Borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) refers to a heterogeneous population characterized by cognitive difficulties, generally reflected in an IQ range of 70 to 85, accompanied by limitations in adaptive functioning that affect daily life, social participation, education, and employment (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2011). Despite its prevalence, BIF remains poorly defined and weakly recognized within formal diagnostic, policy, and educational frameworks, leading to marginalization in both mainstream and disability-specific systems (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2017). Individuals with BIF experience limited access to support and accommodations, leaving them at high risk of educational exclusion, social isolation, and mental health challenges (Orío-Aparicio, López-Escribano et al., 2025).

This study examines the educational experiences of adults with BIF through an inclusive qualitative research design. The research aimed on understanding the life experience of people with BIF, and in this communication we focus specifically on how participants experienced schooling and the factors that shaped their learning, inclusion, and sense of belonging. Therefore, this paper presents results specifically related to education, highlighting how school experiences intersect with violence, mental health, identity formation, the role of diagnosis, support needs, and life aspirations.

Data were generated through semi-structured group interviews with twenty-five participants, co-facilitated by one academic and lived-experience researchers with BIF. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed to interpret the data, ensuring that lived experience researchers informed theme development and that patterns of shared meaning were constructed collaboratively. This inclusive methodological approach aligns with social models of disability, which frame barriers in education and society as structural rather than individual deficits (Shakespeare, 2010). By centering participants’ voices, the study captures first-hand accounts of schooling and highlights the complex interplay between individual challenges and social structures.

Analysis revealed several interrelated themes with clear educational relevance. Participants described pervasive experiences of violence in school, including peer bullying (“I was bullied, it was awful, I didn’t want to go to school”) and negative teacher attitudes (“my teacher in fourth grade said there was no point trying because I wouldn’t achieve anything”), which contributed to long-term mental health consequences (“I was alone during breaks, it affected me emotionally and mentally”). Receiving a diagnosis was perceived positively, as it facilitated access to specialized educational supports and recognition of individual needs, and contributed to identity formation and belonging within adapted learning environments (“I improved socially in special school, I made friends”). Participants also highlighted challenges in developing a positive self-concept, noting that academic struggles shaped their perception of competence (“I kept failing, I thought maybe I was stupid”). Limited access to effective supports was emphasized, with adaptations often insufficient or poorly implemented (“they gave me a weak adaptation; it didn’t help me at all”). Despite these difficulties, participants expressed aspirations to continue learning in supportive environments (“I would like to study a vocational training of support worker, but with proper adaptations and support”).

Findings underscore the critical role of inclusive research methodology in capturing authentic educational experiences of people with BIF. By foregrounding lived experience, this study highlights the structural and relational barriers that constrain educational participation and demonstrates how inclusive approaches can inform strategies to enhance accessibility, belonging, and empowerment in schools. These results contribute to a European perspective on inclusive education, emphasizing the intersection of disability, pedagogy, and social justice, and reinforcing the principle of “nothing about us without us” in educational policy and practice thanks to its methodology and findings (Charlton, 1998).

This study adopted an inclusive qualitative approach to explore the schooling experiences of adults with BIF. Inclusive research prioritizes meaningful involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in all stages of knowledge production, from design to analysis and dissemination, and is grounded in commitments to epistemic justice and democratic knowledge production (Walmsley & Johnson, 2003; Nind, 2014). The approach recognizes the value of lived experience as a source of knowledge capable of challenging assumptions and generating insights inaccessible through traditional research methods. Participants comprised twenty-five adults with BIF, recruited through local networks and organizations. Inclusion criteria were age 18 or older and diagnosis of borderline intelletual functioning. The research team included three academic researchers and four lived-experience researchers with BIF, ensuring collaborative design, support, and interpretation of data. Data were collected through seven semi-structured group interviews, co-facilitated by academic and lived-experience researchers. Group discussions focused on participants’ schooling experiences, including peer interactions, teacher support, learning strategies, and perceived barriers and facilitators to educational inclusion. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Accessibility considerations included the use of plain language, visual aids, and opportunities for clarification, supporting participants’ understanding and expression. Data analysis followed Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). This approach treats themes as interpretative constructions emerging from sustained engagement with the data, rather than as pre-existing patterns. Coding was conducted inductively, attending to both semantic content and underlying meaning, and focused on participants’ experiences. Lived-experience researchers contributed to theme development, reviewing preliminary interpretations and providing insights grounded in their own experiences. Collaboration enhanced conceptual depth, ensured alignment with participants’ realities, and supported identification of relevant patterns. The analysis was theoretically informed by social models of disability, which distinguish between individual impairments and social barriers (Shakespeare, 2010). This framework guided attention to structural, relational, and institutional factors shaping educational experiences, and emphasized participants’ agency, rights, and participation. Reflexivity was maintained throughout, with the research team critically examining how their assumptions, positionality, and decisions shaped interpretation. This methodology enabled an in-depth exploration of how schooling interacts with cognitive and social characteristics of individuals with BIF, providing actionable insights into barriers and supports within education systems. Importantly, the inclusive approach ensured that participants’ voices directed interpretation, aligning with the principle of “nothing about us without us” (Charlton, 1998).

The study highlights the profound impact of schooling on the lives of individuals with BIF. Educational experiences were frequently marked by peer bullying, negative teacher expectations, and insufficient adaptations, leading to long-term consequences for mental health, self-concept, and social inclusion. Participants’ accounts underscore the structural and relational nature of these challenges, consistent with social models of disability that frame barriers as socially constructed rather than inherent to the individual (Shakespeare, 2010). Receiving a formal diagnosis was identified as a positive factor, enabling access to specialized supports, tailored learning environments, and social belonging. Educational experiences contributed to identity formation and a sense of group belonging, highlighting the importance of supportive peer and institutional contexts. Conversely, inadequate adaptations and low expectations reinforced feelings of exclusion and academic failure, limiting life opportunities. The findings emphasize the critical role of inclusive research methodologies in capturing authentic educational experiences. By centering the voices of people with BIF, the study reveals not only the barriers encountered but also the strategies and aspirations participants hold for learning and social participation. These insights can inform policy and practice, highlighting the need for accessible curricula, trained staff, supportive school climates, and opportunities for self-determination and empowerment. Ultimately, this research contributes to a European perspective on inclusive education by demonstrating the intersection of cognitive functioning, social barriers, and educational practice. It underscores the importance of listening to marginalized voices, aligning with the principle of “nothing about us without us” (Charlton, 1998), and provides evidence to guide reforms that enhance accessibility, inclusivity, and equity in schools for individuals with BIF.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis. A Practical Guide. Sage Publishing. Charlton, J. (1998). Nothing about Us without Us: Disability, Oppression, and Empowerment. University of California Press. Generalitat de Catalunya. (2017). Recomendaciones para la atención a las personas con funcionamiento intelectual límite. BIF Consensus Group. Orío-Aparicio, C., López-Escribano, C., and Bel-Fenellós, C. (2025). Borderline Intellectual Functioning: A Scoping Review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 69: 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13221 Salvador-Carulla, L.,M. Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosia, and M. Nadal Pla. (Coords.). (2011). Manual de Consenso sobre Funcionamiento Intelectual Límite (FIL). Fundación Æquitas. Shakespeare, T. (2010). The Social Model of Disability. En L. J. Davis (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (3rd edition) (pp. 266-273). Routledge.