Education systems across the world have long grappled with the concepts of inclusion, exclusion, and segregation, which are fundamentally spatially imbued (Downes 2020; Kitchin 1998; Ypinazar and Pagliano 2004). Despite the growing focus on the "spatial turn" in education over the past two decades, spatial understandings remain under-theorised in this domain (Buchner and Köpfer 2022; Köpfer 2025).

This paper proposes a novel theoretical framework—the concentric spatial turn—to address the limitations of existing diametric spatial systems that perpetuate exclusion and segregation (Downes et al. 2024, Travers and Downes, 2025).Diametric spatial systems are characterized by oppositional, hierarchical structures that reinforce exclusionary practices, such as the segregation of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) into separate spaces (Foucault and Miskowiec 1986; Kitchin 1998; Soja 1989, 2000). These systems rely on assumed separation, closure, and mirror image inverted symmetry, creating rigid binaries such as "us versus them" and "above versus below" (Lévi-Strauss 1963, 1977).

In contrast, concentric spatial systems offer a relational model of assumed connection, where distinctions are made within a framework of connectivity and shared humanity (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006; Downes et al. 2024).The proposed concentric spatial turn builds on the initial spatial turn in education, which treated space as socially constructed and malleable (Lefebvre 1991; Soja 2000; Massey 2005). Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from psychology, anthropology, and phenomenology, this framework emphasises the dynamic interplay between physical and relational spaces (Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Ricoeur 1981, 1994; Lévi-Strauss 1963; Zlatev 2005; Vendra and Furia 2021). It challenges the reduction of space to homogenous or undifferentiated structures, advocating instead for a plurality of responsive spaces that foster meaningful engagement and inclusion (Buchner and Köpfer 2022; Nind, Köpfer and Lemmer 2022; Downes 2024).

Using Ireland as an illustrative example, this paper examines the evolution of special and inclusive education policies and practices over the past century (Ring 2024; Travers 2023). Despite policy commitments to inclusion, such as the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2007) in 2018, Ireland continues, similar to many European countries, to experience growth in segregated special schools and classes (NCSE 2024). This contradiction between policy intentions and practice highlights the need for a paradigm shift toward concentric spatial systems (Cefai et al. 2021; EU Council Recommendation Pathways to School Success 2022).

The paper argues that concentric spaces can address systemic challenges in inclusive education by reconceptualizing schools as multiple, fluid spaces that accommodate diverse needs (Downes et al. 2024). It explores the implications of this framework for governance, pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and stakeholder engagement, emphasising the importance of breaking down silos between health and education and fostering authentic connections between schools, families, and communities (Downes 2020; Kakos 2022; Ferrare and Apple 2010; Travers and King 2025).

This paper employs a desk-based conceptual review methodology to develop and apply the proposed concentric spatial framework to inclusive and special education. ​ The interpretative approach synthesises insights from cognitive psychology, linguistics, hermeneutics, and structuralist anthropology to interrogate spatial assumptions and their impact on educational systems. The methodology builds on the work of key thinkers such as Ricoeur, Bronfenbrenner, and Lévi-Strauss. Ricoeur’s hermeneutics provide a spatial lens for understanding relational dynamics, while Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model offers a foundation for conceptualising concentric spaces as interconnected subsystems. ​ Lévi-Strauss’ structural anthropology introduces the geometric contrasts between diametric and concentric spaces, which serve as the basis for the proposed framework. ​ The paper examines spatial structures as both physical and relational systems, focusing on three key axes: assumed separation versus connection, relative closure versus openness, and mirror image inverted symmetry versus symmetry as unity. ​ These spatial contrasts are used to analyse system-level practices and policies in Irish special and inclusive education. ​ The Irish context is chosen for its illustrative value, given its recent ratification of the UNCRPD and its policy commitment to a fully inclusive education system. ​ However, the country is also experiencing significant growth in segregated provision, such as autism special classes and special schools. ​ This contradiction provides a unique opportunity to apply the concentric spatial framework to scrutinize the interplay between inclusion and exclusion in education. ​ The analysis is structured chronologically and thematically, focusing on major policy shifts, legislative changes, and evolving models of provision in Ireland. ​ Sources are selected based on their direct relevance to inclusive and special education policy, their citation in policy debates, and their representation of critical perspectives. ​ The paper also draws on illustrative theoretical frameworks and examples from international contexts to demonstrate the broader applicability of the concentric spatial framework.

The findings highlight the limitations of diametric spatial systems, as these systems perpetuate exclusionary practices through rigid binaries, hierarchical structures, and spatial segregation (Buchner and Köpfer 2022). These diametric systems are underpinned by oppositional logics such as norm/other and above/below, which structure educational spaces and relationships in ways that marginalise learners. The proposed concentric spatial turn offers a transformative alternative to these exclusionary patterns. By treating space as a relational system of assumed connection, concentric spaces challenge the traditional notion of schools as homogenous, closed systems and instead foreground openness, mediation, and connection with the wider environment. Schools are reconceptualised as multiple, fluid spaces that accommodate diverse needs and foster meaningful engagement, moving beyond simple co-location or presence towards more connective micro-spaces such as nurture rooms, parents’ rooms, and multidisciplinary hubs (Downes 2024). Concentric spatial systems promote shared governance and collaboration between health, education, and social sectors, addressing the silos created by diametric spatial splitting and traditional separations of services. This reconfiguration positions the school as a connective site for multidisciplinary support (Cefai et al. 2021). Inclusive pedagogy and curricula can be reimagined within concentric spaces to celebrate difference as a resource and asset rather than a basis for exclusion, thereby resisting deficit-oriented labelling and segregating practices (Nind, Köpfer and Lemmer 2022). Concentric spaces support relational, dialogic, and socio-emotional approaches that recognise learner diversity (Downes et al. 2024). Concentric spaces enable inclusive assessment practices that are accessible, appropriate, and relevant to all learners, challenging performative, high-stakes regimes that reproduce diametric hierarchies of success and failure (Ferrare and Apple 2010). They also foster authentic connections between schools, families, and communities (Downes et al 2024). Inclusive leadership within concentric spatial systems emphasises solidarity, trust, and a shared vision of inclusion, challenging diametric hierarchies and binaries.

Bronfenbrenner, U. and Gary, W.E., 2000. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), pp.115–125. Buchner, T., 2025. On ‘integration rooms’, tough territories, and ‘places to be’: The ability-space-regimes of three educational settings at Austrian secondary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), pp.192–209. Buchner, T. and Köpfer, A., 2022. Mapping the field: Spatial relations in research on inclusion and exclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), pp.129–136. Cefai, C., Downes, P., Cavioni, V., Damberga, I., Cefai, C., Camilleri, L. and Bartolo, P., 2021. Social emotional competence, learning outcomes, emotional and behavioral difficulties of preschool children: Parent and teacher evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Downes, P., 2020. Reconstructing agency in developmental and educational psychology: Inclusive systems as concentric space. New York/London/New Delhi: Routledge. Downes, P., 2024. Towards a concentric spatial psychology for social and emotional education beyond the interlocking spatial pillars of modernism. Eighth Monograph in Resilience and Health, Centre for Resilience and Socio-Emotional Health, University of Malta. Downes, P., Li, G., Van Praag, L. and Lamb, S. eds., 2024. The Routledge international handbook of equity and inclusion in education. London: Routledge. Ferrare, J.J. and Apple, M.W., 2010. Spatializing critical education: Progress and cautions. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), pp.209–221. Kakos, M., 2022. A third space for inclusion: Multilingual teaching assistants reporting on the use of their marginal position, translation and translanguaging to construct inclusive environments. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), pp.223–238. Köpfer, A., 2025. Reconstructing students’ appropriation of space in inclusive schools in Austria and Germany using Bourdieu’s theory of social space. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), pp.175–191. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The production of space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Lévi-Strauss, C., 1963. Structural anthropology: Vol. 1. Translated by C. Jacobsen and B. Grundfest Schoepf. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Nind, M., Köpfer, A. and Lemmer, K., 2022. Children’s spaces of belonging in schools: Bringing theories and stakeholder perspectives into dialogue. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), pp.210–222. Soja, E.W., 1985. The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorisation. In: D. Gregory and J. Urry, eds. Social relations and spatial structures. London: Critical Human Geography. Travers, J., & Downes, P. (2025). Developing a concentric spatial turn for inclusive and special education: key issues for systems development. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–26.