SHOAIB ALI RAZA, DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL LEARNING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, NEXUS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, SINGAPORE
Schools are increasingly seeking visible ways in which to demonstrate their commitment to equality, diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences and inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life. In many contexts, this has led to a proliferation of cultural celebration days, themed assemblies and symbolic acts of recognition.
These approaches are often well intentioned. However, visibility and meaningful inclusion should not be conflated. Practices that make diversity visible may acknowledge difference, but they do not necessarily cultivate understanding, belonging or equitable experience. Visibility can indicate that something has been noticed; meaningful inclusion requires that it has been understood, respected and embedded within the fabric of school life.
Research on belonging suggests that students’ sense of inclusion is shaped less by isolated events and more by their everyday experiences of relationships, recognition and safety (Goodenow, 1993; Wentzel, 2010). Belonging is not simply about being seen, but about being known, understood and accepted within a community. It is relational and developed over time.
When inclusion is experienced as episodic or symbolic, it may take on a ‘tick-box’ quality, where practices are enacted to signal commitment rather than to shape lived experience. In some cases, these practices may also be driven by the desire to produce visible artefacts of inclusion, whether for internal reassurance or external communication.
This article offers a research-informed critique of performative inclusion in schools. Using cultural and faith-based celebration practices as an illustrative example, it explores how complex identities can be reduced to visual markers, placing pressure on students to perform identity or navigate misrepresentation. It argues that inclusive school cultures are built less through highly visible events and more through consistent relational, curricular and structural practices that centre dignity, agency and meaning.
From inclusion to performance
A recurring feature of school-based inclusion initiatives is their emphasis on visibility. Displays, themed events and symbolic markers of identity are often prioritised because they are tangible, communicable and relatively easy to implement.
However, it is important to distinguish between acknowledging diversity and understanding it. Visible practices may signal that diversity is recognised at a surface level, but they do not necessarily reflect deeper engagement with the histories, values and lived experiences that shape identity.
There are also structural reasons why such approaches become dominant. Highly visible, easily implemented and broadly uncontroversial practices are more readily adopted by institutions. Bell’s (1980) analysis of institutional responses to inequality suggests that change is often embraced when it aligns with existing structures and interests. In this context, symbolic forms of inclusion may persist not because they are most effective, but because they are most manageable. This tendency is reinforced by the ways in which cultures come to be represented within institutions. Said (1978) argues that complex societies are frequently reduced to simplified and readily recognisable images. Such representations are easier to communicate, but they risk distorting lived realities. Together, these dynamics suggest that what is most visible in schools may also be what is most institutionally comfortable, rather than what is most educationally meaningful.
Yet visibility, in itself, does not guarantee belonging. When identity is made visible in ways that are externally defined or simplified, inclusion can shift from recognition to performance. Students may feel subtly encouraged, or even expected, to present aspects of their identity in ways that align with institutional expectations. In this way, inclusion risks moving from dignity to display.
From celebration to costume
Cultural and faith-based dress-up days provide a useful lens through which to examine these dynamics. While often intended as celebrations, they also risk turning culture and faith into costume.
Cultures and faiths are not homogeneous. They are internally diverse, shaped by geography, history and lived experience. For example, what is commonly referred to as ‘Chinese New Year’ is celebrated across multiple countries and communities, each with distinct traditions and meanings. Similarly, religious identities encompass a wide range of practices that cannot be reduced to a single visual form.
Costume, by its nature, is performative, temporary and often playful. When applied to identities rooted in belief, lived experience and ethical practice, this framing can unintentionally trivialise what is being marked. It may also blur the distinction between meaningful expression and visual imitation.
When schools invite students to ‘dress as’ a particular culture or faith, they are placed in the position of implicitly endorsing particular visual representations. This risks reducing a complex and diverse set of lived identities into a narrow aesthetic.
In educational settings, this carries an opportunity cost. Time and attention that could be used to cultivate understanding may instead be directed towards surface-level representation. Therefore, the greater loss is pedagogical.
The risk of misrepresentation and emotional labour
Even when intentions are positive, symbolic practices introduce both practical and relational risks.
Students and families may select attire that unintentionally misrepresents traditions, blends cultural and religious elements inaccurately, or draws on stereotypes rather than lived realities. When this occurs, schools may find themselves navigating misunderstanding or offence after the fact.
More importantly, students whose identities are being represented may be placed in a difficult position. They may feel the need to explain, correct or quietly endure representations that feel inaccurate or uncomfortable. This shifts responsibility and emotional labour onto those whom the celebration is intended to support.
These experiences are rarely visible, but they are consequential. They shape how students perceive the school environment, how safe they feel expressing themselves and how willing they are to participate. In this sense, belonging is not simply an outcome, but an ongoing condition shaped by repeated interactions and interpretations.
Belonging, participation and behaviour
The implications of these dynamics extend into behaviour and school culture.
Students experience inclusion through participation, interaction and interpretation. When activities create discomfort or uncertainty, students may choose to opt out, participate minimally or disengage in less visible ways.
In such cases, non-participation may be misread. A student who does not engage in a themed activity may be perceived as disengaged or non-compliant, when in fact they may be navigating questions of identity, authenticity or comfort. Similarly, students who feel misrepresented may withdraw from discussion or interaction.
Over time, these patterns may contribute to frustration or quiet resentment, particularly where students feel that their identities are being simplified or misunderstood. While it would be an overstatement to claim a direct causal link to attendance, there is a plausible connection to engagement, trust and willingness to participate, all of which are associated with behaviour and learning (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Wentzel, 2010).
Depth of learning and the limits of symbolic practice
Concerns about symbolic inclusion are not only cultural or relational. They are also pedagogical.
The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982) describes learning as progressing from surface-level engagement to increasingly integrated and abstract understanding. Activities that focus primarily on visual representation tend to sit at the lower end of this model.
This distinction is echoed in the work of Dr Eeqbal Hassim, who differentiates between surface-level cultural exposure and ‘deep and transformative’ intercultural learning (Hassim, 2018). While symbolic practices may increase visibility, they rarely engage students in the relational, reflective and critical processes required for meaningful understanding. Culture, in this sense, is not a static category, but a dynamic and intersecting set of identities shaped by context and experience.
This aligns with long-standing critiques within multicultural education. Scholars such as Banks (2001), Nieto (2010) and Sleeter (2005) have cautioned against approaches that overemphasise surface features of culture. While such approaches may raise awareness, they rarely lead to deeper understanding.
Meaning, dignity and belief
For many students, identity is not simply cultural but shaped by belief, conscience and personal conviction. In these contexts, representation carries additional significance.
Within Islamic thought, there is a long-standing emphasis on the primacy of meaning over outward form. The Qur’an cautions against defining righteousness through external display alone, emphasising belief, conduct and ethical action (Qur’an 2:177). This reflects a broader principle: identity cannot be reduced to appearance. As Zaid Shakir (2022) argues, human dignity rests on our shared humanity rather than on the external characteristics that distinguish us. Practices that prioritise appearance over understanding risk emptying symbols of meaning and undermining the belonging that they seek to promote.
It is also important to recognise that members of any cultural or religious community will not hold a single, unified view on such practices. Some may welcome symbolic celebration, while others may approach it with caution. This diversity of perspective reinforces the need for thoughtful, context-sensitive approaches.
Beyond performative inclusion
If symbolic approaches are limited, then what might more meaningful inclusion look like in practice?
Research suggests that belonging is built through consistent, relational and structural conditions rather than episodic events. These include:
- relational practice: strong, respectful relationships between teachers and students (Wentzel, 2010)
- curricular inclusion: representation of diverse perspectives within the curriculum (Banks, 2001; Nieto, 2010)
- pedagogical depth: opportunities for students to explore identity, meaning and context (Biggs and Collis, 1982; Hassim, 2018)
- language and norms: everyday expectations that promote dignity and respect
- student agency: opportunities for students to shape how their identities are understood.
These approaches are less visible but more impactful. They align with research on school culture, which emphasises coherence and consistency over isolated initiatives (Eccles and Roeser, 2011).
Implications for leadership
For school leaders, the challenge is not whether to celebrate diversity, but how to do so in ways that support genuine belonging.
This requires a shift in emphasis. Rather than asking ‘How can we make inclusion visible?’, leaders might ask:
- What experiences do students have of belonging on a daily basis?
- Where might well-intentioned practices be creating unintended pressure or discomfort?
- How are identities represented within the curriculum, and not just in events?
- How do our approaches to behaviour reflect our understanding of belonging?
Importantly, this does not mean abandoning celebration or becoming overly cautious to the point of inaction. Cultural and religious events can play a valuable role in building community, and many students and families value these moments. However, they should be situated within a broader approach that prioritises meaning over display and relationships over representation.
Conclusion
Schools have a responsibility to create environments in which all students experience a genuine sense of belonging. This is both an ethical imperative and a condition for learning.
While visible acts of inclusion may signal intent, they are not, in themselves, sufficient. When inclusion becomes performance, there is a risk that identity is reduced to display and belonging is assumed rather than experienced.
Moving beyond performative inclusion requires a shift from symbolic, episodic practices towards consistent, relational and structural approaches. It involves recognising that behaviour, participation and belonging are deeply interconnected, and that inclusion is ultimately enacted through the everyday experiences of students. Visibility matters, but it should not be mistaken for belonging.
