EDS5001 Themes in Education 1

Theme 7: A ‘Respect for All’ Approach

Task Sheet
Introduction
Schools and classrooms are places where people interact together on a daily basis and for a
prolonged period of time to achieve the socially valuable goal of educating the young.
Education is a positional good where having more of it, or a better quality of it, allows a person
to have a better future life, whilst having less or a qualitatively less good education depresses
a person’s chances of an enhanced adult life. Moreover, because childhood is a distinct period
in life which is valued in and of itself, where children have particular rights and require special
protection, society has an obligation to ensure that all children, without distinction of any
social or natural difference, receive a quality education in an environment that is free from
discrimination, is safe, inclusive and promotes their well-being and self-enhancement.
Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, Article 2) states that
the rights of the child shall be protected ‘irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or
legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic
or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.’ It is a matter of social justice that
schools serve to diminish social inequalities and promote equality of condition (Baker, Lynch,
Cantillion and Walsh, 2004). Baker et al. (2004) outline the four interrelated core contexts
which generate inequality and the corresponding justice dimension of each of these:
1. The socio-economic context which generates inequality or distribution (Redistributive
justice).
2. The socio-cultural context which generates inequalities of recognition and respect
(Recognition justice).
3. The political context which generates inequalities of representation and participation
(Representational justice).
4. The affective context which generates inequalities of love, care and solidarity
(Affective justice).
Until relatively recently egalitarian theorists focused mostly on distributive inequalities; they
sought to promote legal remedies to any discrimination that would hinder access to material
goods and services, such as employment or education, by anti-discrimination laws or equal
opportunities policies. The rise of emancipatory social movements (civil rights, Black activists,
feminist, gay rights, disabled persons’ organisations) led to new knowledges of the group
experience of discrimination. It exposed how racism, sexism, homophobia and dis/ablism
operate to disadvantage people of colour, women, gay and lesbian people and persons with
a disability. These movements and their knowledges prompted philosophers like Iris Marion
Young (1990/2011; 2000 for an abridged version) to critically question the affordances of a

1
solely distributive approach to justice and equality. Taking a ‘politics of difference’ approach,
Young (1990/2011, p. 39) argued that notwithstanding the fundamental place of
distributional inequality in producing and reproducing social inequality, there existed
additional, critical ‘disabling constraints’ which hindered ‘the development and exercise of
individual capacities and collective communication and cooperation’. She called these the
‘five faces of oppression’. These are exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural
imperialism and violence (Young, 1990/2011, p.40). Young’s (1990/2011) contribution to a
‘politics of difference’ and to recognition theories is important because she also showed how
discrimination, oppression and domination, whilst experienced by individuals, is experienced
by them as a result of their membership in a group. By virtue of the power of the larger social
group to which they belong to exclude them on the basis of socially constructed social or
natural difference, these ‘minorities’ are ‘Othered’ and discriminated against. For Young
(1990/2011, p. 47) social justice ‘requires not the melting away of differences, but institutions
that promote reproduction of and respect for group differences without oppression’. This is
consistent with what Tariq Modood (2007) calls ‘positive difference’ where, referring to the
difference of ethnicity, religion, and culture, he proposes a participatory pluralist democracy
which positively values difference. Here, the key word is ‘participatory’. In her contribution to
a theory of justice which incorporates both redistribution with recognition, Nancy Fraser
(2003) argues that ‘claims for recognition’ are ‘justice claims’ in that whilst they are about
values as to what constitutes a good life (ethics), not all groups claiming recognition are
granted ‘participatory parity’. When ‘institutionalised patterns of cultural value’ exclude
individuals on the basis of their group membership from participation as equal partners in
social interaction, ‘patterns of disrespect and disesteem are institutionalised’ (Fraser, 2003,
p.92). Moreover, these patterns of disrespect which are manifest in stereotyping behaviour,
prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick and Esses (2013), cause considerable
psychic and other damages to victims. Having low expectations for children on the basis of
their group categorisation, as well as stereotype threat (Quinn et al 2013), impede individual
serenity, lower educational achievement and impact opportunities for equal participation in
social interaction. They are forms of social exclusion.

A ‘respect for all’ approach acknowledges the interconnection between distributional,

recognition, representational and affective justice and injustice. For example, children denied
recognition of their religion (such as Muslims) are unlikely to have (distributional) access to a
faith education (distribution). Children who are denied equal rights to participate in school
outings to which they are entitled (distribution), such as some children with a disability, have
also not been recognised and respected by the school. Those who are too poor to purchase
the extra materials required by a school suffer from distributional (they are denied the
resources required to learn) and recognition inequality (the school does not appreciate what
it means to be poor and to be excluded as a result of it). All of these children suffer from
affective injustices which are ‘significant social phenomena in their own right’ (Lynch and
Lodge, 2002, p. 11); for adults to perpetuate these injustices shows a great lack of caring, love

2
and solidarity. It is also very likely that they and their parents have less power to participate
in school decision making (about curricula, subject choice, educational pathways, services and
others), since their socially structured ‘inferior’ status often leads to exclusion from
representation and participation.

Useful definitions of and distinctions between toleration, recognition and respect (Lægaard,
2010) help us develop a principled ‘Respect For All’ framework. Lægaard (2010) outlines how
toleration exists where there are contexts in which there is social difference, toward which
‘one has a partly negative attitude’ which could give majorities with power, a ‘reason’ to act
on the basis of the negative attitude (intolerant) but where they are instead ‘tolerant’. This
toleration is negative in that it presupposes a negative attitude toward ‘Others’. Rather than
displaying a positive approach to difference, it is based on the refraining from intolerance,
which is always at the discretionary power of the dominant group (Lægaard, 2010; Darmanin,
2015). However, despite being ‘minimalist’ (Darmanin, 2013a), toleration may be an
important component of recognition, which can also ‘go beyond’ to accommodation (the
satisfying of claims made by minorities, including for recognition). Toleration does have some
positive components in that it could lead to positive action even where there are ‘negative’
attitudes; Lægaard (2010) gives the example of a school where though there are personal
reservations to the wearing of the hijab, acts of tolerance permit its use. Moreover, staff and
students who have these reservations nevertheless engage in positive relations with Muslim
students who wear it. Recognition is a more positive attitude; as both a political principle and
a social relation, it involves positive acts, protection and active support for ‘minority’ groups,
their claims and cultures, which ‘expresses a positive attitude to the differences in question’
(Lægaard, 2010, p.31). The ‘objects’ of toleration and recognition vary; they include the
beliefs, practices, modes of behaviour or history of a group that are not recognised in the
norms defined by dominant non-minority groups. There is a distinction between the status
recognition of groups and ‘factual recognition’ which according to Lægaard (2010, p.33)
‘recognises the actual contribution and experiences of different groups’ to knowledge
(mathematics, science, history, geography to name a few). To omit this factual knowledge (as
in the curriculum) is ‘an intellectual failure’ because it gives a partial and distorting account.
Respect is an element of both toleration and recognition which is a notion of mutual or
reciprocal civility. Modood (2007, p. 31) distinguishes between ‘respect for dignity’ which is
related to a person’s status as human (based on commonality and universality) and ‘respect
for difference’, which is a respect for a person’s rights to be different and to belong to
collectives which differ from the majority culture.

One of the most pernicious ways in which lack of esteem or respect is enacted is through the
use of language which denigrates, derides or belittles those socially constructed as ‘Other’.
Feminists have long pointed out how particular terms such as ‘little Miss’ or ‘big man’ to refer
to girls and boys, attribute ‘smallness’ to girls and adult status to boys (Davies, 1990). Talking

3
about females as ‘bitches’ positions them in a sexualised discourse as ‘animals’. The use of
slurs like ‘slut’ or ‘ho/whore’ bandied about in schools, slur teenage girls are other sexualising
discourses that serve to denigrate all females. Seemingly innocuous factual statements such
as ‘You’ve done well, for a girl/a boy’ similarly enact a sexist stereotype by presuming that
that girl or boy is not expected to do well in this subject/activity, simply by virtue of his or her
sex. Racist slurs include the use of words in ways which are not descriptive (where a
description would be ‘My doctor is black’) but interpellative (the naming or calling of persons,
which constitutes their subjectivity) positioning of others as inferior ‘You Black/Ja iswed!’. In
a Maltese primary school, Elize, a Year 5 asylum seeker from the Congo was told ‘I don’t want
to play with you because you are black’ (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2008, p. 73). As with sexist
language, racist language can injure even when it is not directed at a visibly different minority
‘Other’. For example, when by way of refusing to take on extra work, a native Maltese teacher
says to another native teacher ‘Mela jien iswed?’, the use of the word ‘black’ refers to
histories of servitude and slavery of people of colour. It may not injure the person who is
addressed, but it does injure all persons of colour who are vicariously constructed as inferior
by the comment. Currently, Islamophobia is expressed by calling people who are Muslim or
who look Arab (a form of ethnic or cultural racism on the basis of visible and cultural
difference) ‘Mohammed’ or ‘Bin Laden’. Other ethnic-racist slurs including calling children
who are dark or who are of African heritage ‘klandestini’. Metin, a refugee Kurd in a local
boys’ secondary school describes being told to ‘go back home’ and ‘Mohammed is a pig’,
where to use the word ‘pig’, given its connotations in Islam, is a further insult on religious
grounds (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2008). In Malta, the word ‘ħamallu’ has long been used to
stigmatise those who are, whether by poverty or manners or accent or some other ‘cultural
signifier’ considered by classists to be of a lower status than the middle class norm. The
English equivalent slur would be ‘chav’; in America the slur ‘white trash’ or ‘white nigger’ is
used. Other racist slurs include calling someone ‘monkey’ or saying they should ‘return to the
jungle’. Homophobic and transphobic language is also commonly heard in schools, even by
children who have a poor understanding of what words such as ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ mean. These
words may be used as non-negative descriptors, for example, a friend may say to another ‘I’m
gay’. However, when used to ‘interpellate’ or name another, they usually have a negative
over-tone where the name-calling suggests inferiority, thereby positioning gays as ‘Other’.
Hardie and Bowers (2012) give the example of Megan, a Grade 2 pupil, daughter of a lesbian
couple, who had been taunted by the words ‘You’re gay’ by the boys in her class. Renold
(2003) also recounts how boys use homophobic taunts to perform hegemonic heterosexual
masculinities, to police and subordinate non-dominant boys, as well as girls and women. A
taunt such as ‘He’s such a girl’ serves to offend not only the male target but also all girls, since
being ‘a girl’ is cast as ‘inferior’ or undesirable. In Maltese, the word ‘pufta’ serves a similar
function by demeaning ‘Othered’ males by implying a (negatively perceived) femininity; it is
thus both a homophobic and a misogynist slur. The disability movement have long pointed
out the use of demeaning language applied to both persons with a disability and those who
are able-bodied, that pejoratively position impairment and disability as negative and inferior.
Terms include calling someone a ‘spaz’ (spastic); a ‘crip’ (cripple); a ‘sperg’ (with Asperger’s);

4
looney, imbecile(imbecilli) or idiot or ‘whacko/iblah’; ‘retard’; and ‘mongol’ (referencing
those with Down’s syndrome). Language may stereotype such as when we use ‘wheelchair
bound’ implying by ‘bound’, a limiting life.

There are those who think that being conscientious and respectful in language use, or
‘politically correct’ as it is pejoratively called, is exaggerated, pandering to the unreasonable
demands of minorities. However, educators know the power of language in positioning
human subjects in social hierarchies. Stereotypes, injurious or hate speech cause distress,
lower expectations, contribute to bullying, lead to feelings of anxiety which lead to poor
performance of those who are so slurred. Such taunts may lead to self-harm or suicide (as
with those who are cyber-bullied). For these and many other reasons, it is widely recognised
that this speech contributes to the perpetuation of recognition and affective inequality by its
intolerance of different others. Judith Butler’s (1996) work on ‘injurious speech’ invites us to
shift attention from the speaker to the ‘injurious word’ itself. The power of ‘the word’ comes
not simply from the power of the one who utters it or the lack of power of the person to
whom it is addressed. For example, in the case of 7 year old Megan (Hardie and Bowers,
2012), neither she nor the boys who called her ‘gay’ could be said to have more or less power
than each other; the power of the word to injure came from its ‘iterability’ and ‘citationality’
(Butler, 1996, p.204). The word is powerful because it is uttered within a social discourse
which has a history, has been repeated over time and refers to other utterances /acts which
injured the persons referenced (all gay people) and the person to whom it is directed (as with
Megan). Ringrose and Renold (2010) adopt Butler’s (1996) framework to critique anti-bullying
discourses which see bullying as individual rather than social acts devoid of the
gendered/classed/sexualised/ and racialized discourses of power’ embedded in children’s
school-based cultures. In this viewpoint, dealing with individual ‘offenders’ or supporting
those who are taunted is clearly insufficient. At the same time that individuals who insult need
to learn ways of restorative justice, it is up to teachers to deconstruct the power of such
injurious words through an open and critical discussion of them, as well as through providing
alternative ‘recognition and respect’ language for children to use. Hardie and Bowers (2012)
and Parker (2001) give examples of how to deal with language that hurts.

5
Core Reading
*Lynch, K. and A. Lodge (2002). Equality and Power in Schools: Redistribution, Recognition
and Representation. Chapter 8. The diversity deficit: minorities and the recognition of
difference). London: RoutledgeFarmer. (Available on VLE)
Supplementary Reading
D. Nelson and M.R. Rogers (2002) Silenced voices: A case of racial and cultural intolerance
in the schools. In Korn, C. and A. Bursztyn (Eds.), Rethinking Multicultural Education: Case
Studies in Cultural Transition, Bergin and Garvey, Westpoint, pp. 161-183 (Available on
VLE).

Tutorial 1

Topic 1. Attitudes to Difference

Dovidio et al’s (2013, p. 4) define prejudice as ‘an attitude reflecting an overall evaluation of a
group’, stereotypes as ‘associations and attributions’ accorded to specific characteristics of a
group’ and discrimination as ‘biased behaviour toward and treatment of a group or its
members)’:

1. What examples of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are mentioned in

Vidcasts 7.1 and 7.2 (Prof. Mary Darmanin and Dr Louise Chircop)?
2. How prevalent do you think these attitudes and behaviours are? What is the effect on
learners?
3. Which groups of learners are most likely to be victims of these types of negative
behaviour in our schools?

6
School-based/Off-campus Tasks

Based on your school observations, and/or recollection of and critical reflection on your own schooling, answer the
following:

Task 1. The physical environment

For many pupils the physical environment does not support their needs; instead it contributes to their exclusion.
The lack of provision for these pupils is an indication of a lack of recognition (they are not recognised or respected),
a lack of distributive equality (resources are not made available to them) as well as a lack of affective equality (they
are not cared for enough for changes to be made in the physical environment or in plans to utilise particular spaces
and places). In Marilyn’s narrative account of her schooling as a young person with a mobility impairment (Ballard
and Mc Donald, 1999, p. 98) she speaks about how ‘chemistry tables’ were ‘up above my ears’; in science classes
she just had to ‘watch and learn’. Becky Walsh (1993) recounts how because of her serious sight condition she was
never allowed to participate in any sport activity even when she would have benefited from aerobics classes.
Amongst other injustices, she was tested through materials that were based on visuals not adjusted to her
condition.

1. In the classroom, teachers often forget basic good practices that would enhance pupils’ learning as a result
of mis-recognition of difference. Are teachers using more visuals, written words with pupils with sight
conditions? Are teachers protecting the sensitive ears of those wearing hearing aids from loud noises, such
of fans? How much are they keep an ordered and routine class when they have children on the autistic
spectrum in the class?
2. Is there a space for prayer or reflection? Is this a multi faith space or is it only for majority Catholic pupils?
Are Muslim pupils given a place and a time to pray?
3. Do curricular materials and wall displays show recognition and respect for those who are from religious
minorities, are persons of colour, come from same-sex families or are LGBTQi?
4. Are the ‘Respect for All’ policies well known amongst learners and visible in the school physical environment
(banners, charts, classroom rules)?

7
Task 2. Injurious speech

In the introduction to this Theme you have been introduced to the concept of injurious speech, which can
manifest in the form of stereotypes, slurs, taunts, name-calling and other uses of language which hurt.

1. You have now been in school and classrooms for some weeks. Can you recall any use of language
that could be considered stereotyping, taunting or ‘injurious’ in any way? Give an account of the
language used, the context of its use, including an account of which group or person was
stigmatised or injured by it. Did the teacher or any other adult intervene to discuss why this
language was injurious (racist, sexist, trans/homophobic, Islamophobic, disablist)?
2. Did the teachers demonstrate knowledge about discrimination law and protected groups and
MEDE Respect For All policy guidelines?
3. What strategies did teachers adopt to deal with situations in which injurious language is used by
pupils or other persons in the setting? What strategies were used to promote recognition and
respect in the classroom and beyond?
4. What measures did teachers take to review curricular material from a recognition perspective
(identifying any stereotypes, any injurious language, contesting bias or cultural partiality)?

Tutorial 2

1. Report on the ways the school and the classroom show respect for all, avoiding stereotypes,
prejudice and discrimination and identity-based bullying (the physical environment, the
redistribution of resources, the promotion of recognition through the curricular materials,
the avoidance of stereotypes and/or discrimination, the anti-bullying culture).
2. What is being done to promote respectful speech and avoid injurious speech?
3. How do Ms Charmaine Ezabe (Vidcast 7.3) and Dr Gabi Calleja (Vidcast 7.4) describe
behaviours that may be considered Islamophobic and/or homophobic? How often is
language implicated in this type of stereotyping prejudice and discrimination?

8
Additional resources
1. For suggestions on how to counter stereotype threat in classrooms see Center for Effective School
Practices (2016).
2. A study of how children internalise racial stereotypes through subconscious racial bias can be found on
CNN Youtube site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPVNJgfDwpw
3. For a method of how to ‘read’ visual displays, see Romera’s (2015) work on gender stereotypes in public
educational spaces.
4. For a further understanding of the complexities of bullying along racial and ethnic lines, which is not
simply about hostility between children who are white and those who are black/of colour, see Eslea
and Mukhtar (2000).
5. Swindler Boutte, Lopez-Robertson and Powers-Costello (2011) give a useful account of how early years
teachers can avoid ‘colour-blindness’ encouraging very young children to recognise positive difference
whilst Kemple et al (2016) discuss how shared reading with pre-school children can encourage ‘colour-
filled appreciation for and comfort with’ visible difference.
6. For advice on school based anti-racism strategies see New South Wales Department of Education,
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/equity/antiracism/anti-racism-education-advice-
for-school.pdf
7. Norwich and Kelly (2004) report research on how children with moderate learning difficulties are
bullied in mainstream schools as well as outside school.
8. The Malta Gay Rights Movement (2011) provides important data on Maltese LGBTIQ persons who have
been, or are being, discriminated against and bullied at school.
9. For a further understanding of how schools fail to provide a safe ‘recognition and respect’ environment
for LGBTIQ pupils and staff, see O’Higgins-Norman (2009).
10. Bower and Klecka (2009) give an account of how schools can become inclusive of same-sex or ‘rainbow’
families by revising social norms.
11. The Anti-bullying Network (2004) gives strategies for challenging homophobic bullying in schools on
http://www.antibullying.net/homophobicinfo3.htm.
12. For an account of why Muslim children and their parents feel they are mis-recognised or lack respect,
esteem or recognition in common schools, see Zine (2007).
13. For ways to confront Islamophobia in education see Ramajaran and Runnell (2007) and UNESCO (2014).
14. Whitburn (2014) provides a very interesting account of the successful teacher strategies for the
inclusion of pupils with a visual impairment.
15. For an account of sexism in physical education see Yuchun and Curtner-Smith (2015). For an account
of racism in physical education see Dowling and Flintoff (2015).
16. For a review of the restorative justice approach to bullying, see McCluskey at al. (2008).

9
References

Anti-bullying Network (2004) Information for schools about homophobic bullying.

http://www.antibullying.net/homophobicinfo3.htm
Baker, J., K. Lynch, S. Cantillon, and J. Walsh (2004). Equality: From Theory to Action.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ballard, K. and T. McDonald (1999). Disability, inclusion and exclusion: Some insider accounts
and interpretations. In K. Ballard (Ed.) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability
and Justice. London, Falmer Press.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000) ‘How homophobia hurts everyone’. In M. Adams et al. (Eds.)
Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. An Anthology on Racism, Anitsemitism, Sexism,
Heterosexism, Ableism, and Classism. New York and London, Routledge, pp. 267-275.
Butler, J. (1996) Burning acts: Injurious speech. The University of Chicago Law School
Roundtable. 3 (1), pp. 199-221.
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=roundtabl
e
Camilleri, J. and K. Camilleri (2008) Do I belong? Psychological perspectives and educational
considerations of young immigrants’ school experiences. Malta Review of Educational
Research, 6 (1), pp. 64-79
Center for Effective School Practices (2016) How teachers can reduce stereotype threat in the
classroom. https://cesp.rutgers.edu/blog/how-teachers-can-reduce-stereotype-threat-
classroom
Council of Europe (n.d.) Disability and Disablism. Compass: Manual for Human Rights
Education with Young People. http://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/disability-and-disablism
CNN. Subconscious racial bias in children/ A look at race relations/Doll test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPVNJgfDwpw

Darmanin, M (2015) Toleration of religious diversity in a small island state, New Diversities,
Special Issue ‘Engaging with the Other: Religion, Identity and Politics in the Mediterranean’,
17:1, pp 3-22
Darmanin, M. (2013) The ‘smallness’ of minimalist tolerance, Education Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp 669-700
Darmanin, M. (2013) The material and symbolic cultures of the everyday-religion in Maltese
primary schools, in Smyth, E, Lyons, M. and M. Darmody (Eds). Religious Education in
Multicultural Europe: Children, Parents and Schools, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 69-
100

10
Davies, B (1990) Guidelines for the Elimination of Gender Stereotyping in Primary School
Textbooks. Commonwealth Secretariat, Australia.
https://books.google.com.mt/books?id=4VI_wO0oqTsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_
ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dobbernack, J. and T. Modood. 2012. Tolerance and Cultural Diversity in Europe: Theoretical
Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. AĊĊEPT PLURALISM Research Project, EUI,
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies,
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/19790/ACCEPT_PLURALISM_Report_2011_03
_WP2_Rev.pdf?sequence=1
Dovidio, J.F., Hewstone, M. Glick, P. and V. M. Esses (2013) Prejudice, stereotyping and
discrimination: theoretical and empirical overview. In Dovidio, J.F., Hewstone, M. Glick, P. and
V. M. Esses (Eds.), 2nd edition, The Sage Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and
Discrimination, Sage, Los Angeles.
Dowling, F. and A. Flintoff (2015). A whitewashed curriculum? The construction of race in
contemporary PE curriculum policy. Sport, Education and Society, pp 1-15.
Eslea, M. and K. Muhktar (2000). Bullying and racism among Asian school children in Britain.
Educational Research,42 (2), pp 207-217.
Essed, P. (1991) Understanding Everyday Racism: an Interdisciplinary Approach, Newbury
Park, Sage.
European Commission (2015). Eurobarometer Survey. Discrimination in the EU in 2015. Malta
Fact Sheet 437. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/ebs_437_fact_mt_en.pdf
Fraser, N. (2003). Recognition without ethics? In C. McKinnon and D. Castiglione (Eds.) The
Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies: Reasonable Tolerance. Manchester, Manchester
University Press, pp. 86-110
French, S. (2000) ‘Equal opportunities -Yes, please.’ In M. Adams et al. (Eds.) Readings for
Diversity and Social Justice. An Anthology on Racism, Anitsemitism, Sexism, Heterosexism,
Ableism, and Classism. Routledge. New York and London, pp. 364-365.
Hardie, A. and W. Bowers (2012) The Gay word in a junior classroom. The Clearing House. 85,
pp 61-64.
Institute of Education Sciences (2009) Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: a review of
social-psychological intervention studies on improving the achievement of Black students.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2009076_sum.pdf
Jones, V. (2015) When the classroom feels hostile. How stigma, stereotype and labels can
affect kids with learning disabilities. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/15/08/when-
classroom-feels-hostile

11
Kemple, K.M., I.R. Lee and M. Harris (2016). Young children’s curiosity about physical
differences associated with race: Shared reading to encourage conversation. Early Childhood
Education Journal. 44, pp. 97-105.
Krumer-Nevo, M. and O. Benjamin (2010) Critical poverty knowledge. Contesting Othering
and social distancing. Current Sociology, 58 (5): 693-714.
Lægaard, S. 2010. “Recognition and Toleration: Conflicting Approaches to Diversity in
Education?”. In: Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42 (1): 22-37.
Lynch, K. and A. Lodge (2002). Equality and Power in Schools: Redistribution, Recognition and
Representation. (especially Chapter 8. The diversity deficit: minorities and the recognition of
difference). London: RoutledgeFarmer.
Ma, X., L. L. Stewin and D. L. Mah (2001). Bullying in schools: Nature, effect and remedies.
Research Papers in Education, 16 (3), pp. 247-270.
Malta Gay Rights Movement (2011) LGBT Discrimination in Malta: A Survey on Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and
Transgender persons in Malta 2006-2008.
http://www.maltagayrights.org/cms/pdfs/survey_report_mgrm.pdf
McClusky, G., G. Lloyd, J. Stead, S. Kane, S. Riddell and E. Weedon (2008) ‘I was dead
restorative today’: From restorative justice to restorative approaches in school. Cambridge
Journal of Education. 38 I(2), pp.199-216.
Ministry of Education and Employment (2012) A National Curriculum Framework for All.
http://education.gov.mt/en/Documents/A%20National%20Curriculum%20Framework%20f
or%20All%20-%202012.pdf
Ministry for Education and Employment (2014a). Addressing Bullying Behaviour in Schools
Policy.
http://education.gov.mt/en/Documents/Addressing%20Bullying%20Behaviour%20in%20Sc
hools.pdf
Ministry for Education and Employment (2014b). Addressing Bullying Behaviour in Schools
Procedures. (on VLE).
Ministry for Education and Employment (2015a). Managing Behaviour in Schools Policy.
http://education.gov.mt/en/resources/Documents/Policy%20Documents/Managing%20Beh
aviour%20in%20Schools%20Policy.pdf
Ministry for Education and Employment (2015b) Trans, Gender Variant and Intersex Students
in Schools Policy.
http://education.gov.mt/en/resources/Documents/Policy%20Documents/Trans,%20Gender
%20Variant%20and%20Intersex%20Students%20in%20Schools%20Policy.pdf

12
Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties (2015) . Equality Act (Draft).
http://socialdialogue.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/MSDC/Documents/2015%20HREC%2
0Final/Bill%20-%20Equality%20Act.pdf
Nelson, D. and M. P. Rogers (2002). Silenced voices: A case of racial and cultural intolerance
in the schools. In Korn, C. and A. Bursztyn (Eds.), Rethinking Multicultural Education: Case
Studies in Cultural Transition, Bergin and Garvey, Westpoint, pp. 161-183
New South Wales, Department of Education (2015) Anti-racism education. Advice for Schools.
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/equity/antiracism/anti-racism-
education-advice-for-school.pdf
O’Higgins-Norman, J. (2009). Still catching up: Schools, sexual orientation and homophobia in
Ireland. Sexuality and Culture, 13, pp 1-16.
Quinn, D., R. Kallen, and S. Spencer (2013). Stereotype threat. In Dovidio, J.F., Hewstone, M.
Glick, P. and V. M. Esses (Eds.), 2nd edition, The Sage Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and
Discrimination, Sage, Los Angeles.
Ramajan, D. and M. Runell (2007) Confronting Islamophobia in education. Intercultural
Education, 18 (2), pp 87-97.
Reay, D. (2010). Identity making in schools and classrooms. In: M. Wetherell and C. Talpade
Mohanty (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Identities. London: Sage, pp 277-294.
Renold, E. (2003). ‘If you don’t kiss me, you’re dumped’: boys, boyfriends and
heterosexualised masculinities in the primary school. Educational Review. 55 (1), p. 179-194.
Ringrose, J. and E. Renold (2010) Normative cruelties and gender deviants: the performative
effects of bullying discourses for girls and boys in schools. British Educational Research
Journal, 36 (4), pp 573-596.
Swindler Boutte, G., J. Lopez-Robertson and E. Powers-Costello (2011). Moving beyond
colorblindness in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, pp 335-
342.
UNESCO (2014). Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination
against Muslims. Addressing Islamophobia Through Education
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002152/215299e.pdf
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Walsh, B. (1993) How disabling any handicap is depends on the attitudes and actions of
others: A student’s perspective. In R. Slee (Ed). Is There A Desk With My Name On It? The
Politics of Integration. London, Falmer Press.

13
Watkins, C., Mauthner. M., R. Hewitt, D. Epstein, and D. Leonard (2007). School violences,
school differences and school discourses. British Educational Research Journal. 33 (1), pp. 61-
74.
Whitburn, B. (2014), ‘A really good teaching strategy’. Secondary students with vision
impairment voice their experience of inclusive teacher pedagogy. British Journal of Visual
Impairment 32 (2), pp. 148-156.
Young, I. M. (2000/2010) Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Young, I.M. (2000) ‘Five faces of oppression’. In M. Adams et al. (Eds.) Readings for Diversity
and Social Justice. An Anthology on Racism, Antisemitism, Sexism, Heterosexism, Ableism, and
Classism. New York and London, Routledge. pp. 35-49.
Yuchun, C. and M. D. Curtner-Smith (2015). Hegemonic masculinity in sport education: Case
studies of pre-service physical education teachers with teaching orientations. Sport,
Education and Society. 20 (4) pp 546-563.
Zine, J. (2007) Safe havens or religious ghettos? Narratives of Islamic schooling. Race, Ethnicity
and Education. 10 (1) pp 72-92.

14