Individual Support as Universal Solution for Inclusion? A Critical Analysis of Primary Education Teacher Curricula in German-Speaking Countries

Basic data for this talk

Information about the event

Abstract

Introduction In the context of societal transformation processes, efforts to promote inclusion have become increasingly visible across various levels. This is evident in global initiatives such as the World Migration Report (IOM, 2019), the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006). These frameworks emphasize the need to dismantle barriers to participation and ensure equitable access to education for all individuals. In this sense, the UN Convention states that no person should be excluded from the general education system due to disability. Similar claims are made with respect to other dimensions of diversity in the above-mentioned initiatives. However, despite the widespread acceptance of these principles, controversies persist regarding the implementation of inclusive education, often highlighting the inertia of school systems and the challenges of political decision-making (Kruschel & Merz-Atalik, 2023). Teacher education plays a pivotal role in addressing these challenges, with universities and pedagogical institutions tasked with embedding inclusion into curricula to prepare future educators for inclusive practices. Nonetheless, its integration into teacher training curricula in the German-speaking countries remains inconsistent and shaped by various tensions (Meier et al., 2026). Methods Against this backdrop, this study critically examines how individual support is understood and operationalized in primary education teacher curricula in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Therefore, the curricula from major teacher training institutions in Bielefeld (western Germany), Leipzig (eastern Germany), Vienna (Austria), and Zurich (Switzerland) are analyzed. To give a broad perspective, the focus of the study is on four subjects, representing different subject groups: education science (as the overarching subject), German (as a language subject), mathematics (as a Mint subject), and Physical Education (as an aesthetic subject). A structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädicker, 2023) of the current curricula explores the interplay between pedagogical and psychometric approaches to diagnostics, as well as the tension between promoting individual development and aligning students to standardized goals in addressing the issue of individual support. Results and Discussion The findings reveal significant differences in how individual support is addressed across the curricula. Some curricula emphasize learning process diagnostics as a tool to assess individual learning levels and provide targeted support, particularly for students at the extremes of the performance spectrum. Others adopt a medical-psychological orientation to diagnostics, focusing on identifying learning and developmental problems, framing individual support as a tool to equalize heterogeneity, which is often perceived as a problem to be solved. And some do not even address diagnostics or diversity explicitly, leaving individual support and inclusion absent. However, across the analyzed curricula, several common assumptions emerge. All curricula implicitly center on the individual learner, but the connection between teacher actions and student development is rarely questioned. The teacher's role remains dominant, with an emphasis on their responsibility to diagnose and address student needs. Where diagnostics are addressed, they tend to align with psychometric approaches, emphasizing standardization and equalization over pedagogical flexibility. These findings raise critical questions on how individual support is understood and operationalized in the context of inclusion. Educational significance The study identifies two key areas of tension that shape the integration of individual support into curricula: (1) differences in diagnostics, with pedagogical diagnostics focusing on fostering individual development and psychometric diagnostics emphasizing standardization; and (2) differences in target dimensions, with some curricula aiming to support individual development while others prioritize aligning students to societal standards. Within these tensions, the absence of clear definitions and actionable frameworks for individual support in some curricula suggests a lack of alignment between political demands for inclusion and practical implementation in teacher training. One might ask, if concepts of individual support are introduced primarily to satisfy political demands, with limited impact on teaching practice? The superficial integration of inclusion and diversity in several curricula raises concerns about whether these concepts are genuinely embedded in pedagogical practice or merely serve as rhetorical tools to meet policy requirements. In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for a more coherent and pedagogically grounded approach to individual support in primary education teacher curricula. To better align teacher training with inclusive education principles, curricula must move beyond deficit-oriented and psychometric frameworks to embrace resource-oriented perspectives that foster individual development. References Kruschel, R. & Merz-Atalik, K. (2023). Einleitung: Von der (Un-)Möglichkeit der Steuerung von Inklusion im Schulsystem. In R. Kruschel & K. Merz-Atalik (Eds.), Steuerung von Inklusion!? (pp. 1–18). Springer VS. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice and using software (2nd ed.). Sage. Meier, S., Heidrich, F., Schwermann, A., Ruin, S. & Veber, M. (2026). Inklusionsbezogene Professionalisierung von Grundschullehrkräften im DACH-Raum – ein Vergleich universitärer Curricula an ausgewählten Standorten. In R. Baar, P. Büker, V. Henke, A. Seifert & K. Velten (Eds.). Internationalisierung in der Grundschulpädagogik: Konzepte, Befunde und Perspektiven im deutschsprachigen Diskurs (pp. 197-214). Klinkhardt.

Speakers from the University of Münster

Gollub, Patrick

Institute of Educational Sciences (IfE) Professorship for educational sciences with the focus on didactics and teaching research