CURRICULUM AND IDEOLOGY

One of the key thematic contents in ITEd is the study of curriculum, both as curriculum theory and, design, and implementation in the classroom. Less addressed are the curricular philosophies or ideologies that impact on educators’ discourses and practices. Several authors have suggested the need to unveil the various curricular ideologies (^{SCHIRO, 2013}) or meta-theories (^{KEMMIS et al., 2008}) before addressing the design and practical implications, avoiding analyses that only focus on technical aspects. These ideologies are based not only on structured knowledge, but also on everyday knowledge influenced by systematic knowledge and beliefs, incorporating values and/or prejudices. In this study, a curricular ideology is understood as a set of assumptions about different educational aspects.

^{Schiro (2013}) argues that any approach to the school curriculum derives from a curricular ideology, i.e. a platform or prism from which the view of the role of education can openly differ. In his opinion, there are four major curricular ideologies: the Scholar Academic ideology, the Learning Centered ideology, the Social Reconstructionism ideology, and the Social Efficiency ideology. These same ideologies can be expressed or defended by school systems, by institutions, or by individuals. Thus, they can also be explored in the case of preservice teachers.

The Scholar Academic ideology proposes that, over the centuries, our culture has accumulated important knowledge that has been organized into academic disciplines. Therefore, the purpose of education is for students to learn that valuable knowledge. According to this ideology, teachers should be mini-scholars with a deep knowledge of the discipline to be transmitted to the students. The Learner Centered ideology, on the other hand, focuses on the needs and interests of individuals.Thus, schools should be pleasant spaces where students develop naturally according to their innate nature. The purpose of education is the growth of individuals in harmony with their unique personal attributes (^{SCHIRO, 2013}).

The Social Reconstructionist ideology advocates awareness of social problems and injustices. It assumes that the purpose of education is to facilitate the construction of a more just society; therefore, the curriculum is seen from a perspective of social transformation and education is seen as the social process through which society can be improved. In contrast, the Social Efficiency ideology states that the purpose of education is to meet the needs of society in an efficient manner. Through education, young people become mature, constructive members of society; they achieve a good education when they learn to perform the functions necessary for social productivity (^{SCHIRO, 2013}). Together, the four major ideologies help us to understand the possible spectrum of views that educators may have on curriculum and its implementation. Precisely because of the focus of the study, this framework is key to investigate the curricular ideologies of preservice teachers.

It is also necessary to recognize that any manifestation of curricular ideologies arises in a more global framework where the curriculum is seen as a space for dispute among interest groups. ^{Apple (2019}) and others (e.g. ^{GIMENO et al., 2010}) have provided the analysis of ideological reproduction, highlighting the influence that a dominant ideology has on the system and its actors. Thus, along with exploring various ideologies, a fundamental question is: what is the most valuable knowledge? (^{APPLE, 2019}). This is a key question since it is inherently ideological and political, historically linked to conflicts of class, race, gender, religion, etc., contributing to the exploration of linkages between ideology and conceptions of diversity and justice.

INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION FOR DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

The background on inequality in Chile was recently ratified with the report of the United Nations Development Program (PNUD, 2017) which highlights the challenges for schools and their actors, for society and its institutions. The report explains how socioeconomic inequalities are very clearly related to the treatment and value of people in everyday interactions, with a correlation between the challenges of cultural diversity and the search for justice in the classroom. Therefore, we developed both themes.

Diversity. A foundational reference for dealing with social and cultural diversity is that of Multicultural Education. ^{Banks & Banks (2016}) defined it as a conceptual framework, reform movement, and process that involves the idea that all students - regardless of gender, social class, ethnic, racial or cultural characteristics - should have equal learning opportunities. ^{Sleeter and Grant (2011}) assert that Multicultural Education includes attention to racial or cultural diversity, gender, social class, and aspects related to immigration and bilingualism. Accordingly, the focus should be on the various forms of difference that define unequal positions of power. Therefore, it is not only a multicultural approach, but also a social reconstructionist one that deals directly with oppression and structural inequality. Although there are differences with other authors (e.g. ^{BENNETT, 2001}; ^{NIETO, 2004}), all converge that social justice is at the base.

Derived from Multicultural Education, the Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) framework seeks to challenge and reject all forms of discrimination, accepting and affirming the broad spectrum of cultural pluralism of students and their communities. ^{Gay (2018}) describes it as a different and necessary pedagogical paradigm to improve the performance of students from different ethnic groups, teaching through their personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual capacities, and their prior achievements. Ladson-Billings (2009) describes it as a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using their cultural references. She highlights three essential principles of CRP: academic achievement (focus on learning), cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness.

Recent conceptualizations (e.g. ^{PARIS, 2012}; PARIS; ALIM, 2017; ^{PEÑA-SANDOVAL, 2017}), propose to replace the notion of cultural relevance by that of “sustaining” pedagogy (Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, CSP) in the sense of enriching the approach with new research on linguistic diversity, forms of literacy, and other community cultural practices. This renewed approach seeks to value and sustain multi-ethnic and multilingual societies in a globalized world, embodying research and practice in the tradition of assets pedagogy, as well as promoting and sustaining cultural pluralism for a democratic school.

Social Justice. Recognizing that this term has a history and development in the philosophical tradition, here we focus on contemporary perspectives in education and, more particularly, in initial teacher education. In the contemporary debate on “social justice”, we highlight Nancy Fraser (USA) and Alex ^{Honneth (Germany) whose approaches have implications for education. In Fraser (2006}), we stress the concepts of redistribution and recognition, arguing that, unlike conceiving them in a false antithesis, they are elements that contribute jointly (two-dimensionality) to achieve justice. Honneth (2006), in turn, develops the idea of social justice based on a normative social theory that is based on reciprocal recognition for personal identity formation.

In the educational context, ^{Fraser’s (2006}) position has implications in the sense that the school classroom should be a space with intersubjective conditions (social and pedagogical) that allow every student to participate on equal terms with their peers and teachers. Following ^{Honneth (2006}), the implications are related to the search for development and the realization of human autonomy at school. These transformative proposals - relevant for an unequal education system such as Chile’s - are complemented by ^{Crahay’s (2003}) notion of justice for whom education systems are just when they treat all students as equals and seek an equitable society where essential goods are also distributed according to rules of justice.

In line with the aforementioned principles, we highlight a number of efforts directed at the school context and the IDF. ^{Carlisle et al. (2006}), define education for social justice “as the conscious and reflective combination of content and processes aimed at improving equity in groups with multiple social identities, fostering critical perspectives and promoting social action” (p. 57). In the context of ITEd, Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt and McQuillan (2009) highlight the notion of “good and just teaching” based on their research with a justice orientation. In their view, future teachers internalize the concept of social justice and apply it in their practices. To fill the apparent gap in meaning of ITEd for Social Justice, Cochran-Smith et al. (2009) emphasize that it is not mere rhetoric, but a perspective with a focus on learning, where the improvement of students’ learning and life opportunities are key concerns.

Key elements in the preparation of future teachers guided by social justice are: subject- -matter mastery, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of teaching methods and strategies. Moreover, the theoretical frameworks of interpretation, the social, intellectual and organizational aspects that prepare them to perform in diverse school settings must be added (^{COCHRAN-SMITH et al., 2009}). Therefore, the quality of ITEd for social justice is not only played in specific courses and must incorporate more democratic and collaborative practices with communities (^{ZEICHNER, 2018}), which is the responsibility of the entire ITEd curriculum.

In the Spanish-American context, the need for a more just education in a context of deepening socio-economic inequalities is stressed (e.g., ^{BELAVI; MURILLO, 2016}; MURILLO et al. 2011; ^{PEÑA-SANDOVAL; MONTECINOS, 2016}, PEÑA-SANDOVAL, 2019). In addition to emphasizing the concepts of educational equity, equal opportunities, human rights and attention to diversity, they emphasize that the school that aspires to social justice should seek to ensure that everyone learns, achieves full development and where democracy and the appreciation of cultural diversity are essential goals.

To respond to local context needs, ^{Sleeter et al. (2016}) reviewed the extensive international literature and grounded their analysis in the Chilean reality. They proposed follow four essential principles for a justice-oriented ITEd:

To summarize, there is a certain consensus that ITEd’s task must be infused with principles of justice, affirming and sustaining cultural diversity, being the responsibility of ITEd programs as a whole. Therefore, it is highly relevant to investigate which are the ideologies that future teachers develop and/or deepen during their preparation and what conceptions about diversity and justice take place in those educational spaces.

PARTICIPANTS

The universe corresponds to ITEd programs including the “Theory and Curricular Planning” course in a Chilean university. From this universe, six different programs were chosen: Early Childhood Education; Physical Education and Health; English; Mathematics; Spanish and Communication; and, History, Geography and Social Sciences. A total of 231 preservice teachers participated during first and second semesters of 2019.

Two groups of tasks were carried out: first, those related to the delivery, response and organization of data from the inventory of ideologies (^{SCHIRO, 2013}); second, those related to the designing interview protocols and interviewing participants. The inventory consists of a reflective exercise divided into six items, each containing four sentences representing each of the ideologies outlined by ^{Schiro (2013}). Respondents were asked to mark numbers from 1 to 4, where 1 represents the statement that most identifies him/her. The exercise ends with the graphic representation of an ideological stance in a matrix. Since answering the inventory invites to a reflexive exercise, this one does not have measurement purpose, but it allows to contextualize and to know the ideological tendencies in a certain group, being part of the topics treated during interviews. The frequency and percentages of respondents to the inventory are detailed in Table 1.

Once the results of the inventory were known, the responses were grouped together to determine the endorsement to each one of the four ideologies. However, in addition to the four ideologies, other possibilities were observed when the tendency was not very marked or diffuse (eclectic) or when, in addition to being close to one of the ideologies, it was clearly against another (maximum level of disagreement).

After the inventory stage, we selected the participants for interviews, that is, we used an intentional sample (^{CRESWELL, 2014}; ^{RUIZ-OLABUÉNAGA, 2012}) because we were not looking for standard case-subjects but those that offered a richness of content and significance (RUIZ- OLABUÉNAGA, 2012). Thus, we invited a group of 20 participants who showed greater clarity in their endorsement to an ideology in their inventories. Of these, ten agreed, signed their informed consent, and were interviewed (Table 2).

Each participant was interviewed once following our protocol. The focus of these interviews was to deepen their closeness or distance to the curricular ideologies, as well as to learn their perspective on the issues of diversity and justice in education. The purpose of the interviews was to capture the natural, spontaneous, and deep flow of their perspectives, where the researcher provides input and captures the richness of the meanings (^{CRESWELL, 2014}; ^{STAKE, 2005}). Provided with informed consents, each interview lasted 45 to 60 minutes, recorded in digital audio, and then transcribed into Microsoft Word.

DATA ANALYSIS

The data analysis was carried out by organizing the data corpus composed of the inventories and transcriptions of semi-structured interviews. The graphs of the inventories were visually analyzed to identify ideological trends according to ^{Schiro (2013}). This allowed to determine the final sample for the interviews and to visualize an overview of the ideological trends of the cohorts of each program for an even more contextualized analysis of the case. The data corpus of the interviews was stored and managed using MAXQDA 2018, which allowed us to manage and code a large volume of data.

The analyzed corpus corresponds to essentially “naturalistic” data (^{MERRIAM, 2009}) which has a narrative or textual character. Consequently, the analysis was carried out following the recommendation of the Grounded Theory (^{STRAUSS; CORBIN, 1998}), using first an open coding and then an analytical coding to recognize salient elements and raise categories. The iterative contrast between inventories and interviews made it possible to deepen the aspects that contributed to answer our research question.

The validity of the analyses and conclusions of the study were sought through the rigor of the data collection and analysis processes, with systematization and the search for clear patterns. Information was triangulated through data collection techniques, verification via subjects, and contrast with theory, for the saturation of the symbolic universe (^{MERRIAM, 2009}). Regarding ethical considerations, we follow ^{Kvale (2011}) who warns to safeguard confidentiality, information on procedures (consents), and the freedom to withdraw from the study at any time.

IDEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

As Table 3 shows, of the 231 respondents, the predominant ideology was the Learner Centered one (60.2%). In each of the 139 inventories that represent this proportion, there is a clear adherence to this ideology, far from the Scholar Academic (1.3%), the Social Efficiency (1.7%), and the Social Reconstruction (3%) ideologies. However, it is worth noting that 33.8% corresponds to what we have called ideological eclecticism. That is, 78 of the 231 respondents did not manifest clear adherence to any ideology, but fluctuated between the different ideologies, depending on the educational topic involved.

Source: Developed by the authors.

GRAPHIC 1 PERCENTAGE OF IDEOLOGIES  

Another finding derived from the inventories is that a significant group adheres to the Learner Centered ideology along with a marked rejection of the Scholar Academic ideology. In addition, 50% of those who identify with the Social Efficiency ideology also strongly reject the Scholar Academic claims. Of the total of 231 inventories, over 10% correspond to participants who, regardless of their ideology or eclecticism, reject any manifestation of the Scholar Academic perspective.

This is noteworthy because adhering to a certain ideology does not necessarily presuppose a clear rejection of another. For example, in many cases, those who express a stance centered on learning distribute the rest of their responses among the other three ideologies, without a marked rejection. However, here we identify a group that, in addition to privileging learner- -centered statements, manifests extreme distance from scholar academic claims, which we have categorized as anti-academicism. Thus, anti-academicism represents a deep conviction with respect to privileging any approach that puts the learning subject at the center, while totally rejecting the manifestations of the traditional, teacher-centered approach. This ideological position expressed in the inventories is reaffirmed when analyzing the interviews.

AGAINST ACADEMICISM

In analyzing interviews, we found a series of statements that help to deepen and clarify the curricular perspectives expressed in inventories. In fact, whether through their own school experiences r the criticisms developed throughout university education, the preservice teachers explain how their position regarding Scholar Academic tradition has evolved. Fernanda (Early Childhood Education), for example, recalls her school experience:

Most of the teachers played the role of transmitting information, very few helped you develop as a person and very few helped you really learn. [There] you can tell that the teacher is on top and the student is at the bottom, and it shouldn’t be like that. And I feel that when we grow up [at the university] we still focus too much on the instructor.

The development of a Learner-Centered ideology, together with the anti-academicist emphasis, suggests a construction based on one’s own biography marked by the transmissive approach. At the same time, certain experiences of university education promote a focus on those who learn through learning-centered strategies. This can be seen, for example, in the case of Elizabeth (English), for whom the Scholar Academic heritage is beginning to revert in the university:

My English teacher at school was not very pedagogical or dynamic, so I learned the old-fashioned way. But here [at the university] they have taught us a lot about how to differentiate diverse approaches. She was always the center of the class, we did fill in exercises [phrases]... grammar was the focus of all her classes. And when we wanted to do something much more communicative, play, or sing or dialogue, she always minimized us, and I was very affected by that.

However, although it is hoped that university teacher education will contribute to a more didactic approach, supporting the evolution of curriculum ideologies (^{SCHIRO, 2013}), other accounts reveal that certain spaces (disciplinary institutes) deepen the Scholar Academic approach that many want to reverse. Carlos (Spanish and Communication) highlights this, as he was previously a student at the Institute of History, so he can make a contrast and reflect on his ideological evolution accordingly:

In the History institute’s classes, it’s usually the professor who does the talking. The students are silent and the professor talks and talks [...] Many professors have no pedagogical education and have only gone through master’s and then doctoral studies. I’m not saying that’s bad, but for someone who’s going to be a teacher later on, it’s not the best option. [In History] you arrive at the classroom, sit down and listen to the professor speak. You get used to sitting and listening to professors and then having a test, and that’s it.

Thus, the analysis of the interviews allowed us to connect the development or evolution of an ideology with the school biography or university experience. While there are individuals who deploy their ideology in accordance with or in contrast to their schooling, there are also individuals who show a recent evolution according to the impact that their discipline and/or their university professors have had on their preparation.

ECLECTICISM AND IDEOLOGICAL DYNAMISM

Although this study has identified a predominance of the Learner Centered ideology, the analysis of the interviews allowed us to deepen and contrast with the inventory, revealing apparently contradictory elements. Unlike some individuals expressed anti-academicism, others referred to the teaching role in accordance with the Scholar Academic approach (erudition of teachers) or used a language of Social Efficiency. For example, Pablo (Spanish and Communication) stated:

I feel that knowledge is super important. Although it has been demonized when the teacher is the one who transmits the knowledge, I think the teacher must know a lot about the subject. I, for example, know a lot about Spanish, literature, grammar, and the student doesn’t have that knowledge, but I know he/she can acquire it. [...] I don’t think we should focus only on the student or only on the teacher, I think both are relevant to make it more productive. (the underlining is ours)

This shows that, although, in general, it is possible to adhere to the Learner Centered ideology, it does not necessarily occur “in a pure form” but coexists with a discourse permeated by the Scholar Academic tradition (transmission, acquisition) and/or by an efficiency language (productivity). Eclecticism also shows its nuances when participants, although they do not show such marked positions, reveal the coexistence of ideologies by reflecting on their responses. Natalia (Spanish and Communication) pointed out that:

In some options [of the inventory] I didn’t mark anything very strong, but there are things that I agree with. For example, with the Scholar Academic I don’t agree very much with the objectives, but I do agree that the teacher should be an expert in his or her subject. I think that once you manage your subject in an excellent manner, you are not going to be concerned with reviewing to teach. So, I think that’s going to help to focus on learning. (the underlining is ours)

This exemplifies the ideological eclecticism (^{SCHIRO, 2013}) that does not necessarily is reflected in a contradictory discourse, but it reveals the impact of basic disciplinary education. On the basis of this conviction, a constructivist account is constructed that reflects the pedagogical instruction received recently. Thus, the preservice teacher seems to seek a balance that makes sense within the framework of his or her process of “becoming” a teacher.

Another look at the nuances of eclecticism emerges from Vanessa’s speech (History), which recognizes a dynamic process of transition between a previous academic vision and a more didactic one at present:

In the beginning I conceived the History class as a mere transmission of knowledge, because that’s how I was taught all the time, until a teacher came along who turned my way of conceiving History as a subject. Then, I said to myself “I don’t want to be that typical teacher who writes on the blackboard and passes the slide”. So, now during our student teaching practice, we adapted the classroom, we adapted the context, and we always took into consideration the different skills and talents of the students. (the underlining is ours)

This last account allows us to speculate on factors that constitute ideological eclecticism at a given time. In other words, the dynamic nature of adherence to an ideology also responds to the impact of experience. On the one hand, there are personal experiences that consolidate positions or trigger changes; on the other hand, there are practical experiences in the university’s context, courses, and student teaching, which are gradual throughout teacher education. Carlos (Spanish and Communication) exemplifies this as follows:

Now, being a student teacher, the pedagogical questions were awakened in me, because in the initial stage of the practicum and with few teaching courses I did not consider it enough [...] The experience in the classroom, working with children with family problems, I don’t know, I see the discordance between what we are taught and everything that we are going to do in the classroom and that is not learned in the university.

The practicum in schools - added to university teacher education - is a source of change of previous conceptions and favors the development of new perspectives, both because of the contact with students and because of the need to design, implement and evaluate from the teacher’s role. However, a nuance of ideological dynamism can also be represented by the deepening of previous convictions. That is, there are changes in perspectives in the sense of strengthening certain previous beliefs. Milena (Spanish and Communication) shows that this can happen thanks to the combination of practical experiences and her participation in university political spaces:

In my student teaching, I have seen social vulnerability [...] and I think I have reinforced what I believe. What happens is that I participate in a political movement, which influences the projections I have about my profession. [...] I don’t tell students that they have to be part of a political group, but without naming it, the subject of politics comes up so that they can be aware of the reality in which they live.

On the one hand, one can appreciate the ideological dynamism in terms of the deepening of beliefs, consolidated by social and political life during university education; on the other, one can see the relationship that, in some cases, a particular ideology has with discourses and practices on social justice in education. It is precisely this linkage what we explore below.

IDEOLOGY, DIVERSITY, AND JUSTICE

The second part of our research question asked about the possible relation between curriculum ideologies and conceptions of diversity and justice. Since the Learner Centered ideology predominates in half of the interviewees, while the other half manifests an ideological eclecticism (see Table 2), we present mainly findings on the first group. However, we also refer to the “eclectic” group to a lesser extent because of the interest in its nuances. According to the category “discursive coherence”, here the results show evidence of very coherent relationships, of less coherent relationships, and of absence of relationship.

Centered on learning. In this group, the example that stands out for its coherence is Natalia (Spanish and Communication) whose inventory also shows, at a lesser degree, adherence to the Social Reconstructionism ideology. In addition, she shows coherence with her conceptions on diversity and justice, and with the teaching practices she values:

[Diversity] is a super good opportunity to open up the horizons of how we teach and what we teach, because the notion of this country’s identity is changing. [...] It’s an opportunity to start thinking outside the box, to include immigration literature, an opportunity of meeting people from different cultures and holding cultural encounters, discussions, and not just the discourse of integration.

I believe that, as teachers, we can make an impression, lead by example and show the importance of ideas like equity and justice. It is necessary to participate in community work, community service. It is the possibility of making a change where it is needed. [...] I believe that the idea of success is more related to an improvement at the community level.

Her concern with the use of culturally sensitive literature for the immigrant student population connects with the principles of cultural relevance (^{GAY, 2018}; ^{LADSON-BILLINGS, 2009}; ^{PARIS; ALIM, 2017}) and recognition (^{FRASER, 2006}), as well as their choice of community activities is linked to the principles of reciprocity (^{SLEETER; MONTECINOS; JIMÉNEZ, 2016}) and collaborative practices (^{ZEICHNER, 2018}).

To refer to less pronounced relations of coherence, we illustrate this by quoting Carlos (Spanish and Communication). Although he reflects in line with the answers in his inventory, the intensity of his reflection or connection with his practice is weaker:

I think [cultural diversity] is a challenge for us, for example, in the way we evaluate immigrant students. [But] how do we evaluate children who have been evaluated differently for 12 years, and who arrive here [Chile] and have to be evaluated in another way?

I read a sociologist who says that poverty is structural, and for many years I had the misconception that with education you can overcome the gap somewhat, but there are children who grow up in contexts where no one has ever shown them the possibility of doing anything other than what they have seen all their lives. How do we get these children out of that context? Perhaps the classroom is a good way for teachers to show them that there are other possibilities, but I think that, if their family context is negative, there is not much to do.

Despite clearly adhering to the Learner Centered ideology, Carlos does not show clear convictions about how to achieve learning nor does he reflect high expectations (^{SLEETER et al., 2016}) on the students he met in his practicum. Moreover, the reference to his readings and students seems to weaken certain convictions and generate more doubts than certainties.

Finally, to illustrate the findings around an absent relationship, we turn to Fernanda (Early Childhood Education). Interestingly, the impossibility of finding a link between her ideology and the conceptions of diversity and justice seems to be explained by her lack of conceptual clarity. For example, she recognizes that, in spite of her adherence to Learner Centered claims and her position on inequalities in education, her conception of social justice lacks the necessary clarity:

The truth is that [justice] is a difficult concept, and every time I think about it, I reach a void in which I get too tangled up. Because it is complicated that perhaps we do not have a universal definition of justice, we all talk about justice, we have representations of justice, but in truth we do not know what it is.

We recognize how problematic it is to qualify the notion of justice as absent when the interviewee recognizes and reflects on educational inequalities. However, by recognizing a conceptual vacuum, it is also plausible to suggest a vacuum of action that risks immobility in the face of the challenges of the classroom and is not consistent with the discourse that places the learner at the center, since this discourse cannot be dissociated from its context. Certainly, the conceptual vacuum is a responsibility that should be assumed by the teacher education program and is an aspect that we will discuss below.

Ideologically eclectic. Given the variability among those who show ideological eclecticism, we do not present a representative example of the group. However, in terms of the relationship between ideologies and conceptions of diversity and justice, we note that the interviews of “the eclectics” provide accounts that make transparent what they actually think and project into their profession. That is, although their inventories show little adherence to any of ^{Schiro’s four ideologies (2013}) - particularly the Learner Centered and the Social Reconstructionist ideologies, some show clear positions on diversity and justice:

I believe that the school has a responsibility and so do the teachers. I believe that all diversities must be accepted. It’s not that you have to do something different for everyone, but if a child has visual problems, why can only he/she be given facilities to learn and not the others? Another may have problems with dyslexia. That is inclusion approach that can be established in the classroom. (Tatiana, Early Childhood Education)

In my intermediate stage of practicum, I learned a lot more than in the initial one and I had a very direct mentor teacher [...] She defended students and always said things like “here there will be no bullying, here women will be treated well, and men will be treated equally, no matter the sexuality, no matter the gender, etc.” and I feel that I should do the same, it is one of the basic ways to create a safe classroom. I liked that a lot from that teacher. (Gustavo, English)

Both Tatiana’s and Gustavo’s quotes reflect important convictions associated with dealing with diversity and a focus on justice. Although in the first case the notion of diversity is associated almost exclusively with Special Needs - without considering cultural diversity, its conception stands out in terms of equal treatment, recognition, and the responsibility of the educational institution to the needs of students (^{CRAHAY, 2003}; ^{FRASER, 2006}; ^{SLEETER; MONTECINOS; JIMÉNEZ, 2016}). Consequently, their ideological eclecticism does not rule out a particular conviction about diversity and justice in the school. Gustavo, being “eclectic”, highlights the development and consolidation of a position regarding equal treatment, respect and recognition of difference (FRASER, 2006) fostered by the practice and presence of a model to follow.

Finally, we reiterate the relevance of personal biography and personal experiences in order to understand the evolution of ideologies and conceptions. To illustrate, we quote Patricia (Early Childhood Education) who has shown an ideological eclecticism in the inventory, but has clear convictions about diversity while she evokes personal and family experiences:

There are schools and teachers who say that you have to be inclusive, but they are not [...] For example, I have Asperger’s and once I spoke with the school principal and she told me “what you have is not Asperger’s, it’s a trick”, that marked me very strongly.

Lately, there has been a lot of attack on homosexual people and our education system is still closed-minded. For example, my sister is a lesbian, and a person from Chemistry told her, “You are XX, not XY, that is, you are a woman and you have to like men”. And that’s not right. You have to teach children that everyone has the same right, that we are all equal, no matter whether you like a man or a woman.

Although Patricia’s first excerpt repeats the association between diversity and Special Needs, it highlights her conviction and clarity on the subject. That conviction also appears in relation to the need to educate in the just treatment of sexual diversity (second excerpt), both statements being a sign that, despite the eclecticism in other issues, there are clear convictions about diversity and justice that are less linked to an ideology and more to personal biography. Such convictions are closely related to the principles of multicultural education that is social reconstructionist (e.g. ^{SLEETER; GRANT, 2011}) and the social justice orientation represented by recognition (^{FRASER, 2006}; ^{HONNETH, 2006}).