This work is situated within the theoretical framework of Social Justice, understood as the guarantee of access and quality that seeks to promote full participation in society, especially for those historically marginalized due to their ethnic origin, age, physical abilities, and educational level. In the educational sphere, it can be understood as a result of educational equity. This is defined as a normative concept that establishes that all people, regardless of their origin, should have the possibility of reaching their maximum potential.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyse Social Justice and educational equity through the analysis of previous research conducted in formal education on factors related to students, teachers, educational centres and families. By using the Mapping technique, the aim is to systematically review all previous studies, identifying trends, gaps, and key patterns in the existing scientific literature on the issue under study. The work aims to answer seven research questions (MQs) related to the volume of publications, key authors, geographical distribution, theoretical approaches, indicators used, educational agents analysed and most studied variables. After searching Scopus and Web of Science, 1,958 documents were found, of which, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 581 were accepted for analysis.

The findings show a growing interest in Social Justice and educational equity. The theoretical diversity in the research evidences different perspectives on inequity, with a strong emphasis on the measurement of school segregation. Future research should continue to refine methodologies and expand comparative studies to improve the overall understanding of equity in education and adequately inform future government initiatives focused on improving the education system.

To carry out this study, the Mapping method was employed, a technique that is used in systematic reviews to identify trends, research gaps and patterns in a specific area of knowledge (Petersen et al., 2015). This approach allows structuring scientific production around a topic and answering key research questions (James et al., 2016). In this case, the following questions were established: MQ1. Which are the most relevant authors? MQ2. In which countries is research on Social Justice being developed? MQ3. What approaches to Social Justice are used and which is the most used? MQ4. What indicators are used to analyse Social Justice? MQ5. Which educational agents are studied, which are the most used and how do they evolve? MQ6. Which variables are the most studied? The databases consulted to obtain the studies were Scopus and Web of Science. The selection of studies was made following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles were included if they met the following requirements: to be published in scientific journals; to have full text; to be written in English or Spanish; to have been published between the year 2000, since this is the starting year of the large-scale PISA assessments (OECD, 2024), and 2024, since this is the current date; to have undergone a peer review process; and to focus on the context of Compulsory Secondary Education. Articles that corresponded to conference proceedings or book chapters, those without access to full text, those written in languages other than Spanish or English, those that were not peer-reviewed, not focused on Compulsory Secondary Education or that did not address the issue of educational equity were excluded. After applying these criteria, a total of 581 articles were accepted, 539 articles were duplicated between the two databases consulted and 830 articles were rejected.

Firstly, the most influential authors (MQ1), Maestry, R., DeMathews, D. and Murillo F.J. are remarkable among the 581 final articles. Most of the research (MQ2) comes from Europe, United-States and South-Africa. This indicates that these concepts have been the subject of study worldwide, reflecting their relevance as a global challenge in the search for more just and inclusive societies. Regarding the most employed theoretical approaches (MQ3), the perspectives of Rawls, Sen and Walzer predominate. All this is encompassed in the study of inequity as equality of opportunities, inequity as equality of results and school segregation. The most recurrent indicators are (MQ4): Dissimilarity-Index (Duncan and Duncan, 1955): calculates the proportion of minority group students who would have to move schools to achieve an equitable distribution among them. Gorard-Index (Gorard, 2009): extends the dissimilarity index by adjusting the estimate to take into account the proportion of minority group students. Hutchens-Index (Hutchens, 2004): represents the distance between the mean participation of students of different socioeconomic levels in the absence of segregation and the geometric mean of the actual participation rates. Socioeconomic-Inclusion Index (Snijders and Bosker, 1999): represents the percentage of variability in socioeconomic level that is accounted for by the difference between schools. Concerning the most studied agents (MQ5), mainly teachers, educational centres and students are identified. Finally, the most analysed variables (MQ6) have been teacher leadership (Angus, 2012), socioeconomic level (Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2018) and sociodemographic factors such as gender (Cardozo et al., 2015). This indicates that the attention to the aforementioned agents and the variables analysed, reinforce the idea that Social Justice in education is an interconnected phenomenon that requires a global, comprehensive and contextualized analysis. In short, this study provides a solid framework for future research in Social-Justice and equity, highlighting the importance of diverse theoretical approaches.

Angus, L. (2012). Teaching within and against the circle of privilege: Reforming teachers, reforming schools. Journal of education policy, 27(2), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.598240 Cardozo, M., Sawyer, J., & Simoni, M. (2015). Machismo and Mamitas at School: Exploring the Agency of Teachers for Social and Gender Justice in Bolivian Education. European journal of development research, 27(4), 574-588. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.51 Duncan, O. B. y Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20(2), 210-217. doi:10.2307/2088328 Gorard, S. (2009). Does the index of segregation matter? The composition of secondary schools in England since 1996. British Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 639-652. doi:10.1080/01411920802642389 Hutchens, R. (2004). One measure of segregation. International Economic Review, 45(2), 555-578. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2004.00136.x James, K.L., Randall, N. y Haddaway, N. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6. Murillo, F. J., & Martínez-Garrido, C. (2018). Incidencia de la crisis económica en la segregación escolar en España. Revista de Educación, 381, 67-93. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2017-381-381 OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en. Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1-18. Snijders, T. y Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications.