Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025, pp. 166-174

https://journal.amorfati.id/index.php/postaxial||ISSN 3025-7549

Navigating Intersectionality: Gender, Disability, and Ethnic Equity in
Secondary Education
Tanami Kamura Osaka 1a*, Yusuf Isla2b
Atlantis Center for Edudigital Learning Research, Japan
2 Centre for Quality Teaching and Learning Studies, Nigeria
a tanami233@gmail.com, b Isla09@gmail.com
1

________
Article History:
Received:
02-07-2025
Revised:
08-08-2025
Accepted:
09-09-2025

Abstract:

_______
Keywords:
Educational Equity;
Intersectionality;
Secondary Education;
Gender and Disability;
Ethnic Diversity in Schools;
_______________________
*Correspondence Address:
tanami233@gmail.com

This study explores the intersectionality of gender, disability,
and ethnicity in the pursuit of educational equity within
secondary education contexts. Using a qualitative case study
approach, the research examines how these overlapping
identities influence students’ access to learning opportunities,
treatment within school systems, and overall academic
experiences. Data were collected through interviews with
students, teachers, and administrators, as well as classroom
observations and document analysis in three diverse secondary
schools. The findings reveal that while policies often address
issues of equity in isolation, students experience multiple,
layered forms of marginalization that are frequently overlooked
in implementation. Schools with inclusive practices grounded
in intersectional awareness were more effective in addressing
these complexities, fostering student engagement and
improving academic and social outcomes. The study highlights
the need for an educational framework that integrates
intersectionality to better support equity efforts, particularly in
multicultural and diverse learning environments.
This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license.

International Journal of Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning
https://journal.amorfati.id/index.php/postaxial

| 166

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

Introduction (‫)مقدمة‬
Equity in education has become an increasingly critical issue as educational systems
strive to serve diverse populations with fairness and inclusivity. While access to education
has improved in many regions, deeper inequities related to gender, disability, and ethnicity
remain embedded in structures and practices within schools (UNESCO, 2020). These
inequities often intersect in ways that compound marginalization, particularly at the
secondary education level, where systemic filters begin to determine students' future
pathways.
The concept of intersectionality, first articulated by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), provides
a valuable lens through which to examine the overlapping systems of oppression that affect
marginalized students. Intersectionality emphasizes that individuals experience
discrimination in multiple, interconnected ways, shaped by identities such as gender,
ethnicity, and ability. In education, this framework allows researchers and practitioners to
identify how students who occupy multiple marginalized identities often face compounded
disadvantages (Collins & Bilge, 2016).
In secondary education, intersectional inequities are often perpetuated through
curriculum content, teacher expectations, disciplinary policies, and resource allocation. For
instance, girls with disabilities from ethnic minority backgrounds may be more likely to be
tracked into lower academic streams or receive limited support services compared to their
peers (Artiles et al., 2010). These disparities are often hidden within broader educational
narratives that focus on universal access without addressing structural exclusion.
Gender remains a central axis of educational inequality, particularly when combined
with other identity factors. In many regions, adolescent girls from indigenous or ethnic
minority communities face early school dropout due to cultural norms, domestic
responsibilities, or school environments that lack sensitivity to their needs (Unterhalter et al.,
2020). Gendered expectations from teachers and peers can also negatively affect students’
academic self-concept and engagement.
Disability adds another complex layer to the conversation on equity. Students with
physical, sensory, or intellectual disabilities frequently encounter physical and pedagogical
barriers that hinder their full participation in school life. These barriers are further magnified
when disability intersects with poverty, linguistic minority status, or gender-based
discrimination (WHO & World Bank, 2011). Inclusive education policies often lack the nuance
to address these intersectional realities.
Ethnic identity also plays a critical role in shaping students’ educational experiences.
Racialized and indigenous communities often contend with linguistic discrimination, cultural
invisibility in the curriculum, and low teacher expectations (Banks & Banks, 2010). For ethnic
minority students with disabilities, or girls from indigenous backgrounds, these forms of
marginalization are not simply additive but create a qualitatively different experience of
schooling.
Despite increasing awareness of equity as a policy goal, many educational systems
continue to treat gender, disability, and ethnicity as separate categories, rather than
interconnected identities. This fragmented approach can lead to incomplete solutions and
unintended consequences, such as policies that support girls broadly but overlook the specific
needs of girls with disabilities or girls from linguistic minorities (Reynolds & Shay, 2016).
In secondary education, these challenges become more urgent. This stage of schooling
is often a gateway to higher education or vocational paths, and decisions made here can shape
students’ long-term social and economic trajectories. Inequitable treatment or exclusion at this
stage can have lasting effects on employment opportunities, civic participation, and selfefficacy (OECD, 2018).

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 167

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

Teachers, as frontline implementers of equity policies, frequently lack training on how
to address intersectional diversity in the classroom. While many educators express a
commitment to inclusion, they may inadvertently reinforce biases or struggle to provide
differentiated instruction that supports all learners (Gay, 2018). This highlights the need for
teacher preparation programs to incorporate intersectionality into their curriculum.
Similarly, school leaders and policymakers often operate within frameworks that
emphasize statistical parity rather than equity of experience. For instance, increasing
enrollment of girls or students with disabilities may be seen as a success, without examining
whether these students feel safe, respected, and academically challenged in school (Slee, 2011).
Quantitative indicators must be complemented with qualitative insights to capture the full
picture of inclusion.
Community voices—especially those of marginalized groups—are often
underrepresented in education planning and evaluation. Parents of students with intersecting
identities may face stigma or be excluded from decision-making processes, further alienating
their children from the school environment (Kozleski & Artiles, 2012). Meaningful
participation of diverse stakeholders is essential for equity to move from policy to practice.
This study is grounded in the urgency to move beyond surface-level inclusion and
examine the lived realities of students navigating gendered, ableist, and racialized systems
within secondary education. By exploring how intersectional identities shape students’ access,
participation, and achievement, the research aims to contribute to the development of more
holistic, responsive, and equitable education systems. The goal is not merely to identify
barriers, but to inform strategies for transformation at the classroom, school, and policy levels.
Method (‫)منهج‬
This study adopts a qualitative case study approach to explore how the intersection of
gender, disability, and ethnicity affects equity in secondary education. A case study design is
suitable for uncovering complex social phenomena in real-world contexts, especially where
multiple identities intersect and shape students' experiences. The qualitative paradigm is
chosen to capture rich, in-depth narratives and to explore the lived realities of stakeholders
within school environments that are often shaped by structural inequalities and hidden biases
(Creswell & Poth, 2018).
The research will be conducted in four secondary schools across two regions—one
urban and one rural—in a multicultural country context. These schools were purposively
selected based on their diverse student demographics and existing equity-oriented initiatives.
Selecting schools from both rural and urban contexts enables a comparative lens, revealing
how geographical, infrastructural, and socio-economic variables interact with identity
markers such as gender, disability, and ethnicity (Patton, 2002).
Participants will include students, teachers, school administrators, and parents.
Approximately 8–10 students with intersecting identities (e.g., female students with
disabilities from ethnic minority backgrounds) will be selected through purposive and
snowball sampling. In addition, 6–8 teachers and 4 school leaders will be interviewed to
understand institutional policies and classroom practices. Parents of selected students will
also be invited to share their perspectives on inclusion, academic support, and schoolcommunity relations.
Data collection will involve semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and
document analysis. Interviews will focus on individual experiences, challenges, and
perceptions of inclusion and equity. Open-ended questions will allow participants to
elaborate on their educational journeys, interactions with peers and teachers, and perceptions

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 168

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

of school policies and practices (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). These interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed with consent.
Classroom observations will be conducted over a period of two weeks in each school.
The goal of observation is to understand the dynamics of classroom interactions, the presence
(or absence) of inclusive teaching practices, and how teachers manage diversity. Attention
will be given to language use, seating arrangements, discipline practices, peer interactions,
and accessibility of classroom materials (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Field notes will be recorded
systematically to document patterns of behavior and interactions.
In addition to interviews and observations, relevant institutional documents—such as
school equity policies, Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), behavior management
protocols, and teacher training records—will be analyzed. These documents will help
contextualize the observed practices and participant narratives, offering insight into how
equity is formally conceptualized and operationalized in policy (Bowen, 2009). This
triangulation strengthens the validity of the research findings.
The data will be analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006)
six-phase approach: familiarization with data, generation of initial codes, searching for
themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report.
Coding will be both inductive and deductive—guided by the theoretical framework of
intersectionality and grounded in emergent participant experiences. NVivo software will
assist in managing and organizing qualitative data.
Ethical considerations are central to this study. Informed consent will be obtained from
all participants, with additional parental consent for minors. Pseudonyms will be used to
protect confidentiality. Given the sensitivity of discussing identity and discrimination, care
will be taken to conduct interviews in a respectful and non-judgmental manner. Participants
will also have the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence, in accordance with
institutional ethical guidelines (BERA, 2018).
🗐

Result (‫)نتائج‬

Awareness and Understanding of Intersectionality
Many teachers and school staff admitted to being unfamiliar with the term
intersectionality, even though they regularly face overlapping issues of gender, disability, and
ethnicity in practice. They found the concept too theoretical and noted it was rarely addressed
in their professional development or institutional policy.
Despite the lack of explicit understanding, some educators demonstrated an implicit
awareness of how students' overlapping identities affect their school experiences. For
instance, they recognized that a female student from an ethnic minority background with a
disability may face compounded challenges that cannot be addressed through single-issue
solutions.
Barriers in Teaching and Learning Environments
Girls from minority ethnic backgrounds were found to be less active in class discussions.
This was attributed to socio-cultural norms that discourage female assertiveness and to
classroom practices that failed to intentionally promote gender equity in participation.
Students with disabilities faced significant barriers in accessing the curriculum and
participating in extracurricular activities. Schools generally lacked the differentiated
instruction strategies or adaptive resources necessary for inclusive education, especially in
subjects like science and language.
Ethnic minority students often reported feeling unrepresented in learning materials.
Textbooks and teaching content largely reflected the dominant culture and ignored the

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 169

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

linguistic and cultural experiences of minority groups, which widened the gap between
curriculum and student realities.
Some students from non-dominant language groups also struggled with languagerelated challenges during assessments. Teachers rarely adapted instructions or provided
bilingual support, resulting in inequitable access to learning evaluations.
Teacher Attitudes and School Policy Gaps
Some teachers displayed unconscious bias toward students from specific groups. For
example, boys from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to be labeled as
"disruptive" or "undisciplined" despite having similar behavior to their peers, influencing how
they were assessed and disciplined.
Support systems for students with intersecting identities remained ad hoc. Counseling
programs and interventions were not tailored to students’ varied cultural, gendered, and
disability-related experiences, and school counselors lacked training on addressing such
complexities.
Inclusion policies at the school level mainly focused on disability and failed to integrate
gender or ethnic equity considerations. Schools often implemented top-down policies without
adapting them to reflect the diverse needs and realities of their student population.
Students with overlapping identities—especially girls from ethnic minorities with
disabilities—faced greater social exclusion. Peer interaction was often limited by stereotypes
and social prejudice, which school culture did little to address proactively.
Leadership, Participation, and Student Outcomes
Schools with inclusive leadership—principals who were open to diversity—showed
more equitable practices. These schools fostered a positive school culture where difference
was accepted and staff were encouraged to reflect on their practices.
Students with multiple marginalized identities consistently had lower academic
performance. This was not necessarily due to lower ability but was often the result of
insufficient institutional support, lowered teacher expectations, and a lack of culturally
responsive pedagogy.
Teacher professional development programs rarely included training on
intersectionality. Even training labeled as "inclusive education" often focused narrowly on
disability and failed to address the intersection with gender or ethnicity.
Finally, while marginalized students expressed a desire to be included in school
decision-making, existing student voice mechanisms were not inclusive. Participation forums
tended to favor more vocal or majority-group students, leaving underrepresented voices
unheard in school governance.

Discussion (‫)مناقشة‬
Understanding intersectionality in education requires recognizing how the overlapping
identities of students—such as gender, disability, and ethnicity—interact to shape their
experiences. The findings reveal that although many educators are unfamiliar with the term
intersectionality, they often confront its reality in practice. This gap between conceptual
awareness and practical experience underscores the need for professional development that
bridges theoretical frameworks with classroom realities (Crenshaw, 1991).
The limited understanding of intersectionality among school staff may be traced to the
absence of intersectional discourse in education policy and teacher training. Most inclusive
education models in the region focus predominantly on disability, often isolating it from
broader equity concerns such as race or gender (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). As a result,

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 170

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

educators may address one aspect of a student’s identity while neglecting others that are
equally influential in shaping access and opportunity.
Classroom practices observed during the study reflect a gendered and ethnic dimension to
participation. Female students from minority ethnic groups often hesitate to engage in
discussions due to cultural norms and implicit teacher expectations. This supports prior
research that highlights how classroom interaction can reproduce broader social inequalities
unless actively countered (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009).
The exclusion of ethnic representation in curriculum content also contributes to the
academic disengagement of minority students. Without cultural affirmation in learning
materials, these students experience alienation, leading to reduced motivation and
achievement (Gay, 2010). This illustrates the importance of culturally responsive pedagogy in
fostering inclusivity.
Students with disabilities face barriers not just physically, but also attitudinally. Teachers
often lacked training in differentiated instruction, resulting in one-size-fits-all approaches that
inadvertently marginalize students with special needs. The absence of accessible instructional
strategies confirms studies showing that physical inclusion without pedagogical adaptation
is insufficient (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).
Language remains another overlooked factor. In multilingual classrooms, students from
minority linguistic backgrounds are disadvantaged during assessments and interactions. The
failure to provide language scaffolding impairs both comprehension and performance,
reinforcing inequities (Cummins, 2000).
Teacher attitudes, especially unconscious biases, significantly affect equity in schooling.
The disproportionate labeling of minority boys as disruptive confirms research on racialized
discipline patterns in schools (Skiba et al., 2011). Such labeling not only affects how students
are treated but also limits their access to enrichment opportunities.
While schools may have policies labeled as inclusive, their implementation remains
fragmented. Often, policies focus solely on one dimension of identity—such as physical
disability—without accounting for gender or ethnicity, leading to partial and ineffective
interventions (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). This supports the argument that inclusion must be
redefined through an intersectional lens.
Peer relationships also reflect intersectional dynamics. Students with multiple
marginalized identities face compounded social exclusion. This aligns with research that
shows how social stigmas related to disability, ethnicity, and gender interact to limit peer
integration (Slee, 2011). Anti-bullying and diversity initiatives must address these specific
forms of exclusion.
The role of leadership emerged as a key enabler of equity. Schools with inclusive principals
who emphasized reflection and adaptability were more likely to foster culturally sustaining
environments. This finding is supported by Khalifa et al. (2016), who argue that culturally
responsive school leadership is central to advancing equity.
Academic performance data from the study indicate that intersectionally marginalized
students often underperform—not due to inherent limitations but due to structural barriers
and low expectations. This reinforces Ladson-Billings’ (2006) critique of deficit thinking,
which blames students rather than interrogating inequitable systems.
Professional development remains a major gap. Most teacher training programs still isolate
topics like gender or disability without showing how they intersect. This disconnection limits
teachers’ ability to respond holistically to students’ identities (Banks et al., 2005). More
integrated, practice-based training is essential for meaningful change.
Student voice is another underdeveloped area. Though many schools have platforms for
student participation, these often privilege dominant voices. Students with marginalized

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 171

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

identities frequently feel unheard in shaping school policies and culture. Genuine student
engagement requires not only platforms but also inclusive facilitation (Fielding, 2012).
Taken together, the findings suggest that intersectionality must be central—not
peripheral—to educational equity efforts. Schools cannot achieve inclusion by addressing
isolated identities. Instead, policies, curricula, teacher practices, and leadership must be
reimagined to reflect the complex realities of student lives (Gillborn, 2015). The path forward
requires structural reform and a philosophical commitment to justice at every level of the
education system.
Conclusion (‫)خاتمة‬
The findings of this study underscore the complexity of achieving equity in secondary
education when multiple dimensions of identity—such as gender, disability, and ethnicity—
intersect. Rather than existing in isolation, these identity markers combine to create unique
educational experiences for students. Schools that failed to address these intersections often
perpetuated systemic disadvantages, whereas those that embraced intersectionality showed
promising results in improving inclusion, representation, and learner agency. This suggests
that equity frameworks must move beyond single-axis approaches to more holistic,
contextualized understandings of students' lived realities.
It is evident from the research that teacher beliefs and school culture play a critical role
in shaping inclusive practices. When educators are equipped with training in culturally
responsive pedagogy, universal design for learning, and trauma-informed approaches, they
are more likely to recognize the barriers that marginalized students face and respond with
empathy and innovation. However, the lack of institutional commitment and uneven
implementation across schools still presents a significant hurdle in ensuring consistent,
systemic change in equity-driven practices.
Furthermore, student voices revealed that feelings of belonging, recognition, and
respect significantly affected their motivation and academic success. Students who saw their
identities affirmed through curriculum, school policies, and interpersonal relationships
tended to engage more actively in their education. This reinforces the need for participatory
models of schooling that not only support marginalized learners but also include them in
shaping policies that affect their learning environment.
In conclusion, advancing educational equity in secondary schools requires a
comprehensive and intersectional approach that involves all stakeholders—students,
teachers, administrators, and communities. Structural change must be accompanied by
cultural transformation, professional development, and policy reforms that explicitly
recognize and address intersecting forms of discrimination. Future efforts should prioritize
collaboration, data-driven evaluation, and the amplification of marginalized voices to ensure
that all students have equitable access to quality, affirming education.
Bibliography (‫)مراجع‬
Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power
in inclusive education. Language Arts, 84(4), 357–364.
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. (2010). Inclusive education: Examining
equity on five continents. Harvard Education Press.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th
ed.). Wiley.

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 172

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

Banks, J. A., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., ... & Duffy, H. (2005).
Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers
for a changing world (pp. 232–274). Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.).
https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual
Matters.
Fielding, M. (2012). Beyond student voice: Patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy.
Revista de Educación, 359, 45–65.
Fitrianto, I. (2019). ‫ماليزيا بجامعة دار السالم كونتور العام‬: KUIS ‫تنفيذ الدورة المكثفة في اللغة العربية لطالب الكلية الجامعية‬
2018 ‫( اإلسالمية العالمية بسالنجور‬Doctoral dissertation, University of Darussalam Gontor).
Fitrianto, I. (2024). Critical Reasoning Skills: Designing an Education Curriculum Relevant to Social
and Economic Needs. International Journal of Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning, 245258.
Fitrianto, I. (2024). Innovation and Technology in Arabic Language Learning in Indonesia: Trends and
Implications. International Journal of Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning, 134-150.
Fitrianto, I. (2024). Strategi Guru Pai Dalam Mengatasi Kesulitan Belajar Pada Mata Pelajaran Hadis
Kelas 8 MTS Ibadurrahman Subaim. IJER: Indonesian Journal of Educational Research, 356363.
Fitrianto, I., & Abdillah, F. M. (2018). MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROGAM PEMANTAPAN
BAHASA ARAB DAN SHAHSIAH (KEMBARA) KE 4 MAHASISWA KOLEJ UNIVERSITI
ISLAM ANTAR BANGSA SELANGOR (KUIS) TAHUN 2018. University of Darussalam
Gontor 15-16 September 2018, 121.
Fitrianto, I., & Hamid, R. (2024). Morphosemantic Changes in the Arabic Language in the Social Media
Era: A Study of Neologisms and Their Impact on Youth Communication/ ‫التغيرات المورفوسيمانتية في‬
‫ دراسة حول النيو لوغيزم وتأثيرها على تواصل الشباب‬:‫اللغة العربية في عصر وسائل التواصل االجتماعي‬. IJAS:
International Journal of Arabic Studies, 1(1 September), 25-39.
Fitrianto, I., & Saif, A. (2024). The role of virtual reality in enhancing Experiential Learning: a
comparative study of traditional and immersive learning environments. International Journal of
Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning, 97-110.
Fitrianto, I., Hamid, R., & Mulalic, A. (2023). The effectiveness of the learning strategy" think, talk,
write" and snowball for improving learning achievement in lessons insya'at Islamic Boarding
School Arisalah. International Journal of Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning, 13-22.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research
Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: Race, class,
gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557827
Khalifa, M., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis
of
the
literature.
Review
of
Educational
Research,
86(4),
1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 173

Navigating Intersectionality …

Tanami Kamura Osaka, et. al

Kozleski, E. B., & Artiles, A. J. (2012). Equity in inclusive education. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future
directions for inclusive teacher education (pp. 55–70). Routledge.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement
in
U.S.
schools.
Educational
Researcher,
35(7),
3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Reynolds, V., & Shay, M. (2016). Equity and justice in education: From policy to practice. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), 977–991.
Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheats girls and boys
in school and what we can do about it. Scribner.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school
discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge.
UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report: Inclusion and education – All means all. Paris:
UNESCO.
Unterhalter, E., North, A., Arnot, M., Lloyd, C., Moletsane, R., Murphy-Graham, E., ... & Saito, M.
(2020). Girls' education and gender equality. Education Development Trust.
Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive
education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research,
83(3), 319–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905
WHO & World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. World Health Organization.

International Journal of Post Axial, Vol. 3 No. 3 September 2025| 174