Conference Program

This article examines the mechanisms through which educational institutions include or exclude students with disabilities, focusing on the intersection between pedagogical practices, institutional organization, and spatialized inequalities. Drawing on critical disability studies, neurodiversity perspectives, and intersectional approaches, it highlights the gap between theory and practice and analyzes how structural arrangements determine which students can fully participate in school life.

The analysis considers processes such as the pairing of students with disabilities with support teachers, the scheduling of support staff—often misaligned with individual learning needs—and the dual role of educators responsible for both teaching and educational support. In practice, this work frequently prioritizes routine instruction over inclusive and personalized practices. Mechanisms that limit participation, such as exemptions from subjects or activities and the “push–pull out” strategies described by Ianes and Canevaro, often remove students from mainstream classrooms rather than adapting teaching to diverse learning profiles. The Individualized Education Plan (PEI) often remains a bureaucratic document, failing to reflect genuine opportunities for learning, autonomy, and inclusion.

Educational guidance and tracking are particularly critical. Recommendations for students with disabilities often follow prescriptive, predictive trajectories, directing them toward pathways considered “more suitable” based on reduced expectations or stereotypical assumptions about their abilities. Guidance thus risks reproducing inequality by restricting access to broader educational opportunities and shaping constrained academic and professional futures.

Another key dimension concerns the intersection of disability and migrant background. Students positioned within this double marginality may face cumulative exclusion stemming both from disability-related barriers and from linguistic, cultural, or social challenges associated with migration. Teachers’ cognitive biases and implicit expectations can exacerbate this, as linguistic or cultural difficulties may be misinterpreted as cognitive deficits, reinforcing segregated educational pathways and limiting full participation.

The empirical basis of this study derives from the author’s direct experience as both classroom and support teacher, integrating systematic observations, case studies, and professional reflection with existing literature. Spatial arrangements—such as the positioning of teachers and students in classrooms—and the material organization of learning environments significantly influence participation and access to educational justice. Conceptualizing the environment as a “third educator” highlights its role in fostering meaningful participation, enabling students with disabilities to exercise autonomy, engage in learning, and be recognized as legitimate participants in school life.

Insufficient teacher recruitment criteria and training, alongside a lack of specialized pedagogical competencies, further exacerbate inequalities and hinder inclusive education. Policy insights point to the need for frameworks that move beyond deficit-based approaches, emphasizing students’ capabilities, autonomy, and right to belong. Overall, the study demonstrates how the design and implementation of support mechanisms can either reinforce structural inequalities or open pathways toward a more equitable, participatory, and just school system.