Vulnerability is not an exceptional feature of Romanian classrooms. It is part of their everyday reality. A national study of public-school teachers of English found that 90.2% of respondents were teaching students they considered vulnerable. These students were affected by special educational needs, poverty, Roma marginalisation, family instability, migration, linguistic barriers and emotional distress—often in overlapping combinations.
The study, commissioned by the British Council, drew on a national survey of 1,327 eligible teachers of English from every Romanian county, six focus groups with 43 teachers, interviews with five county inspectors and four NGOs, and preparatory conference discussions and polling. Together, these sources provide the largest account to date of student vulnerability in Romanian schools from the perspective of teachers of English.
90.2%
of surveyed English teachers teach vulnerable students
44.1%
lack sufficient information about their students’ needs
Vulnerability is widespread, but preparation is limited
Special educational needs were the most commonly identified form of vulnerability, reported by 86.3% of teachers who said they taught vulnerable students. Poverty was identified by 77.4%, and Roma background by 55.4%. Yet recognition did not necessarily mean understanding: 44.1% of those teaching vulnerable students said they lacked sufficient information about their needs.
Only 18.9% felt well or very well equipped to address the challenges involved. Relevant training had reached 32.9%, while access to practical support remained uneven: 42.2% reported access to a counsellor or psychologist, but only 14.7% had adapted teaching resources, and 12% had access to an SEN specialist. There is a clear mismatch between the demands teachers face and the preparation, information and specialist support available to them.
Why English lessons can intensify vulnerability
Many pressures stemming from vulnerable students are shared across subjects: irregular attendance, challenging behaviour, limited parental support, mixed-ability classes and the workload of differentiation. English, however, can add a further barrier. Students may be learning through a foreign language while still developing literacy in Romanian. For some, English effectively becomes a third language.
English lessons also make learning public. Speaking, personal writing and interaction expose hesitation, accent and silence in ways that written work may not. Texts concerned with identity, loss, discrimination or injustice can invite meaningful engagement, but they can also expose or reactivate difficult experiences. As one teacher put it, “In English class, vulnerability is public.”
In English class, vulnerability is public. When a student struggles in math, the mistake often stays on paper. When a student struggles in English, the mistake comes out of their mouth—accent, grammar, hesitation, silence.
What needs to change
Teachers asked above all for practical, classroom-focused training, adaptable resources and access to specialist advice. Initial teacher education needs to prepare future teachers for special educational needs, multilingual classrooms and trauma-aware practice through applied work, not only theory. Continuing professional development needs to be sustained and connected to classroom realities, with school-based mentoring, coaching or follow-up rather than only short, isolated courses.
Training alone, however, cannot resolve structural problems. Teachers need clear procedures for recognising concerns and activating referral pathways without being expected to diagnose students. Schools need counsellors, psychologists, SEN specialists, mediators and teaching assistants with manageable workloads. Leaders need to create whole-school approaches in which responsibility is shared, and adaptable materials and assessment guidance must be readily available.
The findings also place teacher well-being within the inclusion agenda. Teachers described emotional exhaustion, isolation and working in “survival mode”. Their commitment remains considerable, but the evidence rejects a model in which individual goodwill compensates for weak systems. In the survey, 85.9% agreed that the education system should ensure teachers are not solely responsible for meeting vulnerable students’ needs, while 74% considered it unrealistic to expect teachers alone to close achievement gaps.
English teachers can make classrooms safer, more accessible and more inclusive. But sustainable change depends on coordinated action across teacher education, professional development, school leadership, specialist provision and partnerships with civil society. Teachers are committed, but the system needs to give them the knowledge, resources and support to act effectively.
What is your experience?
- Which forms of student vulnerability are most visible—or least visible—in your context?
- What practical support has made the greatest difference to teachers working with vulnerable learners?