Towards a new paradigm of “Sustainable Intercultural and inclusive education”: A comparative “blended” approach

ABSTRACT

Modern school education consists of a mosaic of over-pluralism of cultures, languages, ethnicities, abilities and other characteristics. Under these circumstances, educational systems face the challenge of providing high-quality educational services in order to maintain and sustain social justice. In this respect, inclusive and intercultural education can be the catalysts of change. Nevertheless, what is argued in this article is the need to overcome the dipole created between the two pedagogical paradigms which often inhibits rather than reinforces social justice. Therefore, we should not approach the two paradigms through discrete focuses, but we should pave the way for a third perspective through a blended and comparative approach. At the same time, we make the case that sustainability should become the cornerstone of such endeavour, leading to Sustainable Intercultural and Inclusive Education (SIIE) aiming to benefit all students not only of this but of future generations.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• Intercultural education
• Sustainability
• Social Justice
• Diversity
• Blended Approach

Introduction

Inclusive and intercultural education entail two educational paradigms that over the last decades are employed by many education systems around the world, since they place their epistemological focus on issues related to equal participation and interaction of individuals and groups, who for specific reasons experience marginalisation. Of course, there is much of confusion in the literature with regards to defining the notions of pluralism, equality and participation that should not be overlooked. In this sense, the notions of inclusive education, intercultural education, multicultural education, transformative education, education for social justice and other relevant terms are often mistakenly considered to be synonymous or as components of one or the other concept (Vranješević & Frost, 2016).

It is also worth highlighting the scientifically endemic and disorienting traditional approach to the education for diversity, which is limited, for example, to treating multicultural societies, identifying differences, and exchanging knowledge about other cultures. This traditional approach does not critically reflect or evaluate nor does it fight stereotypes and prejudices, unless the mechanisms that create and maintain inequality are acknowledged in the first place (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2016a). It is only by recognising such mechanisms that we may ensure the possibility of amending and combating discriminatory practices (Banks, 2010; Gorski, 2009, 2013). What we argue is that the ontological basis of both inclusive and intercultural education aims at precisely revealing and pointing to inequalities so that the educational practices and interventions they propose will help to fight prejudices and stereotypes related to diversity.

Given the fact that both inclusive and intercultural education aim to promote school change and re-structuring to create the conditions where all students may enjoy academic and socio-emotional development, in this paper we discuss whether these two approaches may be developed correspondingly in order to achieve more sustainable practices and provide better solutions to current issues. Moving a step forward, we attempt a comparative approach of these two paradigms so that by pointing out their differences, but above all their similarities, to examine if there is a ground for the development of Sustainable Inclusive and Intercultural Education (SIIE), meaning the inclusion without limitations and negotiations of both the students of present and future generations regardless of the group they belong to or other characteristics, as equal members of the school community and the society they live in.

However, since the concepts of inclusive and intercultural education seem to bear multiple meanings in the literature, some of which are interrelated (Gerosimou, 2013), it is necessary to proceed to the conceptual unpacking of these two approaches to education.

Inclusive education: conceptual unpacking

Inclusive education, while initially regarded pupils characterised as having special needs – as it has emerged from the field of Special Education – its scope has now been broadened to address the needs of all children, including those from diverse cultures and ethnicities or those who are vulnerable and excluded for whatever reason and they lack access to mainstream school Sorkos & Hajisoteriou (2019). The essential mission of inclusive education is to change school structures to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities, while its main task “is to celebrate the diversity of needs and characteristics” (Felder, 2021, p. 138). Nonetheless, still today defining inclusion is still considered a difficult task, while many argue that inclusion may not be defined. Ainscow (2012) argues that inclusive education, although it should not, is still considered by many to be the approach that serves children characterised as having disabilities in mainstream education. For this reason, Alur and Rioux (2009) report that inclusion not only concern the education of children characterised as having disabilities or special educational needs, but all pupils facing difficulties in learning regardless of gender, class, religion, disability or any other characteristics. In the same spirit, Messiou et al. (2016), focusing on the goal of inclusive school improvement, see inclusion as the process of eliminating exclusion from education as a result of attitudes about diversity in relation to “race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and attainment, as well as with regard to disabilities” (p. 46). Booth and Ainscow (2011) consider inclusion as a continuous process of developing a school for all as well as a primary approach to education and society, while Azorin and Ainscow (2018) view it an endless process of social learning.

In a similar vein, Mamas (2014) considers the definition of the concept to be rather a difficult and complex task since it “involves different views, ideologies and perspectives as well as unclear school practices and principles” (p. 80). Acuña and Cárdenas (2017) report that “the concept seems to be utopian and idealistic compared to what is happening in the classrooms” (p. 122), while Gerosimou (2013) believes that “inclusion is difficult to define as many concepts are connected to it” (p. 351). Despite the multiplicity of theoretical conceptualisations attached to inclusion, it seems that the approach adopted by UNESCO (2009) effectively represents the content of inclusion, which is seen as:

a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all children, youth and adults through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing and eliminating exclusion within and from education. It involves changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision that covers all children of the appropriate age range and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children (UNESCO, 2009, pp. 8-9).

Such approach places its emphasis on the equal and qualitative participation of all pupils in the school processes. It considers inclusion as a process, in the sense of continuously searching for the most appropriate forms of responsiveness to diversity or learning to live with diversity in order to achieve sustainable changes and prevent the conditions that lead to exclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011); and all these by providing groundbreaking and radical changes and restructuring curricula, education policies, and school practices. Inclusive education aims to readjust and adapt school culture. This readjustment seeks to achieve sustainable change in order to form the basis for accountability, activism, critical research and social equality (Kairiene & Sprindziunas, 2016), while adapting it to the pupils’ background, differentiated needs and diverse characteristics by ensuring that “in this kind of education all voices must be heard and change must occur in the school, not in the pupils as individuals” (Angelides & Stylianou, 2011, p. 195).

Intercultural education: conceptual unpacking

Intercultural education refers to the educational paradigm aiming towards the direction of social equality regardless of race, culture, language, social characteristics ascribed to class, gender or disability (Michael & Rajuan, 2009). Bleszynska (2008) defines its objectives along three levels, the macro-level (global), the mezzo-level (national) and the micro-level (individual) considering intercultural education as the “applied social science dealing with exploratory, explanatory, adaptive and transformational functions for individuals, institutions and social groups, by developing an interest in education and socialization processes in a global and multicultural society” (pp. 537–538). Similarly, Govaris (2011) places the focus of intercultural education on the objective of creating the conditions for intercultural communication that will lead to “the formation of symmetrical intercultural relations” (p. 177) through the development of specific intercultural competences such as empathy, critical attitudes towards roles, acceptance of diversity and the development of communication skills.

Apparently, intercultural education in post-modern multicultural societies should concern and refer to all students without any exception since all students – despite of origin, culture or language – have diverse identities as they differ in their psycho-synthesis, personality, appearance and other traits despite of their cultural background and origin (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2016a). Thus, in culturally-diverse societies, all individuals have the right to self-identify and build their cultural identity, which is nonetheless influenced by the culture of the country of origin, their interactions with people of diverse ethnic groups and cultures, and the way in which each individual interprets certain characteristics (such as origin or religion, etc.). This highlights the anti-idealist view of identities (Ngo, 2013) which argues for their dynamic nature by focusing on communication as a key component of social action and as a means of building symmetrical intercultural relationships (Govaris, 2011). Of course, the right to self-identification should be based on the critical reflection that the individual develops about his/her culture of origin as well as that of the people from diverse cultural backgrounds, and not merely the uncritical exchange of information. Thus, critical reflection helps the individual to develop skills in analysing, interpreting and correlating the knowledge of their culture in relation to the cultures of the others (Hernández-Bravo, Cardona-Moltó, & Hernández-Bravo, 2017), which accelerates the process of self-identification.

In this context, intercultural education should not be limited to a superficial reference to the similarities and differences with peers coming from diverse-cultural backgrounds (Magos, Tsilimeni, & Spanopoulou, 2013) but it should focus on insightful and critical comments with regards to issues pertaining cultural diversity and social inequality. Intercultural education should not exclusively place its goals on school change and reform, but should rather aim to develop a wide range of social policies in schools. As characteristically mentioned by Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2013)., `intercultural education “is not solely geared to the academic success of immigrant pupils but expects wider influence in society through a more humanistic approach” (p. 216). Besides, the prefix inter in intercultural education refers to interaction, that is, to the fertile, meaningful and interpersonal interaction between culturally-diverse groups and individuals that leads to cultural syncretism (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2018).

Arguably, critical thinking entails the cornerstone of cultural syncretism, meaning the critical exchange and blending of cultural elements to create new ideas, practices or philosophies. While disregarding determinist definitions of culture, cultural syncretism highlights cultural hybridity, meaning the dynamic, unstable and diverse nature of cultural identities (Ngo, 2013). In this view, cultural boundaries “alter and overlap to create a third space in which individuals develop multiple or hybrid identities” (Hajisoteriou, Karousiou & Angelides, 2017, p.4). As social environments are culturally diverse, individuals need to critically observe environmental developments and adapt to them. This means that cultural identities constantly change and, as Hajisoteriou (2013). points out, are negotiated and renegotiated since they are not (or should not be) compact or of binary nature.

State-of-the-art: comparative research between inclusive and intercultural education

An effort to comparatively approach inclusive and intercultural education may highlight the emergent similarities between the two paradigms, the common impediments to their implementation, but also other components that differentiate them. Through such analysis, one can identify the areas in which the two education paradigms intersect, and see if there is room for the development of a third perspective, as we argue and suggest, that may allow for the transition to SIIE, that is, towards a sustainable blended paradigm that will ensure the satisfaction of the needs of all students for academic, emotional and social development of both present and future generations (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019)

Mamas (2014) in attempting a comparative view of the two paradigms refers to four contact areas between the two education paradigms. According to Mamas, the first contact area concerns the universal nature underlying their philosophies, since both inclusive and intercultural education are not limited to the school context or teaching, but aim to extend to the wider social environment by both having a broad and multidimensional character. The second contact area relates to the conceptualisation of both paradigms, which may not be clearly defined as it is rather influenced by the broader educational philosophy, the wider context of reference, and the school context including the school culture and practices. The third contact area, according to Mamas, concerns their shared philosophical basis, since they both draw upon shared values and principles including equality, acceptance, respect, and democracy. Last but not least, the fourth contact area between inclusive and intercultural education relates to their shared goals of targeting students who as they may potentially become stigmatised, marginalised or isolated in the school environment, they face the visible risk of under-attainment and school failure.

Moving beyond the philosophical underpinnings of the two paradigms, Sorkos and Hajisoteriou (2019) comparatively examined the various barriers that inhibit the effective implementation of both intercultural and inclusive education in practice. To begin with, the undifferentiated curricula that disregard the philosophy underlying either inclusive or intercultural education promote one-size-fits-all teaching and learning strategies and practices. In addition, teachers’ deterministic or stereotypical perceptions lead to lower expectations, especially for those students whom they consider as differing from the norm. Similarly, the anachronistic operation of schools that perpetuates the hierarchical dipole of good vs bad students, hinders any opportunities for mobility to the higher ranks of this continuum and triggers some teachers’ and parents’ concerns about the negative effect on other students’ performance and school success, because of the increased enrolment of students who differ to what they perceive as the norm. Arguably, in highly-competitive school systems, any rhetoric that is developed to support inclusion and recognition of diversity is often undermined, threatening particular groups of students with the risk of marginalisation (Tomlinson, 2009).

In another attempt, Allemann-Ghionda (2009) examines the transition of intercultural education from integration to the inclusion of diversity. She explains that such transition prerequisites a transition from the compensation of deficiencies (and the division between majority and minority populations) to the emancipation of diversity. However, she cautions that the structure of educational systems often inhibits the implementation of inclusive and intercultural strategies. Centralised education systems, which are often organised on the basis of a separation agenda, seem to be rather reproducing such national choices so that any practice with an inclusive or intercultural orientation, and with a sustainable perspective, is neutralised by the structures themselves. However, intercultural education and inclusion of diversity are intertwined and have common references and influences on the curricula across all types of education, as well as those of teacher education.

In another attempt to compare the two education Gerosimou (2013, 2014) points to two key similarities and two key differences. The first similarity concerns their fundamental axis of rejecting the assimilation model, which requires the student to change in order to be adjusted to the broader education system and the school, while both the system and the school remain undifferentiated and unchanged. The second similarity refers to their constantly evolving and readjusting character in order to bring about all those necessary structural changes. Examining their in between differences, Gerosimou points out that inclusive education mainly focuses on reducing the barriers that inhibit learning and school success without any specific reference to groups of children, while intercultural education mainly focuses more on resisting the assimilative tendencies towards minority and migrant-background populations. Thus, Gerosimou reaches the conclusion that intercultural education falls in the scope of inclusive education; a point that will refer to later as according to our argumentation may undermine the value of intercultural education and its scope in addressing diversity in schools and society. As Carnoy (2009) points out, higher levels of self-development are observed in students who receive education with an intercultural orientation, and thus intercultural education should not be defined as a subset of inclusive education, but as a pedagogical philosophy that epistemologically complements inclusive education.

Evangelou and Moula (2016) built their comparative view on three axes that refer to the conceptual framework, the school policies and education practices, and teachers’ roles according to the two education paradigms, namely inclusive and intercultural education. In terms of the conceptual background, they argue that their most important difference lies in the fact that intercultural education mainly focuses on cultural diversity, while inclusion is preoccupied with learning diversity. At the same time, they oppose the establishment of a maximum percentage with regards to the school enrolment of either students characterised as having special needs or difficulties in learning, nor students of migrant or minority background. They thus caution about arguments claiming that high percentages of such students disrupt the education of the majority students. In terms of school practices, Evangelou and Moula argue that both paradigms urge the development of inclusive school cultures by drawing upon distributed leadership and collaborative networks between schools, and other school units, specialists, parents and the wider community. Moreover, with regards to education practices they both employ differentiated teaching, collaborative learning, and individualised learning to address all students’ needs. Finally, Evangelou and Moula refer to the particular value that both inclusive and intercultural education place on teachers’ roles to create a democratic climate, advise, empower, feedback, and respect to student diversity.

Summing up, international literature thus far has mostly attributed separate meanings to the notions of inclusive and intercultural education despite of recognising their interconnectivity (Mamas, 2014; Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). It is noteworthy that there is a scarce of literature that comparatively examines intercultural and inclusive education (i.e. Mamas, 2014; Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). In many instances, some theorists of inclusion portray intercultural education as one of the vehicles leading to inclusive education and its values (Bunăiașu, 2015). For example, as we discussed Gerosimou (2013, 2014) places intercultural education under the umbrella of inclusive education. Nonetheless, we caution that such approach seems to foster disciplinary parochialism, while undermining the necessity to tailor education policies and school practices to the multiplicity of cultural identities, while not taking into consideration the need to develop intercultural competence as the cornerstone of sustainability in our contemporary world. Recently, it has been also the case that some academics and researchers started to recognise the need for constructing culturally-responsive education for inclusion using the lens of intercultural competence (Van Boxtel, 2017).

In the following section, we seek to theoretically conceptualise such a blended approach in order to foster sustainability.

Sustainable intercultural and inclusive education: towards a new “blended” paradigm

Both inclusion and interculturalism, seen from the perspective of sustainability, build the ontological and epistemological basis of the paradigm we are proposing. In this, as well as in the next section, we focus on these central concepts in order to highlight both the nature, the existence and the properties of SIIE (ontology-philosophical framework), as well as the methods that validate, confirm and ultimately determine the relationships between theory and practice (epistemology-well-designed practices).

To begin with, quality education for current (intra-generation) and future (inter-generation) generations has been set as a global goal by the United Nations in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. It entails the objective of ensuring relevant, equitable and inclusive quality education for all by promoting lifelong learning opportunities (UNESCO, (2015). 2030). According to the Agenda, obtaining a quality education is the foundation to creating sustainable development. In particular, Goal 4.7 states that:

By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development (UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report, 2016, p. 287).

Arguably, this goal is in line with the objectives of both inclusive and intercultural education. If we take into consideration the fact that both inclusive and intercultural education give priority to equitable and quality education for all students, both education paradigms may contribute to the effective achievement of the goal of sustainable development (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). What we therefore argue is that this may be better addressed through the blended paradigm of SIIE that may render the conditions for equality, peaceful co-existence, human rights, respect for cultural diversity and active citizenship, sustainable in the form of intra-generation and inter-generation acquis.

Speaking of sustainability, we refer to the “development that meets the needs of the present generations without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, as cited in Palthe, 2013, p. 118). However, the concept has been criticised to be extremely broad as it “encompasses almost everything and concerns everyone, making it easy for anyone to adapt its concept according to their own practice” (Olsson, Gericke, & Chang Rundgren, 2016, p. 177); and for that reason, there seems to be an effort aims to make its aims more specific. Thus, the conceptual status of sustainability has now been reframed to include three dimensions, namely: the ecological, economic, and the social.

The social dimension of sustainability includes various sub-subjects referring to: peace, equality and human rights (Jeronen, Palmberg, & Yli-Panula, 2016), cultural diversity and intercultural understanding (UNESCO, 2006), social justice (Rusinko, 2010), social cohesion, the development of social capital and the promotion of human well-being, especially for vulnerable individuals or groups (Ajmal, Khan, Hussain, & Helo, 2017). Shirazi and Keivani (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of research on the social dimension of sustainability and reached the following conclusions regarding its fundamental principles. These are equality, democracy, participation, civil society, social inclusion and involvement. All these principles refer to the foundation of a cohesive community where segregation and marginalisation are rejected. In such a solidary community, cultural diversity, social networking and interaction, and the sense of belongingness, a dignified quality life or care for all people, security in the sense of lack of conflict, and human well-being are all manifested.

Sustainability focuses on both intra-generation (within the current generations) and inter-generation (across generations) satisfaction of needs in terms of not only quantity but most importantly quality. In view of the aims and principles of the social dimension of sustainability, the question arises whether inclusive and intercultural education can safeguard the right of this generation to develop without compromising the same right for future generations, according to the philosophy of sustainable development (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). Our analysis in the previous section points out the intersection points of the two educational paradigms through their comparative approach. The manifestations of the two education paradigms, however, appear to intersect with the ontological basis of sustainable development so that the coupling of their basic principles makes it possible to move to a third paradigm, that of SIIE.

Arguably, the basic principles underlying the philosophical basis of both inclusive and intercultural education are equality, democracy, acceptance and participation (Mamas, 2014). Nonetheless, these cannot be sustained if present generations do not guarantee the right of future generations to enjoy them. With their proposed interventions, practices and policies, the two education paradigms provide as catalysts for all those transformations that must go through all the levels of the hierarchical social pyramid in order to ensure and guarantee the change in the attitudes and perceptions of the social groups that maintain it, and therefore, those who design, influence and implement educational policies (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). We define the notion of “catalyst” as a situation that causes an event (Messiou, 2019b) or that contributes to the acceleration of a process. Based on the above definition, both Inclusive and Intercultural Education can, in combination, bring about change and accelerate SIIE development processes. In this perspective, we believe that the terms inclusive and intercultural can be considered as catalysts for the successful implementation of the paradigm we propose.

Returning back to sustainability, equal opportunities for access to and participation in both school and social life should not be regarded as an obvious and given right if the present generations do not create the necessary cultural conditions for this right to be sustainable by ensuring intergenerational equality. In this respect, the turn towards the paradigm of SIIE should be considered as necessary. Drawing upon these assertions, what we propose is that the philosophy of social justice provides for the most important area of contact between the two education paradigms. If we attempt to conceptualise social justice, then it becomes clear why social justice may entail the common ground and the basis underpinning both inclusive and intercultural education (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019)

For example, Mansfield (2013) considers that social justice provides for the responsibility of society to ensure the well-being of all the citizens of the state, and this may only be achieved if public education offers equality of opportunity to all students. García, López, Vélez, Rico, and Jiménez (2016) define social justice as the redistribution of learning resources, the recognition of diversity, the combating of inequalities, and the equal representation of all students in school land social life. In a similar vein, Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006) introduce the dimensions of equality, participation, community, understanding and respect for diversity as core values that should be embedded and underpin its broader concept, while Chiu, Walker, and Normore (2007) see it as an attempt to help all students develop, regardless of their socioeconomic background, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, family structure and disability. The above considerations therefore make it understandable why social justice is a mutual reference point, a shared constituent and a common basis for supporting the structural, and ontological status of both inclusive and intercultural education.

Building a comprehensive framework for implementation: structural, cultural and pedagogical resources

In the section above, we discussed the philosophical framework of our proposed paradigm, by examining the ontology of SIIE pointing to its core existence and characteristics. However, for SIIE to be successfully implemented in practice, we should also examine and delineate the various aspects of its validity, scope and methods stemming out of its epistemology. In what ways and to what extent may SIIE be acquired relates to the implementation of SIIE in practice. In order to build a comprehensive framework for the successful implementation of SIIE, we draw upon McInerney (2007) and his concept of the “resources of hope in schools, educational institutions and the broader community to guide teachers and teacher educators in pursuing a goal of socially-just schooling” (p. 257). Resources of (robust) hope encompass an intertwined set of structural, cultural and pedagogical strategies and resources. To begin with, structural strategies and resources involve the development of the school plan, school curricula, and professional learning along the lines of social justice (and, if we may add, sustainable intercultural and inclusive) principles. In such an endeavour, there are efforts to match leadership roles to the social justice priorities of the curriculum, and also to involve students in school planning and curriculum development.

School leadership for social justice can potentially promote the adoption of more sustainable inclusive and intercultural practices, but also develop a collaborative culture that will highlight students’ critical thinking by preparing them to become socially active citizens (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014; Kiel, Syring, & Weiss, 2017). For school leadership to reinforce sustainability, it should become attuned to the big picture, and become much more sophisticated at conceptual thinking, in order to sustainably transform the organisation through people and teams by empowering and facilitating interchange within the school community (Hajisoteriou, Karousiou & Angelides, 2017). If the goal is to achieve sustainable improvement by developing inclusive, intercultural and just school cultures, this change requires a new mind and action set for leading complex change that may guarantee inclusion not only for the current but also for future generations. In this sense, the core components of school leadership include moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, sustainable knowledge building and sharing, and coherence making (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2014).

Secondly, based on McInerney (2007), we argue for cultural strategies and resources to be the second dimension of a comprehensive framework for the successful implementation of SIIE. Cultural strategies and resources aim to the development of a school culture that fosters a sustainable social justice ethos. School culture should thus reinforce “collaborative relationships, success-oriented learning and a culture of debate about teaching and learning” (ibid: p. 261). Arguably, for intercultural and socially-just schools to succeed, the launch and maintenance of dialogic relationships is an imperative need (McInerney, 2007; Hajisoteriou, Karousiou & Angelides, 2017). In this sense, it is crucial to involve students in negotiating both their learning and assessment, but also to develop the curriculum on the basis of their cultural aspirations and interests so as to “integrate personal and local concerns with broader social issues” (McInerney, 2007, p. 262). On this basis, listening to student voice so as to actively involve students in schools, entails the cornerstone of sustainable intercultural and inclusive school development. Grasping cultural aspirations and interests so as to build relevant cultural strategies and resources necessitates also parental involvement, with particular reference being made to immigrant and immigrant-origin parents.

Notably, parental involvement is an additional component creating inclusive school cultures and therefore, of improving schools for intercultural education (Hajisoteriou, Karousiou & Angelides, 2017; Kiel et al., 2017). The development of social networks within and beyond schools, which are dynamic in nature, is an imperative need. Such networks may operate as cultural resources that re-culture the setting within which school actors are operating to create more collaborative and multi-agency actions that may lead to sustainable social justice by developing intercultural initiatives that open up the way towards inclusion (Hajisoteriou & Angelides (2016b). However, for sustainability to occur schools should take into consideration that different patterns of family influence may emerge from the diverse cultural groups influencing the partnership (Epstein & Rodriguez Jansorn, 2004; Hidalgo, Siu, & Epstein, 2004). Thus, narrow and culturally-specific parental involvement activities hinder sustainable parental involvement.

Last but not least, the third dimension of the resources of robust hope according to McInerney (2007), entails the pedagogical strategies and resources that prioritise learning along the social-justice commitment. In successfully implementing the paradigm of SIIE, we argue for the deployment of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) that may allow teaching and learning methodologies to develop in the perspective of SIIE. It is interesting that Kiel et al. (2017) explain that in the postmodern context of intercultural education as social justice, “it is important to ensure in school development that persons are not assigned to groups, as this has the potential to be stereotyping or stigmatizing” (p. 246). Arguably, as CSP “seeks to perpetuate and foster linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling and as a needed response to demographic and social change” (ibid: p. 85) seems to compatible to the post-modern propositions. Thus, CSP may provide the framework within which the sustainable transformation of education systems towards intercultural and inclusive education, may occur so as to safeguard social justice both for current and future generations (Valiandes, Neophytou & Hajisoteriou, 2018).

Paris and Alim (2014) firstly introduced CSP to place emphasis on the pluriform and ever-changing character of cultural identity and practices so as to embrace the counter hegemonic potential of culture, while also criticising the ways in which culture may reproduce systemic inequities. CSP acknowledges the plural and constantly evolving character of cultural identity. In this context, we recommend that the creation of culturally-sustaining education systems should be grounded in the belief that all diverse learners can only excel in school when their evolving personal and group cultures, languages, heritages, and experiences are valued and used to facilitate their learning and development, and when all learners are provided access to high quality teaching and learning experiences, programmes, and resources (Valiandes, Neophytou & Hajisoteriou, 2018). The endorsement of CSP may be supported by pertinent teaching and learning methodologies such as interculturally-differentiated teaching, collaborative learning, socio-emotional teaching, and learning in informal learning environments (Valiandes, Neophytou & Hajisoteriou, 2018).

Discussion

In a world characterised by super-diversity, sustainably safeguarding diversity and human dignity should be a non-negotiable objective. SIIE based on a comparative blended approach of the shared basis, convergences and common components of the paradigms of inclusive and intercultural education may provide for a new paradigm that may ensure social justice and cohesion and the sustainable development of social and cultural capital. It may guarantee the conditions required for high-quality education within and across generations and between individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, socio-economic background or any other characteristics. It thus may achieve the goals set by the social dimension of sustainable development and makes SIIE the force that may guarantee the right of present and future generations to enjoy the education they deserve.

By fostering the pedagogy of the blended paradigm that we propose, all conditions are fostered to create solid, consistent and sustainable change with multiple benefits for education systems and societies. Ainscow, Slee, and Best (2019) point out that the creation of inclusive (and if we may add, sustainably intercultural) schools has a positive educational, social and economic impact. We strongly support this position as we believe that internal school change can also lead to change in social beliefs, on which the school system can exert a substantial influence. The need thus to develop teaching practices that sustainably respond to all kinds of diversity is an imperative need in order to foster change in attitudes towards pluralism that will serve as the basis for a just and cohesive society, but also for the sustainability of human, environmental and fiscal resources. In turn, by creating sustainable inclusive and intercultural schools, both improvement and efficiency can be sought and achieved. Schools become responsible for responding to the pluralism of their students’ biographies and social experiences by expanding and multiplying their learning choices (Sturm, 2019). SIIE with its conceptual framework can help to make this perspective optimal and realisable.

Sustainable respect to diversity that underpins the value system of SIIE may only be achieved through social justice, which provides for a common component of both the educational paradigms of inclusive and intercultural education, and ensures respect for human rights and non-violation of human dignity (Katseli, Pantazis, & Gounela, 2016). Thus, it is only by addressing changes at the global, national, and individual levels via the social justice dimension and by viewing what has been considered to be different as equitable, that sustainable intra-generational and inter-generational development may be guarantee (Hajisoteriou & Angelides, 2016a).

The development of empathy, care, respect and mutual understanding, values that are central to the value system of both inclusive and intercultural education, and education for respect to and development of the other, may combat stereotypical perceptions and prejudices about diversity (or disability). These humanitarian values must be integrated into educational discourses and focus both on teachers and students, through their exposure to relevant teaching methods and teaching materials (Crispel & Kasperski, 2021). In this context, the conditions enabling both present and future generations for authentic interaction, social networking, social inclusion and participation in an active civil society that promotes human well-being and minimises conflict may be ensured (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). In an ever-expanding environment of super-diversity of races, ethnicities, cultures, abilities and even disabilities, the need to provide and secure quality education should not be negotiated.

Conclusions

Stemming from the above, there is an imperative need to enhance the ability of the school system to meet the academic and social needs of the student population that is threatened by underperformance and high school drop-out rates, but also the ability of all involved to support diversity by all means (Young, Herring, & Morrison, 2017), by applying sustainable inclusive and intercultural strategies. Having said that, all schools should work towards the development of a collaborative school culture that includes both collaboration between teaching staff to jointly develop strategies for coping with shared challenges, and collaboration with parents through their participation in school and learning processes. Therefore, schools should prioritise such high-level interventions with a sustainable perspective, which their value is often undermined in many education systems (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2021). In addition, the development of collaborative learning as a method that promotes the participation of all students, the differentiation of teaching methods, tools and resources and the participation of students in non-formal learning environments that provides equal opportunities for participation in experiential learning by mitigating rigid focus on performance, are strategic child-centred approaches that can support SIIE.

In addition, as literature indicates a lack of research and intervention in the field of support for ethnic minority students characterised as having special educational needs (Tan, Ware, & Norwich, 2017), the need to implement the paradigm of SIIE is imperative. Much research also demonstrates that students coming from diverse backgrounds present higher rates of school drop-outs or significantly lower outcomes with regards to state standards in literacy and mathematics (Young et al., 2017). Through SIIE, we may focus on developing and implementing teacher education and training programmes that aim to build understanding of the elements that differentiate the needs of students with learning disabilities from the needs of ethnic minority students who are, at the same time, emergent bilinguals and also face difficulties in learning or other disabilities. By extent, teacher education and training programmes should also influence teachers’ practices aiming to provide effective and sustainable support acknowledges students as “cultural beings in relation to their other identities” (ibid.: 175). Such programmes should also cultivate cooperation and teamwork among teachers to co-construct ideas for work planning and organisation to best sustain cultural and linguistic diversity (Hajisoteriou, Karousiou & Angelides, 2017).

Based on the above remarks but also with regard to its value system, SIIE may facilitate the transition to a post-materialist era where values outweigh interests. It should thus be the focus of future research to extensively examine the means and the components not only of the pedagogy underpinning this blended paradigm, but also the development of teacher education and training programmes that serve the goals of SIIE. As we have already emphasised, both inclusive and intercultural education play an extended role – in the context of humanism – aiming to exert influence not only to the narrow settings of schools but also to the wider society (Sorkos & Hajisoteriou, 2019). Such an expectation and prospect, however – if the right conditions are to be created to make it sustainable, viable and long-lasting – can make the universal and expansive nature of intercultural and inclusive education a guarantor to the right of both present and future generations to face their inclusion in school and society as a given right and not as a request, need or demand.

In conclusion, the paradigm of SIIE by combining both inclusive and intercultural education, leads to the development of a new philosophical framework (with regards to ontology; meaning the nature and properties of the paradigm we propose) and well-designed practices (with regards to epistemology, meaning the methods that underpin this paradigm), in order to help resolve chronic social and power conflicts, and thus promote social cohesion. Therefore, our proposal for the new paradigm of SIIE does not restrict its emphasis only on the methodological change, but rather on a total change; both ontologically and epistemologically.

SIIE may extend the boundaries of awareness of human rights and social justice issues, as well as to support the promotion of global citizenship allowing for sustainable communication and cooperation between people both in intra-generational and inter-generational terms. It may be the driving force that will release robust hope from the Pandora’s Box, ensuring that all students of this and future generations can succeed in school, without their diversity being a barrier to their perspective.

Disclosure statement

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