Ryan Kiely

1203264
Teaching for Diversity: A Reflection on Relationship Practices and Their
Support of Inclusion in the Classroom
The New Zealand Curriculum (2007, p.8) has a vision for all young people to
become confident, connected, actively involved lifelong learners, however the
path to this goal is not always one paved with equitable practices. Priority
learners are those identified as historically not experiencing success in the
school system and are disproportionately represented by Mori and Pacific
learners, those from low socio-economic backgrounds, and students with special
education needs (Education Review Office [ERO], 2012, p.4). While identifying
these students as priority, as different, is already in itself an exclusionary
practice, the reality of their lived experience cannot be ignored. When teachers
draw upon a range of relationship practices that support the participation,
learning and achievement of these students, the[ir] world and its possibilities
for being are remade with each moment (Barad, 2007, p.396, as cited in Davies,
2011). Understanding that there is a limit to the time and energy of a teacher,
investigation of the benefits and challenges presented by three relationship
practices will be discussed here, marking the beginning of a constant process of
professional development as I journey on the path of teacher.
Classroom Management Strategies
Upon entering my first practicum, my impression of classrooms was that they
were a place of chaos, only held together by behaviourist notions of discipline.
Introduction to Rogers (2015) behaviour and relationship strategies have been a
guiding light in realising a different path towards a supportive and inclusive
classroom existed. The importance of creating order in the initial stages of a
classroom I now know to be vital; without these the foundations for Ako,
Whanaungatanga, Wnanga, and Manaakitanga and a culturally inclusive
classroom that supports difference will be forever out of reach (Rogers, 2015;
Ministry of Education, 2011). Strategies that proved to be particularly supportive
of such an environment were directed choice, partial agreement, rule
reminder, and take up time (Rogers, 2015). Rather than ordering students to
do this or do that, these strategies meant engaging with students as real
people, reducing the power imbalance between us and creating a sense of
personal responsibility towards the class environment. This practice supported
our relationship building, acknowledging the shared social context we were all
operating within and the fact that we needed to solve problems together, that we
were interdependent on this journey of learning (McInverney & McInverney,
1998). Firmly setting in place these strategies in my own classroom will be the
beginning steps to establishing a positive classroom environment that is
responsive to the needs, values and beliefs of all students. In doing so, the
remaining practices to be discussed here will be able to put into full effect upon
this foundation.
The strategies identified by Rogers (2015) operate to give students respect and
agency over their actions, however they still involve a power relationship over

Ryan Kiely
1203264
students where creative language could at times be seen as tricking students
into obedience. In this sense, these strategies are teacher-centred as they rely
on the external control of student behaviour by teacher actions (Kecskemeti &
Winslade, 2016). These practices still have their place of purpose in a classroom
but do not necessarily work towards providing the student with the ability to selfmanage, or the relationship skills that a working with rather than a doing to
philosophy of addressing disruptions (Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016, p.112)
might have.
Narrative Therapy Interview
Conducting interviews with students prior to gaining an understanding of
repositioning, open listening or how to take a stance of curiosity, meant I often
found myself as judge and jury, trying to solve students disagreements and
issues. Looking back, I can understand how this kind of approach did little to
resolve a situation, nor did it equip students with the ability to examine their own
actions in that and future scenarios. By adopting a stance of curiosity I can
approach discussions with students understanding that my own interpretations
or assigned meanings are not always going to be correct. By focusing on finding
out what is going on through this stance, my actions recognise diversity and that
different students make meaning differently...and use different tools for
understanding (Drewery & Kecskemeti, 2010, p.104). Although I may not fully
understand the diverse backgrounds and meaning making mechanisms of my
students, this approach can help inform this area and explore my understanding
of others perspectives. Through these exchanges, I can ensure priority learners
identities are validated and that the construction of the person can take place
(Burr, 1995, p.39). This stance allows for a redistribution of power that enables a
conversation to work as a vehicle for the establishing, deepening and repairing
[of] connections, which in turn allow[s for] relationships to grow (Margrain &
Macfarlane, 2011, p.113). This is particularly poignant for working with Mori
learners given that Te Kotahitanga (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh, & Teddy, 2009)
identifies quality of relationships as the single biggest determinant of the
strength of their learning experience.
While my presentation of this practice for grading was a textbook example of its
implementation, my experience of using it in the classroom did not always go so
smoothly. Students did not always appreciate my summarising, at times not
wanting to identify the issue being discussed or to follow along with the internal
dialogue I had envisioned. This demonstrated that a stance of curiosity, of not
knowing, is not something that you can script or address with a checklist of
procedures that will fit every situation. This way of approaching a discussion
requires time, training and practice before it can be integrated purposefully into
action, a factor that I can see stands in the way of some teachers taking the time
to listen for the discourses that students are positioned in and the meaning it
creates for them (Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016). This practice is one I see great
value in and am consistently working on developing into my interactions with
students (and teachers); although there does seem to be the potential for this

Ryan Kiely
1203264
practice to blur the lines between counsellor and teacher, adding to the already
large workload of teachers (Kecskemeti, 2013).
Circle Pedagogy
On first introduction to circle conversations my thoughts were of what could
there possibly be to teach about sitting in a circle? But of course these initial
thoughts were left behind when I began to understand the potential this practice
held to allow all participants an opportunity to share, learn, and transform their
own personal stories as well as those of the students around them (Pranis, 2005;
Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016). This understanding lead me to include circle
conversations in our classroom for the dual purposes of encouraging discussion
about a curriculum topic and on a separate occasion, discussing the bullying
behaviour present in the classroom. The nature of the circle and its processes
meant that the usual calling out and dominance of some students voices was
avoided, allowing all participants to share their thoughts equally (Kecskemeti &
Winslade, 2016). By equalising the power relations between students, as well as
between student and teacher, a situation closer to one where all participants
could express their differences was achieved (Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016). In
line with Hamilton and Kecskemetis (2015) findings, this environment saw the
usual negative attacks on students greatly reduced, allowing for a shift in
consciousness (Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016, p.115) in students towards
openness to others perspectives. This intra-action, as Barad (2003, as cited in
Kecskemeti & Winslade, 2016) terms it, works towards inclusion not merely being
an occasional thought, but a lived reality where students mutually affect each
other through their interactions.
Despite a successful introduction to circle conversations in my classroom, the
practice was not without its issues. It was not until the fourth use that students
began to accept the practice as legitimate and worthy of their concentration,
those who would most benefit from the experience were often distant when
participating. Like the practice of narrative therapy interviews, this practice will
too require time and learning, of both teacher and student, to create a classroom
environment where circle conversations and the discussion it facilitates are
valued by all. Coming up against a school culture that goes against such
restorative practices may also put limitations on its effectiveness.
Reflections on the Demonstration of the Relationship Practices
The demonstration of these practices, both in and out of the classroom, has
shown me that a culturally inclusive and responsive system depends upon the
interventions and strategies a teacher and school decide to implement, and the
ways in which they carry these out. The scripted nature of our initial
introductions to these practices has left me with a model to shape and adapt into
my own personal and responsive practice. While at times I have observed my
dialogue with students stray from the path practiced in class, the simple
awareness of these deviations and a want to correct them leave me hopeful for

Ryan Kiely
1203264
my future development. As I work to direct my practice towards a more inclusive
approach, I realise the importance of challenging and addressing the underlying
beliefs I have about language, difference, and the notion of inclusion (Carrington
& Saggers, 2008, as cited in Carrington et al., 2012). Incorporating Prochnow and
Macfarlanes (2008, as cited in Macfarlane, 2013, p.4) introspective questions
into my practice will help guide this reflection on my practice and its future
development. Focusing on improving the experiences of diverse learners has
lead me to understand that when we work towards creating an inclusive
classroom, all students, no matter their culture, background or needs, benefit
from it (Macfarlane, Glynn, Cavanagh, & Bateman, 2007).
As i develop a stance of not knowing in my interactions with students, I see a
need to further develop my ability to afford the time and thought required to
understand the discourse that students are positioned in; by listening openly I
hope to allow students the ability to clarify their own stance. An understanding of
the benefits and uses of circle conversations are only in their early stages of my
current practice and further use and reflection on this practice is needed. I have
questions about its use in teacher to teacher conversations that will support my
pedagogical development and the growth of a community of inquiry where open
and inclusive discussion takes place. Can differences or disagreements between
management and teachers be resolved more effectively with such practice?
Answers to such questions will be just the first of many steps in the ongoing
development of my inclusive and responsive practice; attained not through the
magic waving of a wand, but through my interaction with sound knowledge and
theory, [and] explora[tion] of good practice pedagogy (Macfarlane, 2013,
p.5).This endeavour to create a responsive and inclusive classroom through
restorative practices at first seemed to me like a complex issue, one beyond my
understanding, and while it is a multi-dimensional issue, I believe Wachtel (2007,
p.2, as cited in Kecskemeti, 2011) said it quite simply:
...that human beings are happier, more productive and more likely to
make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of
authority do things with [emphasis added] them, rather than to them
or for them.
I believe that what happens in schools can make a difference towards creating a
more inclusive and cohesive society, inclusion is something that must be alive in
ourselves, in our teaching, and not something we try to do to students
(Carrington et al., 2012). I was lucky enough to experience an education where
all my cultural and family beliefs and actions were supported and celebrated; it is
my role as a teacher to ensure an environment in which all students feel that
acceptance and celebration of their unique worldviews.

Ryan Kiely
1203264
References
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te Kotahitanga:
Addressing educational disparities facing Mori students in New Zealand.
Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 25(5), 734-742.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Carrington, S., MacArthur, J., Kearney, A., Kimber, M., Mercer, L., Morton, M., &
Rutherford, G. (2012). Towards an inclusive education for all. In S. Carrington &
J. Macarthur (Eds.), Teaching in inclusive school communities (pp. 3-38). Milton,
Qld: John Wiley.
Davies, B. (2011). Bullies as guardians of the moral order or an ethic of truths?
Children & Society, 25(4), 278-286. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00380.x
Drewery, W. & Kecskemeti, M. (2010). Restorative practice and behaviour
management in
schools: discipline meets care. Waikato Journal of Education,
15(3), 101-113.
Education Review Office. (2012). Evaluation at a Glance: Priority learners in new
zealand
schools. Wellington, New Zealand.
Hamilton, C. & Kecskemeti, M. (2015). Beginning teachers reflect on inclusive
practices I
didn't realize that he only had half a hand. International
Journal of Inclusive Education
19(12)
pp.
1265-1279.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

Kecskemeti, M. (2011). A discursive approach to relationship practices in

classrooms: an
exploratory study (Doctoral thesis, University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand). Retrieved from
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/5548
Kecskemeti, M. (2013). The stance of curiosity in the classroom. New Zealand
Journal of
Counselling, 33(1), 36-53.
Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle processes: A new/old approach to
peacemaking.
Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Kecskemeti, M. & Winslade, J. (2016). Better classroom relationships. Wellington,
New Zealand: NZCER Press.
Macfarlane, A. (2013). Huakina mai: Doorways toward culturally responsive
education. Retrieved from: https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group3300/huakina-mai- doorways-toward-culturally-responsive-education.pdf
Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., & Bateman, S. (2007). Creating culturallysafe schools for Mori students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education,
36, 6576.

Ryan Kiely
1203264
Margrain, V., & Macfarlane, A. H. (2011). Responsive pedagogy: Engaging
restoratively with challenging behaviour. Wellngton, New Zealand: NZCER
Press.
McInverney, D., & McInverney, V. (1998). Vygotsky educational psychology:
Constructing
learning. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning
Media.
Ministry of Education. (2011). Ttaiako: cultural competencies for teachers of
Mori learners.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Rogers, B. (2015). Classroom behaviour: A practical guide to effective teaching,
behaviour
management and colleague support (4th ed.). Los Angeles,
California: Sage
Publications.