Introduction

Although in western societies the issue of minority teachers has been addressed for almost three decades (e.g. King, 1993), in German speaking countries minority teachers were investigated only in recent years (Strasser & Leutwyler, 2020). After international assessment studies revealed an achievement gap of minority students, the need for developing a more culturally sensitive school system was recognized. Recruiting more minority teachers became a popular demand of educational policy and was associated with the hope for a more adequate approach towards cultural diversity in schools (Strasser & Steber, 2010). This hope is based on research’s consensus on the potential relevant contribution of teachers from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds to American education (Easton-Brooks et al., 2010; Irvine & Fenwick, 2011). The need for teacher educators to become aware of minority teacher candidates’ specific potential and problems is particularly emphasized (Kohli, 2009). Hence, there is a wealth of studies that focus on how to recruit and retain minority teacher candidates (Chen, 2012). Despite the unanimous call for more minority teachers and the abundance of international studies, there is still a limited presence of teachers with diverse cultural, ethnic or linguistic background at schools in German speaking countries. Whilst 37% of students share a migration background, only 8% of teachers are from a minority community (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018). The under-representation of minority teachers that contrasts with a more and more diverse student body justifies the call for a more culturally diverse teacher faculty from a sheer ethical perspective. Concerning the empirical basis for this call, however, there is still little research that corroborates the expectations. After reviewing the existing research that pertains to minority teachers in the USA, Chen (2012) has to note that the knowledge about minority teachers and their professional strengths is still very limited. The bulk of research focused on teacher candidates and teacher education programs. The actual professional action of teachers within their schools and the conditions for the alleged positive impact is rarely addressed. Concerning German speaking countries studies by Edelmann (2006), Georgi et al. (2011), Mantel (2017), Rotter (2012), Strasser (2013), Strasser and Waburg (2015) and Strasser and Leutwyler (2020) only recently sparked an interest in investigating the specific aspects of minority teachers’ professionalism. In contrast to undifferentiated expectations expressed in the sphere of educational policy, existing research does not suggest a general efficiency of minority teachers, as the ethnic background of teachers does not guarantee a general effect (Morris, 2007; Quiocho & Rios, 2000). Nevertheless it is plausible to assume that minority teachers draw on specific experiences that may be useful in overcoming cultural and/or linguistic/language barriers (Irvine, 1989; Rotter, 2012). Their socio-cultural experiences as well as possible multilingual competencies (Nieto, 1998) enable a more deliberate dealing with cultural diversity at schools (Georgi et al., 2011). They may also be helpful in establishing constructive relationships between minority parents and the school system (Irvine, 1989; Meier et al., 1989; Rotter, 2012). The realization of their specific potential, however, depends on certain context-specific conditions like school climate, the existence of an inclusive school program and the support by peer teachers and the heads of the school (Strasser, 2013).

Research Objective

Existing results reveal that teachers’ professional action seems to be highly dependent on their experiences within the faculty room (Strasser, 2013). The study’s purpose was to explore the interplay of minority teachers’ professional cooperation and aspects of their “working context”. Starting point for developing the study was the alleged positive impact of minority teachers on diverse schools and classrooms. The conditions under which such an impact may come about, have not yet been investigated up to now. It was assumed that the mere presence of minority teachers not automatically entails culture sensitive practices and routines. This would rather depend on the interaction with other minority teachers and their autochthonous colleagues, and on the specific characteristics of the school and teaching situations and classrooms.

Currently, there is no research about the interrelation of minority teachers’ backgrounds, their working contexts and their professional cooperation in the educational system of German speaking countries. The presented study explores this issue.

Context of Research

To inform the study different research areas had to be taken into account: (a) Research that directly addressed minority teachers’ role in schools (b) research on cooperation and professional learning of teachers and (c) research on the role of school variables (like school climate) in dealing with diversity issues.

  1. (a)

    Minority teachers and diversity in schools

Several qualitative studies describe the difficult position of minority teachers and the barriers that hinder a positive impact on school development. As studies on minority teachers in the UK and USA reveal, particularly establishing positive relationships with their colleagues seems to be difficult. They experience more interferences in the communication with their majority colleagues and observe a tendency to avoid diversity issues (Gomez et al., 2008; Kohli, 2009; Wilkins & Lall, 2011). As unexpressed issues often contaminate communication, relationships get strained and minority teachers often feel alienated and marginalized (Feuerverger, 1997; Foster, 1994). Immigrant teachers in Canada shared the experience of being marginalized. They reported strong feelings of being treated like second-class citizens. Despite their high qualifications their strengths were not appreciated by their environment much like the strengths of minority students were not recognized. Marginalization was particularly evident in the communication with colleagues when issues of cultural identity were negotiated (Feuerverger, 1997). Sharing the same ethnic or minority background made it more likely for teachers to develop positive relationships with each other; furthermore the degree of support may vary with the minority status of colleagues (Vance et al., 1989). Such a support seems to be an essential precondition for making a specific contribution to the intercultural development of schools. In the study by Feuerverger (1997) the interviewed teachers determined their professional identity by their desire to contribute to a multicultural and inclusive school climate. As they perceived a gap between schools and minority families, improving the contact with minority students’ parents was a major objective of their professional action. A central obstacle to their professional goals was the experience that there was little support by the school system. Feeling alienated from traditional values and goals within educational systems seems to be a common experience of minority teachers that is also described in other studies (Foster, 1994). Many minority teachers believe that majority teachers and representatives of school administration prefer conformity and the maintenance of the status quo. This contrasts with their emphasis on equity, social justice and the transformation of the school system. Due to their own schooling experiences these are important issues for them. Hence, when trying to follow an agenda that leads to more inclusive and just schools, they find themselves in opposition to prevailing attitudes (Feuerverger, 1997; Foster, 1994; Klassen & Carr, 1997). Results as to teachers’ anti-racist attitudes and knowledge illustrate this point. Attitudes depend on teachers’ minority status and knowledge about the implementation of multicultural policies does vary. It is positively associated with the extent of population diversity and socio-economic status (SES) of the communities surrounding the schools (Forrest et al., 2015; Klassen & Carr, 1997).

In order to bring about the expected positive effects as to intercultural school development, the employment of minority teachers has to be systematically accompanied and evaluated as a Dutch study implies (Ledoux et al., 2000). Schools that explicitly followed an integrative approach facilitated communication and cooperation of minority and majority teachers. When cooperating systematically all teachers adapted the content, procedures and attitudes of their teaching to the demands of intercultural education. They felt responsible for the commonly developed concepts and their implementation. Hence, the continuously supported cooperation of teachers helped to change instructional and institutional practices and to develop a common intercultural agenda. A look at research on professional learning communities of teachers may give some insight on how to facilitate teachers’ communication.

  1. (b)

    Cooperation and professional learning of teachers

That teacher communities foster teachers’ professional development is well documented (Borko, 2004; Scheerens, 2010). They seem to be particularly promising in challenging areas that necessitate a common effort (Vangrieken et al., 2017). If teachers are to collaborate and reflect on their instructional and educational practices they need space and time to do so. Together with a shared goal, these are the basic preconditions for developing a professional learning community (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). To foster professional development within such communities a positive learning atmosphere and conversation culture seem to be essential (van Es, 2012). Hence, it does not suffice to bring teachers together, but they must be able to develop a sense of belonging to a community and of being safe in this environment. Therefore, learning communities that take place in the context of cultural diversity have to be facilitated carefully. Research has identified a variety of personal, structural, organizational and process characteristics that foster or hinder the collaboration and development of professionals (Vangrieken et al., 2015). The learning atmosphere and conversation culture proved to be important conditions for successful groups (van Es, 2012). They form the basis for productive collaboration and can be described as ‘a trustful atmosphere of learning and exchange, in which critical aspects, as well as critical situations of classroom practice, can be addressed, existing teaching routines can be realized, and alternatives can be suggested without judgments’ (Gröschner et al., 2014, p. 276). Developing sustained relationships and a shared commitment to support each other’s professional practice and development characterizes such learning communities. Differences in teachers’ perspectives, knowledge and routines are appreciated as potential learning resource (Grossman et al., 2001). Such a positive learning atmosphere and conversation culture necessitates shared norms and rules for their interactions. Discourse rules such as listening carefully to each other, respecting different perspectives, or being open for practice alternatives have to be mutually acknowledged (van Es, 2012). The emergence of such a conversation culture not only depends on individual characteristics of team members and on structural qualities of the group but is strongly influenced by variables at an institutional level (Vangrieken et al., 2015).

  1. (c)

    School climate and diversity

To understand teachers’ professional action and their interaction the institutional context has to be taken into account. An important aspect of this context is the so-called school climate. School climate refers to the quality and character of a school, which is shaped by its atmosphere, organizational culture, the resources and networks (Cohen et al., 2009). Such climatic aspects have been focused by school research and proved to be influential factors, affecting teachers as well as students and their parents (Freiberg & Stein, 1999). Concerning teacher’s’ development, these factors influence their professional commitment (Collie et al., 2011) and the emergence of stress and burnout (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Effects of the school climate are generally related to four dimensions: (1) physical and socio-emotional safety (2) instructional quality (3) relations and cooperation within school (4) structural elements of the school environment (Cohen et al., 2009). The different aspects of the school climate do not take effect as objective external variables but are dependent on the experience and interpretation of subjects (Collie et al., 2011). As the objectively same context can be experienced differently, the individual perception of a school’s climate is a decisive aspect. Teachers’ interpretation of the situation contributes to their professional approach and job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Pas et al., 2012; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995). Particularly their approach concerning cultural diversity is determined by a school’s organizational culture. The extent to which a school and its institutional practices are judged as diversity friendly seems to influence teachers’ individual attitudes and actions towards minority students (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2002). Schools that, on the other hand, follow an assimilation-oriented approach, may tend to increase stress for the individual teacher and eventually cause diversity-related burnout. Those educational institutions that were perceived to be assimilationist revealed the highest levels of diversity-related burnout among teachers (Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003). Organizational practices and the institutional approach towards diversity can differ largely between schools. Gutentag et al. (2017) differentiate four possible institutional approaches. The distinguishing feature is an institution’s underlying notion of diversity. Diversity may be seen as (1) a resource, that has to be used and fostered, (2) a problem, that hinders the institution in reaching its goals, (3) a challenge that holds a potential capability but is also associated with great effort and risks, (4) a negligible category that should not be emphasized. The institutional approach and individual behaviors and attitudes of teachers seem to go hand in hand with each other and concur. This interaction may be based on a cumulative effect. Hence, the positive or negative aspects of the institutional context can reinforce the positive or negative aspects of teachers’ attitudes and professional action. When minority students and cultural diversity are appreciated by an institution and are regarded as a resource and asset, teachers tend to teach in more culturally sensitive ways, are less prone to stress and diversity-related burnout (Gutentag et al., 2017). Correspondingly, the highest level of diversity-related problems and stress have been reported in teachers with assimilative attitudes that teach in assimilative schools (Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003). A school’s approach towards diversity is not arbitrary and independent of external factors like the percentage of minority children within a school district. Nevertheless, a school’s development towards an adequate approach can be influenced and shaped. Head teachers and school management play a decisive role in framing the process. Building a diverse faculty, fostering cooperation among teachers and the joint development of adequate practices are decisive steps (Strasser, 2021).

Research Question and Assumptions

It was assumed that differences in a school’s characteristics, particularly in their integration of minority teachers, are reflected in the cooperation of teachers and the joint development of culturally adequate practices. Objective of the following case study was to explore the conditions that lead to cooperation of minority teachers, their integration in the faculty, foster cooperation among teachers and further their professional learning particularly as to cultural diversity.

Based on the presented research the following questions were addressed:

Are differences between schools (esp. in their approach towards diversity and policy of recruiting minority teachers) associated with differences in

  1. 1.

    the integration of minority teachers?

  2. 2.

    minority teachers’ cooperation and use of professional networks?

  3. 3.

    minority teachers’ relation to and cooperation with majority teachers?

  4. 4.

    the development of joint efforts in changing institutional practices?

Methodology

An explorative approach relying on mainly qualitative research strategies was chosen. Insights in the questions ought to be found by comparing two exemplary cases. The research agenda consisted of three steps:

  1. 1.

    Identification of schools that followed differing approaches towards cultural diversity

  2. 2.

    Identifying school management’s strategies towards minority teachers

  3. 3.

    Investigating teacher’s cooperation and professional dealing with diversity

In a first step, schools that differed were identified by analyzing the documented profiles and self-portrayals of schools’ web sites in a given Austrian school district. The urban district was selected due to its comparably high levels of minority students. It was analyzed if and in what way cultural diversity was addressed on the schools’ web sites. Two schools were selected that seemed to follow contrasting approaches although being confronted with a similar extent of diversity.

Secondly, narrative interviews with the school’s head teachers were conducted, to explore the school management’s dealing with cultural diversity, particularly its strategies concerning minority teachers. The third step comprised group discussions with minority teachers of the selected schools. The discussions focused teachers’ perspective on dealing with diversity at their school and their role as minority teachers. Analyzing their ways of interacting during the discussion should help to understand aspects of their professional cooperation. Group discussions are an established research method and serve to examine “collective orientations including the terms and structures of social worlds” (Schittenhelm, 2010, p. 130). As interview effects are less relevant in discussions than in one-on-one interview situations, the method is considered a valuable instrument in cases where participants and interviewers do not share the same background (Herwartz-Emden, 2000). Successfully conducting group discussions for research purposes presupposes that the groups are pre-existing “real groups”, that is, the people involved have to share experiences within a common context. Shared experiences form the basis for collective orientations that are formulated on a group level (Bohnsack, 1995).” The group discussions are conducted in a non-directive manner, thus enabling the group to develop its own reference terms” (Schittenhelm, 2010, p. 130).

Sample

After analyzing the public self-portrayals and profiles of schools, two of them were selected because of their apparently contrasting approaches. The first was an elementary school that characterized itself as a multicultural institution. Opening the school to students and parents of diverse backgrounds and diminishing barriers for intercultural cooperation were addressed as major objectives of the school. The profile described the differing ethnic and cultural heritage of their students as assets and resources. Several projects concerning multicultural issues were delineated at the web site. In contrast to that, the second institution, a secondary school (“Gymnasium”), indicated no specific multicultural agenda and their self-portrayal did not address cultural diversity explicitly. A few projects as to diversity issues, however, were documented. The latter were restricted to the lower grades of the school and concerned with linguistic deficits of migrant students. Both schools had a relatively high percentage of minority students of 58% (“Gymnasium”) resp. 63% (elementary school).

Six teachers took part in the group discussions, three teachers of the elementary and three of the secondary school. The first group consisted of female teachers, two of them were second-generation migrants from Turkey, one was a first-generation migrant from Serbia. The group from the second school consisted of male teachers only, two first-generation migrants from Hungary resp. Italy and one first-generation migrant with Hungarian and Romanian background.

Material and Analysis

A qualitative content analysis of interviews with schools’ head teachers was conducted, categorizing their main statements.

Analysis of the two group discussions combined quantitative and qualitative measures. For the investigation of the interaction and conversation culture during the discussions, different aspects were assessed:

  • General appreciation: Do the group members talk to each other politely, listen to each other, and let each other finish speaking?

  • Shared rules: Does the group share collective rules for discourse and feedback?

  • Common focus on activities: Is there a common focus on events, activities and strategies in the group’s school?

  • Dynamic of the discussion: Does the discussion run by itself and are themes brought up by the group autonomously or they guided by the interviewer?

These aspects describe important prerequisites for a positive learning atmosphere in professional teams (Sherin & van Es, 2008). Each category was coded by two independent raters for each unit of analysis based on a five-point Likert scale. A consent validation followed the individual coding process in case of low rater accordance. Thematic segments of the discussion were used as units of analysis. The discussion as a whole was rated as to the category “dynamic of the discussion”.

The more qualitative interpretation of the data followed a sequential approach according to the “documentary method” (e.g. Bohnsack, 2010). The documentary method distinguishes between an immanent or literal meaning and a documentary meaning (pre-reflective or tacit knowledge) of any given statement. This methodological differentiation results in two work steps: “formulating interpretation” and “reflecting interpretation”. “The basic structure of formulating interpretation is the decoding and formulation of the topical structure of the text. […] The task of the reflecting formulation is […] the reconstruction of the framework of orientation, of the habitus” (Bohnsack, 2010, p. 111). This interpretative step investigates if and how common episodes are narrated. Thereby especially the mode of discourse is assessed. An inclusive discourse may indicate common experiences and a common frame of reference. Repeated comparisons within and between group discussions are an important feature of the documentary method. The following two case studies are the result of these comparisons. Presentation focuses on the main results. Due to space limitations not all interpretative steps that led to these results can be described in detail.

Findings

Interviews with both schools’ head teacher revealed that both viewed cultural diversity as a major issue. Both related to the urban context of their institution and the high percentage of minorities. Both perceived a need for recruiting more minority teachers and reported active recruiting strategies. They deemed minority teachers as important due their potential capacity as role models for minority students and as cultural mediators. Hence, they might help to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers. The primary school’s management explored several other reasons for recruiting minority teachers. Not only might they relate to minority students’ experiences (esp. of exclusion and discrimination), but they might also be able to detect dysfunctional institutional practices. Hence, they should play an important role in intercultural school development. The later was described as a common endeavor in which all teachers ought to take part. To reach this objective, collaboration between teachers regardless of their ethnic background ought to be fostered. The relevance of minority teachers for efforts of school development were not mentioned in the second interview.

Group Discussion 1

Superficial Characteristics of the Discussion

The discussion with Y, V and Gm took about 150 min and its transcript contains 14,321 words. It was rated as being highly indicative of general appreciation (M = 4.5), and group members were perceived as sharing collective rules for discourse and feedback (M = 5). Raters also agreed that there is a distinct common focus on events, activities and strategies in the group’s school (M = 4.5). Group members also highly determined the course and dynamic of the discussion as themes were brought up by them autonomously (M = 5).

Thematic Course of the Discussion

The discussion starts with a short introduction of each teacher and rather quickly shifts to “instructional challenges” within multicultural classes. Teachers extensively explain their view of potential difficulties and resources in their everyday practice. While discussing they complement and confirm each other’s statements. It seems as if they share a common understanding of instructional challenges and common strategies in dealing with them. They later on report that they developed a common approach for highly diverse classes. This approach is centered on acknowledging children’s linguistic resources and fostering their mother tongue as well as their German language skills. Teachers describe at length different projects they commonly initiated. These projects aim at bringing together children with differing cultural heritage and avoiding the formation of separated ethnic groups. The projects focus on children’s shared interests and try to make use of their specific skills and resources. At least two teachers cooperate in conducting the projects. A common approach is also reported with respect to teachers’ work with parents. After extensively discussing minority teachers’ advantages in relating to minority students’ parents, teachers emphasize the necessity that the school as a whole attempt to create a welcoming atmosphere and brings together minority and majority parents. They describe different network strategies that may help that minority parents become more integrated and share contacts with majority parents. Their efforts culminated in the founding of a parents’ club that is to strengthen parents’ relation with the school. These efforts seem to be acknowledged by both minority and majority parents.

Teachers talk about their experiences with other schools concerning parent-school relations. They perceive a major difference, as in other schools’ communication with parents is mostly restricted to formal occasions. The teachers locate the main reason for these differences in the cooperation in the faculty room and the role of the head teacher. The later would always emphasize the need for cooperation and bring together teachers on various occasions. For instance, she developed a specific program for beginning students that is conducted by three teachers. All three teachers agree that a major characteristic of their school is that teachers are strongly related to each other and cooperate frequently. Cooperation in teams helped them particularly at the beginning of their employment. They describe their professional practice as a common learning endeavor. The atmosphere of mutually helping each other would also be reflected in students’ behavior. All teachers, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background, would understand intercultural school development as a common task. Fostering the well-being of students and a positive and accepting school climate was discussed as its main objective. Most of the projects targeting cultural diversity were initiated by majority and minority teachers alike. The group later on explores expectations towards minority teachers. They felt that their specific experiences and linguistic resources were appreciated, but they were not restricted to their cultural background and also recognized as “ordinary” teachers. In their view it was up to school management to provide favorable conditions for minority teachers; conditions that prevent being isolated or restricted to the role of a cultural mediator. Despite their positive experiences within their school they also deemed it important to have strong relations with other minority teachers. All three teachers seemed to be part of rich networks of minority teachers in Austria. They used their connections to discuss experiences and get impulses for school development efforts.

Interpretation of the group discussion revealed a consistently inclusive discourse mode with most episodes being told commonly. Hence, teachers drew on common experiences and seem to have developed a common frame of reference.

Group Discussion 2

Superficial Characteristics of the Discussion

The discussion with P, G and F took about 90 min and its transcript contains 8046 words. Raters perceived that group members showed general appreciation (M = 4.0), and shared collective rules for discourse and feedback (M = 4). Raters also agreed that a common focus on events, activities and strategies in the group’s school could often not be discovered (M = 2.5). The course and dynamic of the discussion was rarely shaped by the group as a whole but by individual members or the interviewer (M = 2).

Thematic Course of the Discussion

The first part of the discussion is dominated by teachers’ introductions. All three teachers describe their biographical and professional development rather extensively. They tell their stories individually in a sequential manner. When talking about their role as a minority teacher they arrive at a commonly discussed issue: being viewed as a role model for minority students. All three teachers agree that being a role model is an important aspect of their professional practice. They accept this role and the corresponding expectations. Two of them report active efforts to present themselves as positive role models to their students. They actively try to establish positive relationships with students that share the same background by conveying feelings of solidarity and relatedness. Their own experiences ought to motivate students in overcoming deficits and barriers. Institutional or contextual conditions that may impede students’ careers are not explored. Consequently, no initiatives or projects to foster an intercultural school development are mentioned. All three teachers, however, have developed specific instructional practices to meet their minority students’ needs. The basis for these practices is their own individual experiences. In the discussion, they recognize similarities in their individual approaches and they consider the possibility of developing a regular exchange in the future. Their individual strategies are limited to their classroom. When asked about strategies in working with parents, they attribute a minor relevance to this issue. They report positive relationships with their majority colleagues and have the feeling that they are neither viewed nor treated differently than their colleagues. Colleagues particularly appreciate their bilingual skills and P describes situations in which he helped to translate. The group discusses whether xenophobic attitudes or prejudices against minority students or teachers exist within the faculty. All three agree that there is no explicit xenophobic attitude but some colleagues may prefer to work with fewer minority students. P reports episodes in which he felt “a bit uncomfortable” in the faculty room. Generally, the majority colleagues are perceived as open-minded, in rare occasions some of them might tend to attribute ethnic stereotypes to minority students. These or other multicultural issues are not discussed in the faculty room and no efforts of a common intercultural school development are reported. When asked about challenges for their school and future directions of development, they agreed that language barriers have to be overcome, that parents and their students have to be more motivated and willing to adapt as well as the school has to recognize minority students’ potential.

Interpretation of the group discussion revealed segments with an inclusive discourse mode changing with more excluding passages. Narrations of episodes were mainly produced individually while general themes (e.g. xenophobic attitudes) were discussed commonly. Hence, teachers obviously did not share experiences of a common practice. Nevertheless, the experienced similar conditions in their professional career and seem to have developed a common frame of reference.

Comparison of the Two Discussions

The discussion with the first group was considerably longer than the second discussion and it mainly ran by itself. The three teachers seemed to work together as a group and reported a wealth of information on common efforts and projects. They emphasized the role of both their experience and their professional learning within networks as relevant factor for these efforts. The teachers in the second discussion also referred to their (migrational) experiences. The discussion seemed, however, to have been their first occasion to compare notes with their colleagues. They did not yet cooperate on a regular basis and just seemed to get to know each other. Hence, commonly told passages were rare and they only partly determined the thematic course of the discussion. Both groups discuss the expectation of being a role model for minority students. This seems to be an important aspect of the professional identity of teachers in the second group. Their stories of successfully overcoming barriers in their educational barrier is meant to have motivational effects on their minority students. The teachers in the first group relate to this theme (being a role model) only when others bring it up. They emphasize that you actively have to engage in efforts to change existing practices. Relying on role model effects might neglect structural and institutional deficits and restrict minority teachers to a special position. To prevent such a limitation, the systematic and continuous cooperation of all teachers is the main approach in the first groups’ school. Professional cooperation and common efforts to learn and develop new strategies is the main topic that pervades the first discussion, whilst it is almost totally absent in the second group. The latter seems to follow a more individualistic approach and cooperation takes place only occasionally. While their minority status is of importance for the teachers in this group, they do not transfer it into efforts of developing common initiatives or projects. Correspondingly, both schools seem to differ in their agendas; while there is an explicit agenda of intercultural school development in the first school, the second group is not aware of something similar at their school. While both groups refer to the support of the school management, and both schools seem to follow a strategy of hiring minority teachers, only the first seems to have implemented practices to foster the professional development and cooperation of majority and minority teachers alike. Aspects like well-being of students and the school’s climate were discussed explicitly in the first group and only implicitly present in the second group. Differences between the two groups also exist as to the issue of cooperation with parents. While teachers from the elementary school develop various network strategies to strengthen relations to parents, this seems to be less important for the teachers from the secondary school. Although they would like to see minority parents being more strongly involved with school, they emphasize parents’ responsibility for this involvement.

Another topic that is not further discussed by them is communication and exchange with minority teachers from other schools. While teachers in the first group seem to be active member of networks of minority teachers and take advantage of these networks, the second group only mentions casual but no systematic relations with other minority teachers.

Discussion

Caution has to be exercised when interpreting the results of the discussions. The two cases may be illustrative for certain tendencies, the detected differences must, however, not be generalized. These differences may well be attributed to differences in the school form (elementary vs. secondary school) or in gender (female vs. male teachers) (Waburg & Strasser, 2018). Nevertheless, certain tendencies as preliminary answers to the research questions can be highlighted.

Both schools clearly provide a different context for minority teachers. Whilst both are situated in the same urban area and follow an approach of actively recruiting minority teachers, they differ in their general approach towards cultural diversity. Based on the interviews with the schools’ head teachers and the corresponding statements in the group discussions, one may conclude that the elementary school followed an approach viewing diversity as a resource, that has to be used and fostered. The second seemed not to follow a consistent approach. While the head teacher referred to diversity mainly as a challenge that holds a potential capability but is also associated with great effort and risks, the teachers also discussed diversity as a problem that hinders the ambitious grammar school (“Gymnasium”) in reaching its goals. Some of their majority colleagues seemed to view diversity as a negligible category that should not be emphasized. Obviously, there was no common understanding of nor an explicitly formulated concept as to cultural diversity. Such an understanding presupposes a mutual exchange that takes not only place casually or arbitrarily. An important condition for such a systematic communication process seems to be the initiative and continuous support of school management. In the first school, minority teachers and their colleagues were constantly brought together in different settings. Hence, they cooperated in a variety of projects and on different occasions. Teachers were free to participate in those projects that met their needs and ideas. Hence, they did not have the feeling that cooperation was forced upon them. School management and faculty seemed to understand intercultural school development as a common task. Thus, many teachers took the initiative in developing their own professional learning and school development projects with their colleagues. The continuous cooperation resulted in a common understanding of and approach towards cultural diversity. Accordingly, in the discussion, there was a common focus on events, activities and strategies in the group’s school and many episodes were narrated commonly. The minority teachers seemed to be fully integrated in the faculty and no differences in cooperation between minority and majority teachers could be detected. With the faculty trying to find new ways and learn new practices it can be described as a professional learning community. The fact that the three teachers were integrated in professional networks of minority teachers seemed to be rather helpful.

Teachers in the second group in many ways serve as a contrasting example. Although their school followed an active stance in recruiting minority teachers, it obviously lacked an explicit strategy in integrating minority teachers and fostering cooperation. There were no joint efforts concerning intercultural school development. Accordingly, the three teachers began to realize their common understanding and potential for cooperation only during the group discussion. Although they shared certain perspectives (e.g. towards being a role model), they have not yet cooperated on intercultural issues neither with each other nor with their majority colleagues. The school management’s passive stance in addressing cultural diversity issues on the faculty and on the classroom level may be consequential for the school climate.

Although it is difficult to infer knowledge on the school’s climate from the discussion, it is noteworthy, however, that issues like stereotypes and xenophobic attitudes were brought up by the teachers. As learning atmosphere and conversation culture form the basis for productive collaboration (van Es, 2012) such attitudes may hamper a trustful atmosphere of learning and exchange.

Conclusions and Implications

The two cases underscore the findings of Ledoux et al. (2000): Schools that explicitly follow an integrative approach facilitate communication and cooperation of minority and majority teachers alike. When cooperating systematically all teachers can adapt the content, procedures and attitudes of their teaching to the demands of intercultural education. They tend to feel responsible for the commonly developed concepts and their implementation. Hence, the continuously supported cooperation of teachers helped to change instructional and institutional practices and to develop a common intercultural agenda.

The hope that is associated with the call for more minority teachers is that they can deal with diversity issues more adequately and professionally than their majority colleagues. Not only students, but also the faculty and the school as a whole are believed to benefit from the employment of minority teachers. Following insights from existing research, it is plausible to assume that a more diverse faculty does not automatically entail specific, intercultural relevant practices and positive effects on students and schools. Context factors such as the school climate, prevailing attitudes, goals and values or the cultural diversity in the faculty as well as in the classroom deliver constraints and affordances for teachers’ actual performance.

To further understand facilitative conditions for such a development, teachers’ wider professional networks and integration in their communities has to be further investigated. The strengthening of such professional networks and the implementation of learning communities of minority teachers may be a major step in developing multicultural schools. Schools with such communities seem to be open to professional impulses of minority teachers and give them space to develop a “diversity agenda”, whereas other schools tend to marginalize them (Weinstein et al., 2003).