Social Justice in Education

Abstract

This article provides a summary of social justice in education, with an overview of definition and theory, practical applications, and contesting viewpoints. While social justice is an idea rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, as a formalized area of study within education, it is a much more recent development. Given the field's evolving nature, little theoretical consensus exists, and the significant influence of postmodernism encouraged fragmented viewpoints and multiplicity of perspective. Nonetheless, the practice of social justice, and particularly its practice in the classroom, is a growing trend. Educators design curricula and activities with the aim of eliminating oppression such as racism, classism, and sexism. Such efforts have not been undertaken without controversy, as many believe that the classroom is not the appropriate environment for what are sometimes perceived as political agendas. Such debate taps into larger disagreements about the fundamental purpose of schooling.

Overview

Social justice has a long history. Almost as soon as human societies formed, philosophers began thinking about how individual and collective needs could be met (Ornstein, 2017). They sketched out the defining characteristics of a just society, and developed arguments for just behavior on the part of individuals. In modern American education, policymakers have addressed issues of social justice. Gender equity and desegregation, for example, are about distribution of resources; at their core, they are efforts to achieve good for the individuals in a society, and good for the society itself.

Social justice in education, as a more formal and organized area of study, is a relatively recent development. Even those who are at the forefront of the movement concede that it has yet to solidify as a field of study. Differences of opinion about what social justice is, and how it can best be achieved, for example, contribute to instability and discontinuity. As Merchant and Shoho (2006) argued, "Theory building involving social justice in education has been scant. Unless a coherent body of scholarly work can produce an empirically validated model for social justice, the likely outcome is fragmentation…" (p. 108).

For many scholars contributing to social justice research, fragmentation is exactly the point. Postmodern theorists, with their emphasis on plurality and fragmented subjectivity, argued that the "way forward" is to "develop a continuously revisable framework in place of the timeless universalism of current ones" (Griffiths, 1998, p. 175). Similarly, Bogtoch (2002) argued "there can be no fixed or predictable meanings of social justice;" they must be "continuously reinvented and critiqued, again and again" (p. 10). Despite the proliferation of the term, education has consistently been a component of determining social justice in society. Even Plato's Republic in 375 BCE recognized the way educational opportunities define an individual's social and economic position in society (Ornstein, 2017).

Difference and disagreement may go hand-in-hand with the study and practice of social justice, but surprising unity emerges among social justice scholars with regard to the identification and definition of injustice. Although any one researcher may focus on one or more of the forms of oppression in varying degrees, they generally agree that each merits attention. Forms of oppression include, but are not limited to, racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, sexism, and anti-Semitism (Adams et al., 2023). Each describes a general form of oppression, but the experience of oppression, as it plays out in day-to-day lives, scholars argue, may vary from person to person.

Further Insights

Before turning to a brief discussion of the ways social justice educators have attempted to fight injustices in the classroom, this discussion will return first to issues of theory and definition. Later, the arguments of conservative critics will be revisited, and there will be a discussion of some scholars' attempts to find a middle ground.

Definition & Theory. While the term social justice is a relatively new one as applied to education, the underlying concepts it represents are not. Educators have been discussing equal opportunity and equality for centuries, which begs the question, is the new terminology necessary? According to Griffiths (1998), "the discourses of equality [and educational opportunity] in schools are becoming unhelpful" (p. 175). Because 'equal opportunity' was co-opted by "both the right and left to argue for different versions of…values," she argued the terminology of the 1960s and 1970s was no longer able to support their agenda (p. 178). Use of the term social justice is the way forward in the modern world, but to understand its importance, one must look back to ancient Greece in 400 BC (Ornstein, 2017). Plato and Aristotle were the first to offer a definition as the good of the community, and to some degree, present-day definitions still reflect this philosophical foundation. Aristotle suggested social justice could not be imposed upon a community by its leaders but must be agreed upon by its individual members to be effective. Modern-day theorists emphasize self-determination, too. Rawls highlighted the importance of Aristotle's notion of distributive justice, defining social justice as sharing the burden of rights and duties among all members of society (Begum, 2019). In other words, justice is more than just following rules.

Some theorists suggest that theoretical advancement of the topic depends on scholars' willingness to move beyond a "framework of individualism" toward postmodernism. The notion of individual rights and merit are difficult to apply to social justice issues in education; not only does the notion of 'individual' imply a rational, choosing adult being (as distinct from a typical school-age child), but merit is difficult to define, and may not be relevant in decisions about allocation of educational resources. Griffiths (1998) believed postmodern theories, which emphasize plurality and multiplicity of experience and perspective, as opposed to the notion of 'the universal citizen,' offer more promise for social justice theory and practice in the future.

Perhaps heeding Griffith's advice, Gewirtz (2006) drew upon principles of postmodernism in her proposal for a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. She wrote, "it is not possible to resolve the question of what counts as justice in education at a purely abstract level, and that what counts as justice can only be properly understood within specific contexts of interpretation and enactment" (Gewirtz, 2006, p. 69). Because justice is multi-dimensional, mediated by competing interests, and dependent on the perspective of the person(s) seeking it, it can never exist in a 'pure' form apart from its practice.

Gewirtz's analysis of social justice is significant, not only for its emphasis on context, but also for further 'flushing out' a working definition of social justice. Building on Iris Young's work, Gewirtz (2006) partitioned social justice into three components—distributive, recognitional, and associative justice. Distributive justice, as previously defined, refers to the distribution of goods and resources. Recognitional justice is defined as respect and recognition for a person's culture and way of life (Cho, 2017). To experience the absence of it, Young wrote, "is to experience how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of one's own group invisible" (as quoted in Gewirtz, 2006, p. 74). Finally, associative justice is most closely aligned with the concept of democracy; that is, each individual should have the opportunity to participate fully in the decisions that affect his or her life.

Other theories of social justice in education show a similar shift in emphasis from distribution of resources to notions of self-determination and individual agency. Walker (2006) proposes a "capability-based" theory of social justice based on the work of Amartya Sen (1992), arguing that economic growth should not be the key measure of the quality of a person's life. According to Sen (1992), "in the capability-based assessment of justice, individual claims are not to be assessed in terms of the resources or primary goods the persons respectively hold, but by the freedoms they actually enjoy to choose the lives that they have reason to value" (as quoted in Walker, 2006, p. 164). Therefore, this approach draws heavily on the concept of freedom, and in particular, the freedom to choose what one wants to be and do.

Distribution of resources and goods implies an end state. While scholars acknowledge that social justice is, indeed, a goal, many emphasize the need to think of it as a process (Ornstein, 2017). According to Enslin (2006), for example, "justice is relational rather than static, and is concerned with action and process" (p. 58). Furthermore, in Griffiths' (2003) book titled Action for Social Justice in Education, she too honors social justice as a process and defines it as a verb (Elijah, 2003). Griffiths' (2003) thesis is twofold: she attempts to understand how people can honor diversity and difference within a single humanity, and how we people take action, through education, to create a "more humane, just world which will benefit individuals and society" (Elijah, 2003, p. 54).

Social Justice Practice in the Classroom. Griffiths' (2003) definition provides a logical segue into a brief discussion of the ways in which social justice is practiced in education. Many critics disagree with the 'activist' stance taken by social justice educators, stating that educators should transmit knowledge and information, and do little more. For social justice educators, efforts to achieve change are critical to their professional identities. Education either maintains the status quo, or prepares young people to think critically about their world and participate in its transformation. Social justice educators attempt to do the latter.

The social justice movement began in the 1960s and 1970s with a focus on issues surrounding social class, but as Griffiths (1998) explained, issues of class were soon overtaken by issues of race and gender. The field expanded to include social justice concerns surrounding sexuality, disability, and religion. Adams, Bell, and Griffin (2023), of Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, provide a comprehensive resource for social justice practice in the classroom, organized around the notion of eliminating oppression. What follows are examples of their suggestions for classroom activities and curriculum development geared toward the elimination of sexism, racism, ableism, and heterosexism.

Sexism. Botkin, Jones, & Kachwaha (2007) define sexism as "a system of advantages that serves to privilege men, subordinate women, denigrate women-identified values and practices, enforce male dominance and control, and reinforce forms of masculinity that are dehumanizing and damaging to men" (p. 174). They further argue that binary conceptions of gender are too simplistic to capture the complexity of identity, that sexism is closely connected to other forms of oppression, such as sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, social class discrimination, and other forms of oppression that operate through power, dominance, violence, and control (Alvarez, 2019).

Curriculum is designed to help students understand sexism and the toll it exacts on both men and women. They offer over twelve hours of classroom activities—including but not limited to—exercises designed to reveal the socially-constructed nature of gender roles, the normalcy of violence in our lives, and the institutionalized and interpersonal forms of power that perpetuate sexism. In one activity, for example, students are asked to identify rules of behavior for men and women, the ways in which they were taught those rules, the advantages and disadvantages of the rules, and the consequences for ignoring them.

Racism. The National Education Association defined racism with an emphasis on the historical, systemic power hierarchies that exist in the American education system in the twenty-first century. Policies, institutions, and culture traditionally serve White individuals' needs without consideration of the damage to society such discrimination causes. While acts of prejudice on an individual level must also be addressed, removing the inherent bias in access to American education is critical, including addressing pay inequality, stereotypes, neighborhood schools, and other barriers (NEA, 2021).

Adams et al., (2023) focus on increasing awareness of racism, helping students understand the ways in which they are socialized into a system of White privilege, and empowering them to work for racial equality and social justice. Some discussions surround the history of racism in the United States, White privilege, unearned advantage, institutional racism, and power. In one activity designed to demonstrate the different ways and degrees to which individuals experience racism, students are asked to physically place themselves along a continuum between the two anchors—"true for me" and "not true for me"—as the teacher reads a series of statements. Examples of the statements include: "You have had a racist or ethnically derogatory statement made to you" and "you worry about discrimination in your community." Students then explain their response to the rest of the class.

Loftin (2011) writes that totally eradicating pervasive discrimination, racism, and prejudice in public schools will not occur until we “recognize the root of those ills and stop ignoring the role that race occupies in building our institutions.” He argues that “consciously and explicitly assuming the democratic privilege of students can serve as a vehicle for eradicating White complicity with regard to institutionalized and socialized racism” (Loftin, 2011).

Ableism. Ableism is one of the more complex forms of oppression to address, given the wide range of disabilities people experience, but the movement has been unified in moving toward an attitude concerning disabilities that rejects the negative, broken, or abnormal assumptions that typically were applied to people with disabilities (Adams et. al., 2023). Disability advocates argue that becoming disabled is both a loss and gain, that living with a disability is simply another interesting and meaningful way to live, and that people experience oppression and discrimination not because of the disability itself, but because of other people's beliefs and prejudices.

In designing a curriculum and classroom activities to combat ableism, Griffin, Peters, and Smith (2007) avoided those activities that, while well-intentioned, might perpetuate the notion that a disability is a deficiency. For example, asking students to "live" with a disability for a day inadvertently reinforces the idea that a disability is an individual deficiency, rather than focusing on disability in the larger context of oppression as an institutional, cultural, and societal phenomenon (Cho, 2017). Indeed, token efforts at addressing the topic of disability generally do manifest as so-called “disability awareness days” and tend to include such “disability simulations,” which have been “long condemned by disability rights activists as promoting cultural attitudes that are ableist in nature” (Lalvani & Broderick, 2013). Instead, Griffin, Peters, and Smith (2007) ask students to identify how socialization might have influenced their beliefs about disability, educate students on different types of disabilities, and emphasize the socially-constructed nature of disability. Students are given opportunities to interact with individuals with disabilities in a question-and-answer format and participate in group activities such as creating a vision for an inclusive and accessible society.

Heterosexism. Until the 1970s, homosexuality was viewed as a pathology, and was even given an official classification by the American Psychiatric Association as a psychological disorder. Although a great deal of progress has been made since that time, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) people continue to experience discrimination and even violence in educational settings in the twenty-first century. Social justice educators continue their advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ individuals by combating heterosexism.

Homophobia and transphobia have been pervasive in US educational institutions for decades, and this trend continues in the 2020s. In the early 2010s, one study found that LGBTQ concerns were often “invisible in multicultural teacher education coursework in the United States” and that, when these concerns are covered, they generally are addressed in “decontextualized ways that mask heteronormativity” (Gorski, Davis, & Reiter, 2013). Though society's approach to these issues improved between 2013 and 2020, discrimination based on sexual orientation continued in schools. Approximately 69 percent of LGBTQ students surveyed in 2020 noted being verbally harassed, while nearly 57 percent reported being called names or threatened because of their sexual identity (Lavietes & Greenhalgh, 2020).

Griffin, Derrico, Harro, & Schiff (2007) advised teachers to disclose their own sexuality when teaching about heterosexism, and—while respecting religious beliefs—steer students away from religious and moral debates, which tend to be unproductive. The goal of their curriculum was not to change beliefs, necessarily, but to help people understand how heterosexism hurt and limited people of all sexual orientations. They asked students to research historical perspectives of same-sex relationships, share stories about their own gender and sexuality development, and consider ways in which heterosexism is institutionalized in the workplace, home, legal system, health care system, and schools. By the early 2020s, there was great debate over the way teachers handled sharing their sexual identity and the way they addressed their students' identities. From addressing students by their preferred pronouns to teaching more inclusive sex education classes, change was happening. Guidelines varied by state and district, but, overall, parents on both sides of the debate continued to voice their opinion (Lavietes & Greenhalgh, 2020).

Viewpoints

Because social justice is a contested issue, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the controversy surrounding it. Even social justice scholars acknowledge that the field is marked by disagreement as much as it is by sameness of opinion. Griffiths (1998) writes, "At our own period of history, there is as little agreement on what justice consists in, as there is on moral judgments, or on judgments of rationality" (p. 180). Brown (2002) makes the same point when he refers to disagreements regarding social justice as "an ideological quagmire" (p. 30).

Dudley (2005) brings a variety of perspectives to bear on social justice issues. What becomes apparent is that opinions vary not only on how to address social justice issues, but on whether such issues exist in the first place. For example, contributing author Horowitz argues against the very notion that Blacks are oppressed in American society. More Blacks are incarcerated, he argues, because more Blacks are committing crimes, a statistic the liberal left ignores in citing institutional racism as the cause. Others acknowledge racism as a characteristic of American life but disagree on whether programs such as affirmative action should be used to combat it. Some believe affirmative action programs had a positive impact on society, increasing opportunities for Blacks without unfairly disadvantaging non-minorities. Others ascribed to an individualist model of society, and believed it was unjust to, in their opinion, penalize children for advantages they were born into (Dudley, 2005).

Others have tried to find a middle ground. Poplin and Rivera (2005) describe the evolution of a teacher education program from one focused solely on social justice, to one that acknowledged the importance of opposing ideologies. They write, "though we continue to support the teaching of [social justice] ideologies in teacher education, we find them unbalanced without equal attention to the contesting ideologies and unproductive without an equal emphasis on accountability for achievement gains of traditionally marginalized students" (p. 30). Even standardized tests, they argue, with a long history of working against poor and minority students, can, in the future, work in favor of these same students. Whether any individual agrees with a particular practice or point of view is less important, Poplin and Rivera (2005) suggest, than exposing them to the alternate view in the first place. "It is one thing for a university program to build its vision around a particular set of ideologies (a valid choice); it is another to allow teacher candidates [to be] uninformed of alternative ones" (p. 32).

In the end, the only course of action may be an agreement to disagree, as long as each side has the freedom to express its views. Ironically, both conservatives and liberals believe their freedom of expression is being compromised by the other, particularly in the classroom. Lukianoff (2007), for example, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, criticizes Columbia Teacher's College for making "a commitment to social justice" a requirement for graduation. He argues "vague, subjective, and politicized evaluation standards are dangerous. They invite administrators and faculty members to substitute their own opinions and political beliefs in place of evaluating students' skills as teachers (p. B8)."

Terms & Concepts

Ableism: Also referred to as disability oppression, ableism refers to a system of advantage that creates and sustains benefits for the dominant able-bodied group, while creating disadvantage for people with disabilities (Adams et al., 2023).

Associative Justice: One of three forms of social justice outlined by Gewirtz (2006), associative justice is most closely aligned with the concept of democracy; that is, each individual should have the opportunity to participate fully in the decisions that affect his or her life.

Distributive Justice: One of three forms of social justice outlined by Gewirtz (2006), and also the form most closely aligned with Rawls' (1972) classic definition, distributive justice refers to the distribution of resources and goods—the benefits of social cooperation—as well as the distribution of burdens and duties.

Heterosexism: A system of advantage or privilege afforded to heterosexuals in institutional practices and policies and cultural norms that assume heterosexuality as the only natural sexual identity and expression (Adams et al., 2023).

Oppression: A system that maintains advantage based on social group memberships and operates, intentionally and unintentionally, on individual, institutional, and cultural levels (Adams et. al, 2023). Oppression is pervasive and hierarchical and is experienced differently by individuals based on multiple memberships in different social groups.

Postmodernism: Postmodernism emerged in a variety of fields—architecture, art, music, film, and sociology—as a reaction against and critique of modernity. Postmodernists celebrate multiplicity of perspective, fragmentation, and subjectivity as opposed to the notion of grand narratives or overarching theories.

Racism: a system of advantage based on race and supported by institutional structures, policies, and practices that create and sustain benefits for the dominant White group, and structure discrimination, oppression, and disadvantage for people from target racial groups (NEA, 2021; Adams et al., 2023).

Recognitional Justice: One of three forms of social justice outlined by Gewirtz (2006), recognitional justice is defined as respect and recognition for a person's culture and way of life.

Sexism: A system of advantages that serves to privilege men, subordinate women, denigrate women-identified values and practices, enforce male dominance and control, and reinforce forms of masculinity that are dehumanizing and damaging to men (NEA, 2021; Adams et al., 2023).

Bibliography

Adams, M., Bell, L. E., & Griffin, P. (2023). Teaching for diversity and social justice. Routledge.

Adams, M., Blumenfeld. (2018). Readings for diversity and social justice. Taylor & Francis.

Alvarez, Brenda. (2019, Jan. 22). Why social justice in school matters, National Education Association. Accessed July 15, 2023, from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/why-social-justice-school-matters

Begum, Sajiya. (2019). Aristotelian and Rawlsian concept of disruptive justice. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 6(6). Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1907721.pdf

Bogtoch, I. (2000). Educational leadership and social justice: Theory into practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from Education Resource Information Center. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/9a/0c.pdf

Botkins, S., Jones, J., & Kachwaha, T. (2007). Sexism curriculum design. In Adams, M., Bell, L. E., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 195–218). Routledge.

Brown, C. (2002). A principle in search of a practice: On developing guidelines/standards to evaluate social justice. Paper presented at American Education Research Association. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from Education Resource Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/9a/0c.pdf

Cho, H. (2017). Navigating the meanings of social justice, teaching for social justice, and multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(2), 1–19. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124009098&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Dudley, W. (Ed.). (2005). Social justice: Opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press.

Elijah, R. (2003). Action for social justice in education. Encounter, 19, 54–56. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20998380&site=ehost-live

Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, 69–81. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19683086&site=ehost-live

Giroux, H. A. (2006). Academic freedom under fire: The case for critical pedagogy. College Literature, 33, 1–42. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23003620&site=ehost-live

Gorski, P.C., Davis, S.N., & Reiter, A. (2013). An examination of the (in)visibility of sexual orientation, heterosexism, homophobia, and other LGBTQ concerns in U.S. multicultural teacher education coursework. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10, 224–248. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88786006&site=ehost-live

Griffin, P., D'errico, K., Harro, B., & Schiff, T. (2007). Heterosexism curriculum design. In Adams, M., Bell, L. E., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 195–218). Routledge.

Griffin, P., Peters, M., & Smith, R. (2007). Ableism curriculum design. In Adams, M., Bell, L. E., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 195–218). Routledge.

Griffiths, M. (1998). Towards a theoretical framework for understanding social justice in educational practice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 30, 175–192. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6679284&site=ehost-live

Kohl, H. (1999). Social justice and leadership in education: Commentary. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2, 307–311. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3859968&site=ehost-live

Lavietes, M., & Greenhalgh, H. (2020). Most U.S. LGBT+ students face homophobic or transphobic abuse. Reuters. Accessed July 15, 2023, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-education-lgbt-students-trfn-idUSKBN2741GO

Lalvani, P., & Broderick, A.A. (2013). Institutionalized ableism and the misguided “Disability Awareness Day”: Transformative pedagogies for teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 468–483. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91698833&site=ehost-live

Loftin, T.P. (2011). Guarding against complicity: Educating for democratic privilege. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education, 61, 207–215. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88871442&site=ehost-live

Lukianoff, G. (2007). Social justice and political orthodoxy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, B8–B8. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Merchant, B. M., & Shoho, A. R. (2006). Bridge people: Civic and educational leaders for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 85–109). Pearson Press.

NEA. (2021). Racial justice in education, National Education Association. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/racial-justice-education-key-terms-and

Ornstein, A. C. (2017). Social justice: History, purpose and meaning. Society, 54(6), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8

Poplin, M., & Rivera, J. (2005). Merging social justice and accountability: Educating qualified and effective teachers. Theory into Practice, 44, 27–37. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16696519&site=ehost-live

Walker, M. (2006). Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-making. Journal of Education Policy, 21, 163–185. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19540732&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Enslin, P. (2006). Democracy, social justice and education: Feminist strategies in a globalizing world. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, 57–67. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19683087&site=ehost-live

Eppley, K. (2017). Rural science education as social justice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 45–52. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121367118&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Sikes, P., & Rizvi, F. (Eds.). (1997). Researching race and social justice in education: Essays in honour of Barry Troyna. Trentham Books Limited.

Strouse, J. H. (1997). Exploring themes of social justice: Readings in social foundations. Merrill Prentice Hall.