeguarding training… Everyone has to be singing from the same song sheet. We can’t have people in the office saying different things than the people in the classroom. You have got to have it across the board.

These training sessions ensured that children experienced a consistent positive message from all staff and offered an opportunity for collaborative, critical reflection with colleagues around a domain of shared interest (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Stephanie, herself heterosexual, found external training from a charity crucial in highlighting the importance of the inclusivity work to her initially skeptical colleagues:

I felt that they needed to see a real-life member of the LGBT + community to sort of change their view, which I thought was interesting.

For Stephanie, engaging with established communities validated her work and helped increase the knowledge capacity (Wenger, 1998) of the CoP over time. Participants described finding these sessions helped open colleagues’ eyes to the vulnerability of LGBTQ + youth and ‘freed people to talk to each other about these issues and see it needn’t be scary’ (Petra). This collaborative approach (Adams & Mix, 2014) helped take the work off the shoulders of sexual minority or motivated teachers (Richard, 2015) through developing a collective commitment to LGBTQ + inclusivity. Crucially, these resources were actively sought by the CoP rather than being created as the result of a funded University project (see DePalma & Teague, 2008). Additionally, the majority of participants in this study identified as heterosexual and cisgender counteracting the research indicating this work tends to fall on the shoulders of minority teachers (Richards, 2015), heterosexual cis-teachers may avoid the complex identity work (Llewellyn & Reynolds, 2021) LGBTQ + teachers must navigate with this work which makes them invaluable allies in sustaining this practice over time.

Negotiating parental challenges to the CoP

Taking time to strengthen the foundations of the CoP through leadership, networks and collective accountability meant that when challenges arose, schools could provide a robust, unified response. Most participants encountered some form of challenge to their work either from the conflict between religious conservative parents and LGBTQ + inclusivity (n = 5), lack of support from local dioses (n = 2), ‘progressive’ parents ‘doctors, teachers those kinds of careers’ (Sophie) and colleagues who see ‘no problem’ (with homo, bi and transphobia) so no need to explicitly engage in LGBTQ + inclusivity work (n = 2). Two participants did not encounter challenge and put this down to the wider inclusive ethos of the school and being transparent with parents and colleagues from the start of their projects. Sophie describes anxiety amongst staff around parental protest toward a pride walk the school intended to carry out:

I just think that if you bow down and you back pedal you have lost - you know - any possible kind of authority and - you know - it is our school and we are doing this and we all kind of stood behind him [the Head] and said, ‘No we will do this and it will be fine and we will get through it,’ and they can just realise that it is something we will be teaching.

The collective nature of the CoP empowered the teachers to take united action, easing apprehensions around parental backlash (Flores, 2014) which could have proven overwhelming for individuals to make on their own. Sophie described a parent’s personal attacks on a gay member of staff who was accused of pushing a political ‘agenda’ in terms of his LGBTQ + inclusive work:

I think with the parents who reacted badly it did create a sort of ‘them’ and ‘us’ so that automatically threw staff members together in saying right we are not happy with how we are being spoken to. We are not happy with how you have been treating our colleagues. We are going to stand together and we will make sure that this happens because we think it is important.

Here conflict reinforced the CoP, delineating clear boundaries around acceptable behavior. Sophie’s repetition of the word ‘we’ frames a shift from an individual attack to a collective call to arms which galvanized their activism and nurtured a sense of collective agency where ‘participants achieve unity of effort in common purpose’ (Bandura, 2006, p. 131). Moreover, a collectivist CoP approach to disrupting heteronormativity and cisnormativity eases (McDermott, 2011) the psychological and socially demanding nature of engaging with ‘difficult knowledge’ (Britzman, 1998) potentially easing the effects of the attack on the member of staff.

Emergence of space for non-normative gender and sexuality in class

Sustaining LGBTQ + inclusive CoP over time afforded two of the LGBTQ + identified participants more freedom in exploring their non-normative identities in class. Charlie used his partner Jamie to normalize the existence of LGBTQ + people throughout the community:

the children know him quite well. He comes to school and helps out. He’s a scientist. He works in medical research in London so when we do a topic on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance he comes in and does a session with the children and brings all his laboratory work in.

Charlie demonstrates to his children that LGBTQ + inclusivity extends beyond school into the wider community. His successful partner is a powerful role model inspiring all students to pursue their dreams (Snapp et al., 2015) bringing a ‘lived authenticity’ (Wenger, 1998) into the CoP.

John felt that working within an LGBT + inclusive CoP had allowed him to more authentically express himself in the classroom:

I paint my nails or wear make-up sometimes. I refuse to wear a suit to work… I feel that it’s important to show the children that just because I might appear like a male member of staff it doesn’t mean I have to wear a suit or tie.

His comfort within the CoP has empowered him to become more authentically himself (Wenger, 1998) allowing him to embody his disruption of cisnormativity through troubling normative ideas about masculinity thus demonstrating the arbitrary nature of gender signifiers that need not be inevitable (Bragg et al., 2018) and further demonstrating the possibilities for gender-flexibility (Warin, 2019) and possibilities of gender (Mackenzie & Talbott, 2018) in primary schools.

Deploying accountability structures

Additionally, participants sustained their LGBTQ + CoP through employing accountability structures to monitor its effectiveness over time. Whilst accountability structures including observations, collection of data and report making have been critiqued as rendering teachers as ‘technicians’ (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) ‘subject to a myriad of judgments, measures, comparison and targets’ (Ball, 2017, p. 58), all participants described using some form of accountability structure to ensure LGBTQ + inclusive practice was being embedded across their school. For some this involved periodic observation of teaching and sharing best practice (Jayani, Petra) which resulted in dialogue and feedback sessions to ensure that the repetitions necessary to queer heteronormative and cisnormative views (Do Mar Castro et al., 2011) are taking place over time. Others (Sarah and Sophie) collected and analyzed data to track incidences of bullying. Sarah described recording:

All of our incidents on [a behaviour management database] we have added homophobic language, transphobic language, biphobic language and we have actually separated those as well. So, it is just clear to see what sort of behaviour is reoccurring.

And Sophie described analyzing questionnaire data:

We do questionnaires every year, ‘Have you heard this word or that word on the playground?’ So, we are keeping an eye and making sure that it’s not being used if we aren’t hearing it.

Participants noted a correlation between their LGBTQ + inclusivity work and decreases in homo, bi and transphobia, ‘We haven’t had a single incident since’. (Sophie). By creating a set of shared expected norms around LGBTQ + inclusivity and anti-bullying it is clear for teachers to see what this practice looks like in school and in the classroom. However, as Atkinson’s (2021) research suggests children are effective at performing ‘pro-equality’ (456) stances in class whilst engaging in homophobia in their peer groups this implies the need for vigilance amongst teachers and a need to look beyond their statistics.

Long-term cultural shifts

Over time, teachers witnessed a cultural shift cultivated by their LGBTQ + inclusive CoPs. John described how an LGBTQ + themed story about two gay penguins didn’t provoke a reaction from his six year olds ‘they just didn’t really notice [its LGBTQ + theme] in a way which is really nice’. Sophie found that after the first year of this teaching which saw protests and personal attacks on teachers there was a general acceptance amongst parents ‘They have kind of accepted that we aren’t teaching anything inappropriate’. Their collective experience is representative of how non-normative gender and sexuality can be ‘talked into a state of ordinariness’ (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009c, p. 884). Charlie, who had been teaching LGBTQ + positive curriculum for over five years, found a gradual change in the whole ethos of the school. He details how change is almost taken for granted and only noticed upon the presence of a new child, not accustomed to the norms of the school’s LGBTQ + inclusivity:

I think it’s because of the reaction of the other children, they [the new pupils] feed off the other children and when you come into a culture of ‘that’s just normal’ and ‘that’s just accepted’ you than have nothing but to fall into that, you can’t make an issue out of that, you can’t then you know have a problem with it because no one else does, you fall into that ethos.

The new children entering the field almost have no choice but to accommodate to its inclusive norms. Charlie’s experience is contrasted sharply with a local school which had not engaged in LGBTQ + inclusivity work and felt ill-prepared upon the arrival of a male student in makeup and a dress. He described them wanting a ‘quick fix’ neglecting that ground work and foundations have to be built up over time to develop a gender inclusive culture (Baum, 2017).

Fundamentally, teachers were pragmatic in their understanding that change is a slow process. Stephanie found that even after several years of inclusivity work her Year 1 children (aged five and six) she was still finding fixed gender stereotypes in class and had identified further work to be done with parents to tackle gender stereotyping. Stephanie’s experience highlights how schools are a drop in the ocean in terms of child development (Bernstein, 1970) unable to compensate for society and suggests further research into how schools, families and communities can work more closely to support LGBTQ + inclusivity.

Conclusion

While the disruption of heteronormativity and cisnormativity in UK primary schools has been both complex and controversial, this article has argued that employing the concept of an LGBTQ + inclusive Community of Practice (CoP) provides new insights into how teachers can embed this work over time. Reframing the practice as a collective endeavor moves the work off the shoulders of minority teachers and ensures that when challenges arise schools can provide more robust, unified responses. Additionally, accountability structures can reinforce the aims of the CoP and facilitate conversations around best practice and collective knowledge development. Over time LGBTQ + inclusive cultures can create space for non-normative gender and sexuality to exist in classrooms this encourages openness in staff and students to develop communities rooted in inclusion and acceptance. This research is limited by the size of its sample and future research could explore how primary schools can support one another in developing LGBTQ + inclusive CoP.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is a Lecturer at Newman University Birmingham. He has extensive teaching experience in UK primary schools and his interests include promoting equality, diversity and inclusivity in primary education and empowering teachers as agents of change to create more socially just educational spaces.