Introduction

Creating inclusive and supportive environments is essential for everyone. This is especially true for neurodivergent children, people with disabilities, and racial or ethnic minority communities who often face systemic barriers. This literature review explores how Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) principles are applied in education, healthcare, and community settings to make these environments more fair and welcoming. By looking at evidence from research studies and real-world examples, the review highlights strategies that truly make a difference. For instance, schools that use Universal Design for Learning (UDL) help neurodivergent students engage and succeed academically. Workplaces that provide thoughtful accommodations create opportunities for employees with disabilities to thrive. Public health programs designed with DEIA in mind improve outcomes for marginalized racial and ethnic groups. While challenges in consistent implementation remain, the findings stress that when DEIA principles are applied thoughtfully, they can change lives, foster belonging, and create opportunities for all individuals to reach their full potential.

Core Principles of DEIA

Diversity

Diversity refers to “the collective (all-inclusive) mixture of human differences and similarities along a given dimension” (An & Lee, 2021; Cox, 1995; Lundy et al., 2021). It emphasizes a supportive and inclusive recognition of all people, asserting that every individual and group—regardless of cultural background, class, cognitive style, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or learning difference—should be valued. More than mere tolerance, diversity encourages a deeper awareness and understanding of the multifaceted ways people differ (Russo & Mhamed-Patel, 2011).

Equity

Rooted in Rawls’ (1971) Theory of Justice, equity promotes the fair distribution of social and economic opportunities to address structural imbalances. It focuses on correcting disparities by ensuring individuals have access to the resources and support they need to succeed. In the context of education, this includes equitable access to academic support, learning tools, and institutional resources (Mince, 2011; National Association of Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2022). 

Inclusion

Inclusion is the ongoing, intentional effort to ensure meaningful participation and belonging within institutions. It involves compassionately and wisely drawing in individuals or communities—often those with learning differences, marginalized social identities, or non-dominant cultural experiences—into shared decision-making, leadership, and access to institutional support (Carpenter, 2022). As Myers (2015) aptly noted, “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.”

Accessibility

Accessibility focuses on removing physical, technological, and systemic barriers to full participation. It ensures that individuals with disabilities have the same opportunities to engage in learning, use services, and participate in activities as their peers. Accessibility is a foundational aspect of equity and inclusion, bridging the gap between opportunity and actual participation.

DEIA as a Framework for Addressing Social Determinants & Structural Inequities

Your health isn’t just about what happens inside the doctor’s office; a lot of it depends on your surroundings. Things like how much money you make, your education level, whether you have stable housing, and how safe your neighborhood is all play a significant role in shaping your well-being. These factors are often called the social determinants of health, or SDOH. To really tackle the unfairness that exists within these social factors, we look at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA). 

These frameworks aren’t just about showing representation; they’re about making fundamental, widespread changes: creating fairer policies, making sure resources reach marginalized groups, and breaking down the barriers that keep certain groups out. As Al Mamun and colleagues pointed out in 2025, the gaps in health outcomes driven by race, socioeconomic status, location, or disability need approaches that focus on fairness and are backed by solid data. This means designing interventions that put equity at the center and use evidence to guide actions.

DEIA as a Tool Against Structural Inequality

Structural inequality refers to the ways in which social, economic, and political systems systematically advantage some groups while disadvantaging others, often through long-standing policies, cultural norms, and institutional practices. These inequalities aren’t random; they are embedded in the structures of society and influence opportunities, resources, and outcomes for different populations.

For example, the racial achievement gap in schools, limited access to healthcare in rural or underfunded areas, and the ongoing underrepresentation of people with disabilities in media and politics are all signs of deeper issues rooted in systems of racism, ableism, classism, and other intersecting forms of discrimination (Bailey et al., 2017; Crenshaw, 1989).

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s also a practical way to challenge these unfair structures. When we bring in frameworks like Critical Race Theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017) or Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach (Sen, 1999), DEIA shifts our focus from quick fixes to long-term systemic change. These models encourage us to examine not just the symptoms of inequality, but also the root systems that maintain them.

Application Of DEIA in Schools, Public Systems, and Health Programs

Strengthening Public Health Systems

A diverse and inclusive public health workforce is not only ethically sound but also demonstrably more effective. Teams that reflect the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the communities they serve are better positioned to build trust, communicate effectively, and identify service gaps that may otherwise go unnoticed (Bailey et al., 2017). For example, public health campaigns delivered by culturally representative teams have been shown to increase vaccination uptake and adherence to preventive care in minority communities. System-level change begins with those trained to lead it. Incorporating DEIA principles into public health education—through case-based learning, reflective practices, mentorship programs, and meaningful community engagement—has been shown to reduce implicit bias, foster culturally competent care, and empower future public health leaders to design equitable interventions (Hammond, 2015; Daniel et al., 2022).

Inclusive Technology and Innovation

As Sharma et al. (2024) argue, DEIA frameworks must evolve to include digital health dimensions, as failure to do so can widen gaps in care, particularly among disabled, rural, and low-income populations. Examples include telehealth platforms designed with accessibility features for individuals with visual or hearing impairments, multilingual health apps for non-English speakers, and AI-based screening tools tested across diverse populations to avoid algorithmic bias. Integrating DEIA into technological innovation ensures that advances in health services are equitable and do not inadvertently exacerbate disparities. 

Programmatic Access and Accountability

Integrating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility principles across public health systems creates more effective, equitable, and responsive care for marginalized populations, including neurodivergent individuals, people with disabilities, and racial or ethnic minority communities (Bailey et al., 2017; Crenshaw, 1989). A workforce that reflects the communities it serves builds trust, improves communication, and identifies service gaps that might otherwise go unnoticed (Bailey et al., 2017), while DEIA-informed education and mentorship programs equip future leaders with the skills to design culturally competent interventions (Hammond, 2015; Daniel et al., 2022). Beyond workforce development, incorporating DEIA into digital health innovations—such as accessible telehealth platforms, multilingual apps, and bias-tested AI tools—ensures that technological advances reach all populations equitably (Sharma et al., 2024).

Finally, using data-driven approaches like geospatial mapping—which involves visually plotting health resources, population demographics, and health outcomes on maps to identify patterns and disparities—community health audits, and predictive analytics enable public health programs to pinpoint inequities, target resources effectively, and increase accountability (Humphries et al., 2023). For example, mapping the locations of mental health facilities or healthy food outlets can reveal underserved areas and inform interventions that directly address these gaps. By combining inclusive leadership, innovative technology, and programmatic equity, DEIA principles help public health systems transform structural inequalities into opportunities for measurable improvements in access, engagement, and well-being.

Scope of the Review

This literature review examines the core principles and applied impact of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility within the intersecting contexts of educational and public health systems. The focus is specifically on neurodivergent individuals, racial minorities, and people with disabilities, who have historically experienced disproportionate exclusion, stigma, and limited access to equitable services and opportunities.

Population Focus

This review looks at three overlapping groups of people whose social identities often come together, making their experiences of marginalization stronger. In schools and healthcare settings built around neurotypical standards, neurodivergent individuals, including those with autism, ADHD, or other cognitive differences, often find themselves left out of the support and services they need to succeed (Kapp, 2020; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2023).

People with disabilities face many challenges. These can include inaccessible buildings, limited specialized services, under-diagnosis, and medical ableism (World Health Organization, 2022). Many are also missing from leadership roles, decision-making bodies, and public policy discussions. This absence can make it harder for their voices to be heard and their needs met. Common obstacles—such as difficulty accessing higher education, job discrimination, and lack of social or community support—widen disparities and limit opportunities.

At the same time, racial minorities, especially Black, Indigenous, and Latina communities, continue to face systemic racism. This racism shows up in discriminatory healthcare practices, unequal school discipline, and ongoing underrepresentation in leadership (Bailey et al., 2017; Skiba et al., 2014). Understanding these overlapping challenges is crucial for realizing how DEIA principles can help create more inclusive and fair environments for everyone.

Systems in Focus: Education and Public Health

This review looks at how education and public health systems significantly influence the lives of marginalized groups. Schools are not just places for academic learning; they are environments where children develop social skills, understand societal norms, and build self-esteem. However, practices like restraint, seclusion, suspensions, expulsions, and corporal punishment often target Black students and those who are neurodivergent more than others. The consequences can be severe and long-lasting. For example, Black students are 3.2 times more likely to be suspended or expelled compared to their white peers. Black boys face the highest rates of school corporal punishment at 16%, nearly double that of white boys at 9% (Gershoff et al., 2016). These disciplinary actions can lead to disengagement from school, increased mental health challenges, and obstacles that hinder future success (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights [OCR], 2023). Public health services also have a key role in shaping population health through choices about care distribution, resource allocation, and health messaging. Yet, significant inequalities persist. These include language and cultural barriers, a lack of diversity among health professionals, and biases that affect diagnoses and treatment (Gee & Ford, 2011; World Health Organization, 2022).

From History to Today: Understanding Structural Inequities in Education and Healthcare

The exclusion of disabled, neurodivergent, and racialized individuals is not just a problem of the past; it influences many of our institutions today. Historically, practices like segregated schools, forced institutionalization, and even eugenics were openly supported by pseudoscience and fear (Ferri & Connor, 2006; Simmons, 2017). Landmark laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are crucial, yet they have not entirely removed these patterns of exclusion.

Today, disabled and neurodivergent students still face barriers in schools that do not meet their needs. Many people of color continue to encounter systemic obstacles to accessing quality care, representation, and justice (Artiles et al., 2010). Recent policy initiatives, including the July 2025 executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” focus on civil commitment and institutionalization for individuals with mental health conditions or substance use disorders. While these measures aim to address public safety concerns, they raise worries about a potential return to practices similar to past institutionalization and exclusion. This highlights the ongoing importance of DEIA-focused approaches in creating inclusive institutions.

Intersectionality and Public Health Ethics

Public health goes beyond statistics; it’s about doing what is right for everyone. This means ensuring resources are shared fairly and paying close attention to those who have been overlooked or excluded from care and opportunities. Principles like distributive justice, as Beauchamp and Childress (2019) describe, urge us to focus on fairness and prioritize those in greatest need.

Incorporating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility into public health isn’t just a checklist. It’s about truly improving systems to be more effective. When systems are designed to be inclusive from the beginning, they better respond to people’s real needs and build trust. Addressing DEIA helps tackle problems rooted in long-standing inequalities. These concepts of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility emerged from the need to confront persistent, deep-rooted inequities.

Structural Inequities and Systemic Discrimination

Unlike individual acts of bias, structural inequities persist through systems that often go unquestioned, including funding formulas, zoning laws, and curriculum standards. These disparities particularly affect individuals based on race, disability status, neurodivergence, gender, and class. 

In the United States, residential segregation stems from discriminatory practices like redlining. It continues to affect educational and health outcomes. Predominantly Black and Latine neighborhoods often have underfunded public schools, limited healthcare access, and higher exposure to environmental hazards. This is a significant issue in environmental justice. Environmental justice stresses that all communities should receive equal protection from environmental harm and equal access to environmental benefits. Students in these communities usually attend schools with fewer qualified teachers, outdated materials, and fewer extracurricular activities. Many of these schools are located near pollution sources, like highways and industrial areas. This proximity leads to higher levels of air pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. These environmental pressures are linked to respiratory problems, increased absenteeism, and lower academic performance. 

Furthermore, lead exposure is a major concern. Older school buildings in these neighborhoods often have lead-based paint and contaminated soil. This poses risks to children’s neurological development and academic success. Addressing these environmental injustices is essential for creating fair educational opportunities and improving public health outcomes.

Systemic ableism continues to keep people with disabilities from fully participating in education and work. Many schools and workplaces are still physically inaccessible, do not have inclusive practices, or do not provide appropriate accommodations. This situation reinforces marginalization (World Health Organization, 2022).

Structural racism and ableism often intersect and create extra disadvantages. For example, Black students with disabilities are much more likely than their white peers to face harsh discipline, be placed in restrictive special education settings, or be denied individualized accommodations (Skiba et al., 2014; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights [OCR], 2023). 

Barriers in Education and Healthcare

Education

In schools, systemic barriers take many forms. Biased testing and evaluation practices often misclassify neurodivergent students. For instance, autism and ADHD are often underdiagnosed in girls and students of color. Black students with similar challenges may be labeled as “emotionally disturbed” instead of being recognized as autistic (Ferri & Connor, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP], 2022). There is also a lack of teacher training in inclusive practices, and strict discipline policies disproportionately affect Black and neurodivergent students. These barriers limit access to education, disrupt learning pathways, and lower the chances of success after high school. The clear differences in how students are identified and supported show that race can affect the recognition of educational needs, maintaining inequities in access to appropriate services. Notably, Black students are twice as likely as their White peers to be diagnosed with emotional disturbance, a classification often related to school discipline. They are also less likely to receive diagnoses for conditions like autism or ADHD (National Education Association -NEA, 2024).

Healthcare

Barriers in healthcare include communication gaps, culturally incompetent care, inadequate provider training on neurodivergence and disability, and systemic mistrust, particularly among historically excluded communities. For instance, studies show that autistic adults often face miscommunication, lack of informed consent, and untreated co-occurring conditions due to provider bias or lack of training (Nicolaidis et al., 2015). Meanwhile, Black and Indigenous patients report higher rates of medical neglect, dismissal of pain, and underdiagnosis (Williams & Mohammed, 2009).

Legacies of Exclusion and the Path Toward Equitable Public Health

In both educational and clinical settings, marginalized populations, particularly neurodivergent students and students of color, are much more likely to experience exclusionary and coercive practices like seclusion, physical restraint, and involuntary institutionalization. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2023), while Black students make up about 15% of the overall student population, they represent over 35% of those subjected to restraint or seclusion in schools. Similarly, although students with disabilities account for only 13% of total enrollment, they make up more than 75% of all recorded physical restraint cases.

These practices are invasive and traumatic. They are also ineffective and harmful. Often, they worsen behavioral issues, damage trust in authority figures, and increase dropout rates and mental health crises (Butchart et al., 2020). In healthcare and psychiatric settings, staff often use physical restraint on autistic, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill individuals. This is often justified as “behavioral management.” However, research indicates that people with limited communication skills or self-advocacy abilities, especially those from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds, are disproportionately affected (Brown et al., 2018).

Impact of Marginalization on Long-Term Health and Educational Outcomes

Systemic marginalization has lasting effects on educational and health outcomes. Children who face discrimination, exclusion, or restraint are at a higher risk for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). These experiences are connected to long-term problems like depression, chronic illness, and suicide (Felitti et al., 1998). When students are excluded from education, they are less likely to graduate, which limits their job opportunities and lowers their life expectancy.

At the population level, these differences lead to serious public health issues. Racially minoritized groups have higher rates of chronic illness due to stress and discrimination (Williams & Mohammed, 2009). Autistic individuals have higher suicide risks, often caused by exclusion and gaps in services (Cassidy et al., 2018). Black women face significantly higher rates of maternal mortality, even when income and education are taken into account; this highlights systemic bias in care (CDC, 2021).

A Legacy of Denial and Dehumanization

Historically, public institutions like schools and hospitals were never built to include everyone. Disabled children were often placed in institutions instead of being educated. Neurodivergent students were often viewed as problems rather than being given the support they needed. Black and Indigenous families were denied essentials like clean water, healthcare, and school funding, not due to mistakes but because systems were set up to leave them out. These injustices were not isolated; they stemmed from policies and beliefs that communicated to whole groups of people that they mattered less (Ferri & Connor, 2006; Simmons, 2017). Understanding this history is important. It reminds us that DEIA is not only about improving policies; it’s about restoring humanity where it has been systematically denied.

Landmark Legal Milestones

The Civil Rights Movement (1950s–60s) marked a significant period for equality. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1973 and enforced in 1977. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1975/1990) stated that every child, no matter their ability, deserves a free and appropriate education. However, true equity remains a challenge, especially for students of color with invisible disabilities (OSEP, 2022). 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) expanded these rights to include employment, public access, and transportation. This law solidified disability rights within U.S. civil rights law (Pelka, 2012).DEIA in Public

Health: From Moral Ideal to Ethical Imperative

Historically, public health has dealt with systemic inequities in society. For decades, medical research and public health initiatives have left out women, disabled individuals, neurodivergent populations, and racial and ethnic minorities. Health communication campaigns often failed to reach disabled communities. Medical services were often hard to access, unwelcoming, or discriminatory.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Health for All” agenda and the Alma-Ata Declaration from 1978 changed how we view health, making it a human right. This viewpoint focuses on achieving complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not just the absence of disease. In the United States, the Heckler Report from 1985 marked a significant change. It identified racial and ethnic health disparities as a public health crisis, noting tens of thousands of avoidable deaths each year due to unequal care. The report called for systemic reforms (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1985).

Systemic Neglect and the Rise of Inclusive Education Models

Throughout modern history, disabled people, neurodivergent individuals, and racial minorities were not just neglected. They were often shut out of policymaking processes and treated as if they didn’t exist within the systems that govern public life. Disability was mainly viewed through a medical lens, which reduced individuals to their diagnoses.

Neurodivergence was seen as a shortcoming, and race was used to uphold discriminatory systems, including medical abuse, as demonstrated in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. One of the most infamous examples is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 to 1972. In this study, hundreds of Black men with syphilis were misled into believing they were receiving medical treatment when, in reality, researchers withheld effective care, even after penicillin was identified as a cure in the 1940s. The men were monitored to study the progression of the disease, leading to decades of preventable suffering and death. This unethical study shows how racism and systemic neglect in research and healthcare damaged trust and reinforced exclusionary practices and other ethically questionable research practices (Washington, 2006).

These legacies continue to shape today’s education and healthcare policy. Issues of race, disability, and neurodivergence are often treated separately. This ignores how overlapping identities influence lived experiences. For instance, racialized autistic students are more likely to be misdiagnosed, unfairly disciplined, or denied proper services. This happens because of policy gaps that do not consider compounded marginalization (Skiba et al., 2014; Erevelles & Minear, 2010).

Understanding history is important not only to honor those who fought for inclusion but also to prevent repeating past mistakes. Exclusion has never happened by chance; it has been planned, systemic, and upheld by laws, funding, and cultural beliefs (Ferri & Connor, 2006).

Inclusive Education Models: UDL and Academic Gains

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It is a flexible educational framework that meets different learning needs from the start. UDL promotes various ways to present information, engage students, and allow for expression. This creates equal opportunities for all students, no matter their learning profiles (CAST, 2018).

Recent studies show that UDL can boost academic performance. A meta-analysis by King-Sears et al. (2023) found significant achievement gains for both students with and without disabilities in UDL-based classrooms. Similarly, Almeqdad et al. (2023) found that using UDL in higher education reduced access barriers and promoted inclusion, especially for marginalized learners.

Building Inclusive Schools: Restorative Justice, Neurodiversity, and Culturally Responsive Teaching

Restorative Justice: Reducing Suspensions and Bridging Discipline Gaps

Traditional punitive discipline unfairly affects marginalized students, particularly Black, disabled, and neurodivergent youth. It reinforces cycles of exclusion and disengagement from academics (Skiba et al., 2014). On the other hand, restorative justice (RJ) models emphasize accountability, healing, and relationship building through inclusive dialogue.

Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has been at the forefront of implementing Restorative Justice (RJ). This has led to significant improvements. From 2015 to 2016 and again from 2019 to 2020, OUSD’s overall suspension rates fell from about 4.2% to 2.9%. Schools that took part in Restorative Justice saw an additional drop of 20 percentage points in suspension rates (Evans & Lester, 2021). In some schools that used whole-school Restorative Justice models, expulsions dropped to zero, and suspensions decreased by as much as 87% (González, 2012).

Autism Inclusion and Neurodiversity-Affirming Practices

Emerging inclusive education practices view neurodiversity as a natural aspect of human experience, not as a deficit. These approaches have demonstrated benefits for both academic and social-emotional growth in autistic students. For instance, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Autism Inclusion Program trains educators in sensory regulation and co-regulation. This program has reported fewer behavioral referrals, increased classroom engagement, and improved learning outcomes (Massachusetts DESE, 2022).

Organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) have been important in promoting strengths-based and supportive models. These models follow public health ethics that focus on autonomy, well-being, and inclusion (ASAN, 2020).

Racially Conscious Teaching and Culturally Responsive Curriculum

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP), first described by Ladson-Billings in 1995, is a teaching approach that integrates students’ cultural backgrounds, lived experiences, languages, and identities into the learning process. At its core, CRP rests on three pillars: fostering academic achievement, developing cultural competence, and nurturing critical consciousness—the ability for students to recognize and challenge social inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1995). CRP recognizes students’ experiences, languages, and identities in the classroom. This teaching method improves engagement, self-confidence, and academic success, especially for racially marginalized students. 

Seattle Public Schools in Washington state and Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland have initiated programs such as Courageous Conversations about Race. This program trains educators to reflect on unconscious bias and reshape classroom discussions, as noted by Singleton and Linton in 2006. Early assessments show improvements in student retention, engagement, and learning outcomes. Similarly, the New York City Department of Education in NewYork launched a culturally responsive-sustaining education framework, which specifically addresses racism and ableism. After implementing this framework, schools reported higher graduation rates and fewer discipline problems, according to the NYC Department of Education in 2021.

From Care to Community: Culturally Responsive and Family-Centered DEIA Approaches

Culturally competent care, which means delivering healthcare that respects the language, beliefs, and values of different groups, has been associated with better health outcomes. This is particularly true for racial and ethnic minorities. The important Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Unequal Treatment, found that even when factoring in socioeconomic status and insurance, racial disparities still existed. This was due to provider bias, lack of interpreters, and unfair treatment of referrals (Institute of Medicine, 2003).

Betancourt (2005) pointed out that cultural competence is a key tool for reducing inequalities. Later research backs up these findings. Scoping reviews indicate that culturally tailored interventions, such as training in cultural humility and hiring community health workers, can build trust, improve treatment adherence, and reduce hospital readmissions among underserved groups (Truong et al., 2014; López et al., 2018). Integrated care models, like community health centers that incorporate cultural responsiveness into their services, also show increased usage and patient satisfaction among marginalized populations (Shi et al., 2012).

Case Example: Harlem Children’s Zone—A Whole-Child, Whole-Community Model

The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) in New York exemplifies large-scale, community-rooted DEIA implementation. HCZ addresses intersecting inequities through an ecosystem of services—education, healthcare, housing, and family support—designed to break cycles of poverty in Black communities. The model begins at birth and continues through college, operating under the principle that equity in education must be supported by broader systemic reform.

Evaluations of HCZ have found increased high school and college graduation rates, successful early childhood inclusion of children with disabilities, and improved family engagement, demonstrating that intersectional, community-driven models yield substantial outcomes (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011).

Family Engagement and Disability Justice in Schools

Family involvement, particularly from caregivers of students with disabilities or intersectional identities, is critical yet often underutilized in DEIA efforts. Inclusive models recognize families as co-educators and community leaders, not obstacles.

In Chicago Public Schools, the Parent Mentor Program trains low-income parents, primarily women of color, to work directly in classrooms. These mentors enhance literacy and support students with behavioral challenges or IEPs. The initiative improves attendance, builds school-family trust, and boosts student outcomes. Notably, many mentors become long-term education advocates, school board members, or pursue careers in teaching, exemplifying how equity begins with empowerment (Pilsen Neighbors Community Council, 2019).

Inclusive Schools, Better Outcomes: The Case for DEIA

Schools are more than academic institutions; they are critical sites where identity, belonging, health, and opportunity converge. Embedding Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in school systems transforms not only attendance and test scores, but also students’ social-emotional lives and long-term trajectories.

Improved Academic Outcomes

Research shows that environments that promote diversity and inclusion often have better graduation and retention rates. At the college level, programs that provide learning assistants to students in challenging STEM courses have raised six-year graduation rates by about 9%. First-generation students saw an 18% rise, while underrepresented minorities experienced a 21% increase. This shows that targeted support can effectively close equity gaps (Theobald et al., 2020). In K–12 schools, those that create strong policies and supportive cultures usually see higher GPAs and fewer dropouts, especially among marginalized groups (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019).

Attendance and Absenteeism

Inclusive school climates contribute to safer and more supportive environments, which in turn reduce truancy and absenteeism. Students who feel they belong are more likely to attend regularly and engage deeply with learning (CDC, 2009). Increased presence is strongly associated with better academic trajectories and reduced disengagement.

Critical Thinking and Cognitive Gains

Classrooms that embrace diversity and affirm all identities encourage the development of higher-order thinking skills. The American Psychological Association (APA, 2019) found that exposure to inclusive environments enhances critical thinking, problem-solving, and civic preparedness.

School Belonging and Connectedness

A large meta-analysis showed that students who feel connected to their school report significantly lower rates of depression and anxiety over time (CDC, 2009; Allen et al., 2018). Positive school environments, marked by supportive relationships between teachers and students as well as among peers, are associated with fewer symptoms of depression and better emotional health. Feeling like they belong also boosts self-worth, lowers the chance of dropping out, and encourages engagement, especially when schools implement inclusive policies and provide clear support for marginalized groups (Steele & Cohn-Vargas, 2013).

Bullying Reduction

Students with disabilities, neurodivergent traits, and marginalized racial or gender identities face bullying more often. Inclusive school settings and active anti-bullying measures can reduce bullying by 18 to 19% and victimization by 15 to 16% (Espelage et al., 2013).

For example, being part of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) leads to less victimization, a lower use of homophobic language, fewer absences due to safety worries, and improved mental health for LGBTQ students (Kosciw et al., 2020). Practices that promote spiritual and cultural inclusion can also help lower bullying and stigma linked to bias.

Mental Health and Psychological Resilience

Inclusive environments reduce loneliness and build emotional strength. Social inclusion in school is a strong predictor of better mental health and less isolation, especially for LGBTQ youth (Snapp et al., 2015). Long-term studies show that students who feel connected to school have fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression over time. This connection is linked to increased engagement, higher self-esteem, and support from adults (CDC, 2009; Allen et al., 2018).

Correlation Between DEIA and Student Success

Inclusive Settings and Dual Benefits

Inclusive classrooms help both students with disabilities and their non-disabled classmates. They lower stigma, encourage empathy, and improve social bonds. One long-term study showed that students in inclusive settings had better social skills, academic performance, and self-esteem than those in separate environments (Hehir et al., 2016).

Identity, Safety, and Academic Gains

Mere exposure to diversity is not enough. Research shows that identity safety cues and equity-centered narratives are important. Students who received strong messages of multiculturalism and non-discrimination did better than their peers in “colorblind” settings, particularly among stigmatized groups (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Multi-session DEIA training programs have been proven to improve school climate and inclusion. This leads to academic and social benefits over time (Okonofua et al., 2016).

Whole-School Climate and Systemic Change

School climate, shaped by relationships, safety, fairness, and expectations, directly affects academic and emotional outcomes. Positive climates link to higher test scores, better attendance, and fewer behavior problems (Thapa et al., 2013). The Wingspread Declaration on School Connections, supported by CDC findings, outlines best practices for building belonging. These include mentoring, inclusive discipline, and fair policy standards (CDC, 2009).

Case Studies

1. Postsecondary Success for Students with Disabilities: Inclusive K–12 education is linked to higher college attendance, employment, and independent living rates among students with disabilities (Morningstar et al., 2017). 

2. Reduced Disciplinary Referrals: Schools that use Universal Design for Learning (UDL), create sensory-friendly environments, and offer flexible assessments report fewer behavioral incidents and more participation among autistic and ADHD students (CAST, 2024). 

3. Lower Suspension Rates: Districts that apply neurodiversity-affirming methods and positive behavior supports have seen a drop in suspension rates for autistic and ADHD students. Many of these students were previously punished for sensory overload instead of bad behavior (CAST, 2024).

The Politicization of DEIA- Legislative Backlash

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility, once framed as a moral and public health imperative, is increasingly depicted as divisive and discriminatory in public discourse. This section examines how DEIA has been politicized and distorted by legislation and media, and how such attacks undermine school climate, educator morale, and student safety.

Political Distortion and Legislative Attacks

Since 2023, a wave of anti-DEIA legislation has spread across the United States. By early 2025, at least 28 bills have become law in states like Florida, Alabama, Utah, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa. These laws target university DEI offices, diversity statements, and funding mechanisms (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2025).

At the state level: 

Florida’s SB 266 / HB 999 bans DEIA programs and critical race theory in higher education. It also disallows hiring or curricula based on identity (DeSantis, 2023). 

Georgia’s HB 127, nearing passage in 2025, prohibits policies based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or intersectionality. It includes penalties like funding cuts (Associated Press [AP] News, 2025).

At the federal level: 

Executive Order 14190 (January 29, 2025) prohibits K–12 schools from teaching so-called “anti-American” or “subversive” concepts. This includes gender identity and critical race theory. The order also allows for criminal prosecution of educators who support transgender inclusion (White House, 2025). 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo in February 2025. It warned that federal funds would be taken away from institutions that kept DEIA-specific programs. The memo urged a shift toward “universal” merit-based models (Reuters, 2025). 

The Department of Education (DOE) followed up with a “Dear Colleague” letter. This letter instructed schools to eliminate racial preferences in admissions, hiring, and discipline (DOE, 2025).

Punishing Difference: How Schools Fail Autistic and Racially Marginalized Students

Despite greater focus on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility, recent cases show that neurodivergent individuals and racial minority students still experience significant harm in educational settings. Practices like restraint, seclusion, racial profiling, and attacks on inclusive policies have not only continued but have also increased in many areas.

Restraint and Seclusion of Autistic Students

In Connecticut, the 2023-2024 school year recorded over 46,000 incidents of restraint or seclusion involving more than 4,000 special education students. This marks a 4% rise from the previous year and a 19% increase compared to the period before the pandemic. Among these incidents, 417 led to physical injury, with 18 requiring medical attention. Black, Hispanic, male, and autistic students were affected more than others (Altimari, 2024).

A state investigation in Wisconsin uncovered serious issues at Weston Elementary School. Untrained staff misused seclusion and restraint. Documentation was often lacking, and seclusion rooms were locked. In one troubling incident, the school superintendent allegedly dragged a first-grade autistic student by the ankle. The district also did not inform parents or report incidents to the state’s online platform, which led the family to withdraw the student due to trauma (Linnane, 2024).

In Arizona, data from the 2020 to 2021 school year at Arizona Autism Charter Schools showed that 41% of students were physically restrained and 20% were placed in seclusion. These rates were about 50% higher than the national average. This raises serious concerns about the practices in autism-specific charter schools (Roberts, 2022). Notably, Diana Diaz-Harrison, the founder of these schools, was appointed in 2025 as the U.S. Department of Education’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services under the Trump administration. This happened despite the documented use of controversial discipline methods at her schools. 

This situation highlights how leadership roles can go to people whose methods might support exclusionary or harmful practices, questioning the values behind policy decisions for marginalized students.

Political Attacks on Inclusive Education Programs

In 2024 and 2025, DEIA initiatives in education faced increased political backlash. Several U.S. states proposed laws to limit the teaching of race, gender, and disability equity in schools. These actions were often described as protecting students from indoctrination or reverse discrimination, even though there was no empirical evidence to support these claims (Samuels, 2024).

In New York City, Restorative Justice (RJ) programs, once praised for reducing suspensions and improving school climate, especially in Black and Brown communities, faced criticism after a report in 2025. The Manhattan Institute claimed that Restorative Justice resulted in increased absenteeism and classroom disruptions, calling the model a “failed experiment” (Manhattan Institute, 2025). However, peer-reviewed studies show that when implemented correctly, restorative practices can positively impact school culture and long-term academic results (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019).

Despite legal protections such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students from marginalized backgrounds, particularly Black, Latino, disabled, and neurodivergent youth, continue to face systemic inequities in educational settings. 

Disparities in Access to  Accommodations

Black and Latino students are more likely to be placed in strict special education categories, even when less intensive support might be enough. This trend often results from referral biases and poorly funded school environments (National Education Association (NEA), 2024). Research shows that Black students are identified with intellectual disabilities at nearly three times the rate of White students, even though their academic profiles are similar (Special Education in the U.S., 2025). Additionally, Black and Latino children with developmental disabilities face longer waits for autism diagnoses. They also have less access to services, especially in low-income or Medicaid-dependent communities (Aylward et al., 2021).

Racial Stereotypes and Academic Consequences

Teacher expectations and implicit biases significantly affect both student assessment and discipline. Okonofua and Eberhardt (2015) showed that teachers tend to judge the same misbehaviors more harshly when they are displayed by Black students. This leads to unfair disciplinary actions and lower academic expectations. For example, Black students are more often diagnosed with emotional disturbances or behavioral disabilities instead of having their actions understood in cultural or contextual contexts (Garwood, 2023; Blanchett, 2006). Once labeled, these students are typically placed in low-expectation academic tracks. This practice reinforces achievement gaps and raises the chances of school dropout.

Intersectional Exclusion: Black Autistic Students

Black autistic students experience multiple forms of marginalization due to racial bias and a lack of understanding of neurodiversity. Studies indicate that Black autistic youth are diagnosed later than their White peers, often after facing school failure or trauma (Mandell et al., 2009). Diagnostic overshadowing occurs when conditions like ADHD or anxiety hide autism symptoms. This further delays proper identification and support, disproportionately impacting autistic individuals of color. 

Research shows that educational systems often use single-axis frameworks. They fail to recognize the complex realities of students who are both Black and neurodivergent (Miller, 2023; Prior et al., 2022). This creates a cycle of misdiagnosis, disciplinary exclusion, and ongoing disengagement from school.

Myths that Mislead 

As diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility gain greater visibility in public discourse, they have also become targets of widespread misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation. These misconceptions not only dilute DEIA’s core goals but also undermine efforts to build equitable and inclusive systems, particularly in education and public health.

1. “DEIA Excludes the Majority”

Myth: DEIA discriminates against White, cisgender, or non-disabled individuals.**

This myth suggests that increasing access and opportunities for historically marginalized groups will harm others. In reality, DEIA seeks to eliminate systemic barriers to benefit everyone. For example, universal design principles support different learners, not just those with disabilities (CAST, 2024). Research shows that diverse learning environments promote empathy, collaboration, and better academic outcomes for all groups (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020).

2. “Colorblindness Is Fair”

Myth: Ignoring race, disability, or identity promotes equality.**

The “colorblind” approach suggests that treating everyone the same creates fairness. However, equity means recognizing different starting points and experiences. Ignoring identity overlooks the systemic barriers faced by students of color, disabled individuals, and neurodivergent youth. Research shows that identity-affirming environments, where students see their backgrounds reflected in curricula, staffing, and policy, lead to better academic and psychological outcomes than neutral approaches (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Singleton & Linton, 2006).

3. “DEIA Lowers Standards”

Myth: Making space for marginalized groups means compromising quality.**

This misconception equates inclusion with lowered expectations. However, inclusive practices such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and culturally responsive teaching raise standards by increasing access to high-quality instruction for all students. Such approaches are linked to higher graduation rates, deeper engagement, and stronger critical thinking skills (King-Sears et al., 2023; Meyer et al., 2014). Equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually reinforcing.

Debunking DEIA Myths

Misconceptions about diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, such as claims that it excludes majority groups or lowers academic standards, persist in both education and public health discourse. However, these myths do not withstand empirical scrutiny.

A common misunderstanding is that DEIA restricts opportunities for White, cisgender, or non-disabled individuals. In fact, inclusive education frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) improve academic outcomes for all students, not just marginalized groups. A meta-analysis by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) and earlier research by Nakken and Pijl (2002) demonstrate that inclusive classrooms benefit learners broadly without compromising academic rigor. Diversity in classrooms enriches learning environments rather than excluding anyone.

Inclusive Schools, Healthy Communities: A Public Health Approach 

Achieving lasting change requires more than just talk. It needs evidence-based policies, public health advocacy, and frameworks that resist political bias while focusing on the most marginalized. One important area for reform is school discipline. Outdated punishment methods, such as physical restraint, seclusion, suspensions, and expulsions, disproportionately impact neurodivergent students and students of color.

There are safer and more supportive alternatives available. For instance, trauma-informed practices, de-escalation techniques, sensory breaks, restorative practices, and individualized behavior support plans can reduce the need for restraint and seclusion. These approaches also promote student engagement and well-being (End Seclusion Project, 2021). Implementing these alternatives helps create inclusive, fair, and trauma-informed learning.

1. Policy Recommendations for Inclusive and Equitable Schools

Restorative Justice & Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline 

Implementing restorative justice (RJ) as a standard practice can significantly lower suspension rates and lessen racial disparities. Restorative justice emphasizes building relationships, shared responsibility, and repairing harm instead of punishing individuals through exclusion. In many districts that have adopted restorative justice, suspension rates decreased by 30 to 40%, with Black and Latino students benefiting the most (Davison, 2022; Williams, 2024). Training school staff in restorative justice has also reduced the impact of implicit bias in referrals and disciplinary actions.

Inclusive Curriculum & Anti-Bias Training

Schools should adopt an anti-bias curriculum and culturally responsive pedagogy, which explicitly recognize race, disability, and neurodiversity. These approaches improve academic performance and cultivate identity, safety, and belonging (Ladson-Billings, 1995; [Author], [Year]*). Additionally, mandatory implicit bias and cultural competence training for educators reduces referral disparities and supports equitable access to IEPs and inclusion (Teaching Tolerance, 2019; Learning Policy Institute, 2020).

Universal Design & Accessibility Standards

Mandating the adoption of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) across districts ensures that classrooms are proactively designed to meet diverse learner needs. Coupled with accessible infrastructure and assistive technology, UDL lowers the need for segregated accommodations and fosters full inclusion. 

2.  Advocacy Strategies for Public Health Professionals

Engage through a Health-in-All-Policies (HiAP) framework to ensure school policies, such as discipline codes and curriculum design, are viewed as social factors that affect health (World Health Organization [WHO], 1978). Collaborate in data-driven school climate assessments to identify gaps in discipline, mental health, and belonging, reframing DEIA as essential for health equity. 

Support community-based DEIA leadership, especially in areas of racial equity and disability justice. This includes funding advocacy led by leaders, increasing representation on school boards, and prioritizing lived experience in policymaking (Sins Invalid, 2016).

3. Tools to Resist Politicization of DEIA

Legal and Public Health Framing

Frame DEIA within civil rights and health law. Emphasize that it continues the work of IDEA, ADA, and global equity efforts like “Health for All” (WHO, 2022). Policy Analysis via IBPA: Use Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) to look at how policies impact different groups, the power dynamics they support, and their inclusion of marginalized voices (Hankivsky & Grace, 2015; Humphries et al., 2023). 

Media and Coalition Building

Build alliances among racial justice, disability, and neurodiversity communities. This will create intersectional support and help counter anti-DEIA narratives (Hancock, 2011).

4. Intersectional Policy Frameworks  

Disability Justice & Racial Equity Integration

Policy must move beyond single-axis frameworks. Disability justice emphasizes anti-capitalism, intersectional leadership, and cross-movement solidarity (Berne et al., 2005). Integrating this framework into racial equity policy ensures students at intersections—like Black autistic youth—are centered.

5. Critical Disability Intersectional Research

Educational policy should include qualitative intersectional research methods to analyze how race and disability co-construct experience. Studies reveal how district placements and IEP processes are affected by these intersections (Tefera & Fischman, 2024).

To support kids at home and in school that come from the perspective of lived experience, rather than a clinical perspective and  in lived experience, focusing on just a behaviorist, “how-to-fix-the-child” clinical perspective without finding the strengths in my child and ways to re-ignite the joy of living and connection just makes everything so much heavier and harder (Sandi Lerman- Heart Strong International).

Trauma-Informed and Neurodiversity-Affirming Practices

Neuroaffirming practices are the approaches in education, healthcare, and other settings that recognize, respect, and support neurological differences in individuals, rather than treating them as deficits to fix. Generally, these practices focus on valuing neurodiversity, supporting strengths and needs along with flexible learning and interaction, creating an inclusive environment.

Safe and predictable environments: Establish classrooms with clear routines, visual schedules, and quiet or sensory spaces where students can regulate their emotions (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018).

Staff training on trauma and neurodiversity: Equip teachers and staff to recognize signs of trauma and neurodivergence and respond with empathy using de-escalation and emotional coaching strategies (Perry & Szalavitz, 2020).

Flexible learning approaches: Offer multiple ways for students to engage, process, and demonstrate learning; provide accommodations such as extended time or quiet testing spaces (Connor et al., 2021).

Restorative, relationship-based practices: Use restorative circles and collaborative conflict resolution to repair harm, build accountability, and strengthen student-teacher and peer relationships (Morrison et al., 2019).

Strengths-based assessment and support: Focus on students’ talents, skills, and coping strategies alongside individualized support plans rather than only deficits.

Gaps in the Literature

Despite the growing body of research on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA), several gaps remain that warrant further exploration:

1. Intersectional Research on Neurodivergent Students of Color: Limited studies examine how race and neurodivergence intersect to shape educational and healthcare experiences.

2. Longitudinal Impact of DEIA Practices: Most existing research focuses on short-term outcomes; there is a need for long-term studies tracking the sustained impact of inclusive practices.

3. Family and Community Engagement: Caregiver and community-led perspectives are underrepresented in DEIA implementation and policy development.

4. Digital Accessibility and Algorithmic Bias: There is insufficient research on how digital tools and AI may reinforce inequities, especially for disabled and neurodivergent populations.

5. Policy Resistance and Political Backlash: Empirical studies are needed to assess how anti-DEIA legislation affects school climate, educator morale, and student safety.

6. Oversight of Autism-Specific Charter Schools: These institutions lack academic scrutiny regarding discipline practices and inclusion standards.

7. Culturally Responsive Mental Health Services: More research is needed on mental health interventions tailored to neurodivergent individuals from racial minority backgrounds.

Conclusion

This literature review shows that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) are essential principles for effective public health and education systems. They address the structural unfairness impacting neurodivergent individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities (Blanchett, 2006; Mandell et al., 2009; Aylward et al., 2021). 

Rooted in civil rights laws like IDEA and the ADA, DEIA initiatives come from basic human rights, not political trends (Ladson-Billings, 1995; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). Recent reports reveal troubling rates of restraint, seclusion, and racialized discipline, particularly against Black autistic students and children with disabilities (Altimari, 2024; The Times UK, 2024; Education Week, 2025).

Evidence shows that inclusive, identity-affirming practices improve educational and health outcomes. Schools that use restorative justice, universal design, and culturally responsive teaching have lower suspension rates, higher achievement, and better engagement (Davison, 2022; Oh‑Young & Filler, 2015; Suhrheinrich, 2021). In a similar way, culturally competent health care reduces disparities (Bailey et al., 2017; Hofstra et al., 2019).

Despite these benefits, DEIA faces challenges due to misconceptions that it excludes majority groups or lowers standards. These beliefs undermine progress (Singleton & Linton, 2006; Teaching Tolerance, 2019). Such views may harm vulnerable students who rely on inclusive environments.

Public health professionals need to respond by using tools like the Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) framework (Hankivsky et al., 2023), advocating for disability justice (Berne, 2005), and promoting assessments that focus on data-driven equity (Humphries et al., 2023).

In conclusion, DEIA is a public health necessity critical for mental health, academic success, and equity. Future efforts must be intersectional, evidence-based, and community-centered to ensure systems honor the dignity of all individuals.

---

References

Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295

Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191

Cassidy, S., Bradley, P., Robinson, J., Allison, C., McHugh, M., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014). Suicidal ideation and suicide plans or attempts in adults with Asperger’s syndrome attending a specialist diagnostic clinic: A clinical cohort study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(2), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70248-2 

Chatzitheochari, S., & Butler-Rees, A. (2022). Disability, Social Class and Stigma: An Intersectional Analysis of Disabled Young People’s School Experiences. Sociology, 57(5), 1156-1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385221133710 (Original work published 2023) 

Corsino, L., & Fuller, A. T. (2021). Educating for diversity, equity, and inclusion: A review of commonly used educational approaches. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e169. doi:10.1017/cts.2021.834 

Darling-Hammond, S., Fronius, T. A., Sutherland, H., Guckenburg, S., Petrosino, A., & Hurley, N. (2020). Effectiveness of restorative justice in U.S. K–12 schools: A review of quantitative research. Contemporary School Psychology, 24(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00290-0

Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.021 

Franco, M. P., Bottiani, J. H., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2023). Assessing Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Classroom Practice in PK–12 Schools: A Systematic Review of Teacher-, Student-, and Observer-Report Measures. Review of Educational Research, 94(5), 743-798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231208720 (Original work published 2024)

Gee, G. C., & Ford, C. L. (2011). Structural racism and health inequities: Old issues, new directions. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 8(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000130

Gichane, M. W., Griesemer, I., Cubanski, L., Egbuogu, B., McInnes, D. K., & Garvin, L. A. (2025). Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the health and health services research workforce: A systematic scoping review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 40(7), 1487–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09041-w 

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596134.pdf

Lodi, E., Perrella, L., Lepri, G. L., Scarpa, M. L., & Patrizi, P. (2022). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096

Nuraedah, N., & Al-Amin. (2024). Culturally responsive teaching practices and their effects on minority student achievement: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(11). https://injotel.org/index.php/12/article/view/326

Stephens, G. (2025, June 20). Alternatives to restraint and seclusion – opening doors to safer and more inclusive schools. Opening Doors to Safer and More Inclusive Schools – Opening Doors to Safer and More Inclusive Schools. https://endseclusion.org/2021/08/29/what-are-the-alternatives-to-restraint-and-seclusion/

Wang, M. L., Gomes, A., Rosa, M., Copeland, P., & Santana, V. J. (2024). A systematic review of diversity, equity, and inclusion and antiracism training studies: Findings and future directions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 14(3), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad061 

Wolbring, G., & Nasir, L. (2024). Intersectionality of Disabled People through a Disability Studies, Ability-Based Studies, and Intersectional Pedagogy Lens: A Survey and a Scoping Review. Societies, 14(9), 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090176