Schoolyards as Inclusive Spaces: Teachers’ Perspectives on Gender, Disability, and Equity in Greece

Abstract

Schoolyards are increasingly recognized as critical spaces for inclusion, yet research on their role in addressing gender and disability remains limited. This study examines Greek teachers’ perceptions of schoolyard inclusivity, analyzing how views differ across teaching levels, professional experience, and institutional contexts. A quantitative survey design was employed, applying an intersectional framework seldom used in schoolyard research to capture both structural and cultural dimensions of exclusion. Teachers identified barriers such as uneven surfaces, limited adaptive equipment, and the absence of sensory-friendly areas, alongside cultural dynamics, particularly the dominance of competitive sports in central spaces, that marginalize girls and students with disabilities. Findings indicate that educators with longer service, advanced academic qualifications, and training in Special Education were more sensitive to issues of equity and accessibility, while secondary-level teachers were more critical than primary colleagues, reflecting adolescence as a period of intensified gendered exclusion. Situating these results within international debates on playground design, hidden curriculum, and Universal Design for Learning, the article concludes that inclusive schoolyards require not only physical redesign, but also cultural transformation, participatory co-design, and teacher-led practices aligned with global sustainability agendas.

1. Introduction

The schoolyard is among the first public spaces where children socialize and participate, offering freedom of movement and interaction. It shapes behaviors, relationships, and daily practices, while also fostering physical development and well-being (Raney et al., 2023). Yet conventional designs often constrain equitable access, particularly for students with disabilities, by reinforcing competition and exclusion (Sygkollitou, 1997; Sygkollitou et al., 2007).

“Gender” is a contested concept, understood not as fixed or universal but as socially constructed and shaped by intersecting factors such as race, ethnicity, class, ability, and age (Butler, 1990, 2019). In educational settings, these norms influence socialization and participation, often reproducing inequality (Connell, 1987; Unterhalter et al., 2022). Research consistently shows that boys dominate central playground areas through competitive sports, while girls are relegated to the periphery, engaging in less visible activities; boys may occupy up to 70–80% of schoolyard space, with teachers sometimes unconsciously reinforcing these dynamics (Rönnlund, 2015).

Beyond physical play, schoolyards are critical to children’s emotional well-being, sense of belonging, and social relationships (Bergin et al., 2024; Bohnert et al., 2022; Ndhlovu & Varea, 2016). Nevertheless, many remain poorly designed to accommodate diverse needs, perpetuating both gendered participation patterns and the exclusion of students with disabilities (Lithoxoidis & Giaouri, 2024; Voukantsi, 2021). Although inclusive education emphasizes removing barriers and embracing diversity (Ainscow, 2005), most research has focused on classrooms, leaving outdoor spaces underexplored despite their role in reproducing broader inequalities (van Melik & Althuizen, 2020).

Against this backdrop, the present study offers the first large-scale Greek investigation of schoolyards through the combined lens of disability and gender. By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives, it sheds light on everyday practices, barriers, and opportunities for inclusive transformation. Positioned at the intersection of pedagogy, policy, and student interaction, teachers both observe and shape the dynamics of inclusion. Teachers’ perspectives are pivotal because they act as mediators between policy and practice, translating inclusion principles into daily routines and supervision. Their experiences therefore offer unique insights into how structural and cultural barriers manifest in everyday schoolyard interactions. The originality of this research lies in extending inclusive education beyond classrooms, conceptualizing schoolyards as cultural spaces where participation, equity, and belonging are actively negotiated.

This intersectional framework directly informed both the research design and data analysis by guiding the construction of questionnaire domains (gender, disability, and spatial equity) and by framing the interpretation of teachers’ responses as situated within overlapping social hierarchies and institutional contexts.

The study aims to (a) assess teachers’ perceptions of the inclusivity of Greek schoolyards, (b) identify demographic and professional factors influencing these perceptions, and (c) examine how physical and cultural barriers affect accessibility and participation. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that teachers with training in Special Education or longer professional experience would report higher awareness of inclusivity gaps.

Building on these foundations, this study addresses the following questions:

• How do Greek teachers perceive the inclusivity of schoolyards with regard to disability and gender?
• Do perceptions differ according to teachers’ demographic and professional characteristics (e.g., years of service, training, teaching level)?
• What structural and cultural barriers to inclusivity are identified within Greek school contexts?
• What recommendations do teachers propose for enhancing accessibility, gender equity, and participation in schoolyards?

2. Literature Review

This study adopts an integrated framework of inclusion that unites psychological, social, and educational perspectives. The social model of disability (Oliver, 2013) identifies exclusion as a product of structural barriers, while Fraser’s (1998) theory of social justice emphasizes institutional responsibility for equity. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2024) operationalizes these principles through flexible and accessible pedagogical strategies, and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model situates development within interconnected physical and social systems such as the schoolyard. Building on insights from gender studies (Connell, 1987; Li & Wong, 2016) and intersectionality theory (Bešić, 2020; Crenshaw, 1989), the framework underscores how overlapping identities and power relations shape participation. Together, these perspectives conceptualize the schoolyard not merely as a physical space but as a sociocultural and justice-oriented environment where design, accessibility, and equity converge.

2.1. Inclusive Education and Gendered Schoolyards

Inclusive education is grounded in the principle that every learner should have equitable opportunities to access, participate in, and benefit from educational environments, regardless of ability, background, or identity (Ainscow, 2005). Research has primarily emphasized classroom practices such as differentiated instruction and curriculum adaptation (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011), while outdoor spaces central to play, interaction, and socio-emotional development remain comparatively underexplored (Bohnert et al., 2022). Evidence shows that inadequately designed schoolyards perpetuate inequalities, excluding children with disabilities (Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Schulke et al., 2024) and reinforcing gendered patterns of participation (Rönnlund, 2015; Thorne, 1993; van Melik & Althuizen, 2020).

The gendered dynamics of playgrounds are well established. Connell’s (1987, 2009, 2020) theory of gender and power demonstrates how masculinities dominate, while Paechter (2003a) conceptualizes masculinities and femininities as “communities of practice” enacted through daily interactions. Butler’s (1990) notion of performativity further explains how surveillance, spatial organization, and embodied practices reproduce hierarchies (Paechter, 2006). Ordinary behaviors, dress, movement, bodily comportment thus become sites where social norms are inscribed (Garrett, 2004).

Empirical studies corroborate these mechanisms. Research in the UK revealed how friendship groups and physical education consolidate gendered hierarchies (George & Browne, 2000; Frank, 1991, 1995; Paechter, 2003b). Boys frequently monopolize central playground areas through competitive sports, marginalizing girls and students with disabilities (Gqola et al., 2024; Graham et al., 2021; Li & Wong, 2016; Rönnlund, 2015). Findings from Greece indicate similar patterns, with boys’ dominance relegating others to peripheral spaces (Lithoxoidis & Giaouri, 2024; Voukantsi, 2021). These inequalities are reinforced from early childhood through family socialization and media representations (Pliogou & Tromara, 2023), gendered toys (Kogidou, 2015; Weisgram & Bruun, 2018), and curricular practices that embed stereotypes into teaching and teacher expectations (Pliogou, 2021). Football, in particular, functions as a marker of hegemonic masculinity, excluding girls or categorizing their participation as “tomboy” behavior (Clark & Paechter, 2007; Paechter & Clark, 2007). Age hierarchies and peer surveillance further entrench these dynamics (Swain, 2000), while teachers may inadvertently reinforce them (Shilling, 1991).

Like other public spaces, schoolyards are socially constructed arenas where power relations, gender norms, and cultural meanings converge (Connell, 2020; Lefebvre, 1991). At the same time, they also offer possibilities for resistance and renegotiation. Research illustrates how play negotiations foster inclusion (Donner et al., 2023; Epstein et al., 2001), how girls subvert norms by joining football or leading peer groups (Karsten, 2003), and how mixed-gender play creates “zones of transgression” (McGuffey & Rich, 1999). Creative and artistic activities also reflect gendered preferences, as demonstrated in Canada (Savoie & St-Pierre, 2012) and Spain (González-Barea & Rodríguez-Marín, 2020).

Schoolyards function as dynamic spaces where power, embodiment, and social relations unfold (Connell, 1987; Li & Wong, 2016). Within this context, inclusive and gender-responsive pedagogy moves beyond formal equality by addressing diverse learner needs, challenging stereotypes, and fostering supportive environments (Dyson & Millward, 2000; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Kumar, 2024). Central to this approach is the recognition of students’ different strengths, the adaptation of teaching methods and materials, and the preparation of educators through gender-aware training (Khalil et al., 2023). Teachers, as key agents of change, advance equality and justice through unbiased curricula, equitable participation strategies, and pedagogies responsive to varied learning preferences (Aragonés-González et al., 2020). Ultimately, such practices not only counter discrimination but also empower learners to question social biases and promote democratic values (UNGEI, 2019).

2.2. Disability, Intersectionality, and Inclusive Schoolyard Design

Globally, 1.3 billion people live with severe disabilities, including 92 million in Europe (24.9% of the population over 16) and 240 million children roughly one in ten worldwide (UNICEF, 2021; World Health Organization, 2023). In low- and middle-income countries, as many as 33 million children with disabilities remain out of school (Education Commission, 2016). In Greece, 24.3% of the population report serious or moderate limitations in daily activities, a figure that exceeds 60% among those over 65 (European Commission, 2021, 2023). Disability is increasingly framed not as an individual deficit but as the product of interactions between impairments and environmental or social barriers—a rights-based understanding endorsed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Shakespeare, 2010, 2018; United Nations, 2006, 2024; World Health Organization, 2011). Despite advances, people with disabilities and their families continue to experience disproportionate poverty, limited access to employment and services, and unmet healthcare needs due to structural, financial, and communicative obstacles. Meaningful participation is vital for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly inclusive and equitable education and gender equality, which act as interdependent drivers of transformation (United Nations, 2024). Yet children and young people especially those with communication disabilities are rarely engaged in shaping educational or architectural spaces. Developing clear frameworks for participatory co-design is therefore essential to creating environments that are genuinely inclusive, equitable, and consistent with global sustainability and justice agendas (Gillett-Swan & Burton, 2022).

When disability intersects with gender, disadvantages intensify. Girls with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to educational exclusion due to stigmatization, cultural norms that devalue girls’ schooling, heightened exposure to gender-based violence, inaccessible infrastructure (e.g., lack of adapted toilets and assistive devices), and insufficient teacher preparation in inclusive pedagogies (Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies [INEE], 2023a, 2023b; Pliogou & Katsarou, 2024; UNGEI & Leonard Cheshire Disability, 2017). Segregated provision often compounds isolation through distance, cost, and safety concerns (UNICEF, 2021). These inequalities persist into adulthood: women with disabilities face barriers to employment, diminished social recognition, and increased risk of violence (Garland-Thomson, 2002; Giaouri, 2025; Hughes, 2007; Thomas, 2006). Non-binary individuals also encounter layered forms of marginalization shaped by ableism and gender norms (Baril, 2015). Feminist scholarship that views gender as socially constructed (Butler, 1990) challenges assumptions about the “normal” body (Garland-Thomson, 2011; Hall, 2011; Kafer, 2013), while intersectionality highlights how disability, gender, and other identities interact to produce complex exclusions (Crenshaw, 1989).

In education, the dominant perspective has shifted from deficit-based views to the social model of disability, which locates barriers in institutional structures and practices (Goodley, 2017; Oliver, 2013; Slee, 2011). Applied to schoolyards, this model reveals how uneven surfaces, inaccessible pathways, steps without ramps, and a lack of sensory-friendly areas constrain participation (Adam & Koutsoklenis, 2023; Hemmingsson & Borell, 2002; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007). The absence of adaptive equipment exacerbates exclusion, making outdoor environments both material and social sites of inequality (Connors & Stalker, 2007; Pivik et al., 2002). By contrast, inclusive schoolyards foster belonging, reduce stigma, and enhance relationships among children with and without disabilities (Moore & Lynch, 2015; Prellwitz & Tamm, 2000; Raney et al., 2023). UDL provides a framework for operationalizing these aims by promoting multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, which translate into multifunctional play zones, sensory-friendly areas, accessible pathways, and adaptable equipment (Blanchet-Cohen & Elliot, 2011; CAST, 2024; Rose & Meyer, 2002).

Nevertheless, applying UDL outdoors raises conceptual ambiguities surrounding accessibility, usability, and inclusivity, leading to the proposal of “Universal Design for Play (UDP)” tailored to outdoor contexts (Moore et al., 2023). Complementary frameworks enrich this perspective: Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model situates schoolyards as microsystems shaping development and well-being (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Christensen & James, 2017), while Fraser’s theory of social justice expands the focus from physical access to recognition, fairness, and participation (Fraser, 1998). Schoolyards that privilege competitive sports risk reproducing inequalities tied to disability, gender, and socio-economic status, underscoring the need for justice-oriented design and cultural change (Ainscow, 2005; Rönnlund, 2015; Slee, 2011; van Melik & Althuizen, 2020). Even in apparently inclusive playgrounds, however, children report “invisible barriers” rooted in social attitudes and interactions, revealing the limits of purely infrastructural approaches (Wenger et al., 2020).

Research on naturalized schoolyards further demonstrates cognitive and socio-emotional benefits including improved attention, self-regulation, stress reduction, and enhanced functioning for all children, particularly those with attention difficulties (Chawla et al., 2014; Kelz et al., 2015). Addressing structural, sensory, and social barriers can thus transform exclusion into participation and belonging, provided interventions remain attuned to cultural and policy contexts. International comparisons highlight both common challenges and local specificities, emphasizing the urgency of context-sensitive action in Greece, where barriers remain especially pronounced.

2.3. Inclusive Schoolyards: Global Insights and Greek Realities

International evidence demonstrates the pivotal role of inclusive schoolyard design in advancing equity and participation. Despite strong policy frameworks across Europe, North America, and Australia, implementation remains inconsistent. In the Netherlands, for example, children with disabilities continue to be excluded from playgrounds due to persistent structural and cultural barriers (van Melik & Althuizen, 2020). Similar challenges are observed in Scandinavia and the United States, where uneven surfaces, inaccessible equipment, and entrenched social norms restrict engagement (Moore & Lynch, 2015; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Raney et al., 2023). Collectively, these studies reveal a durable gap between inclusive policy rhetoric and everyday practice, highlighting the need to embed accessibility and equity into design processes from the outset.

The Greek context reflects these shortcomings. Many schoolyards lack ramps, adapted pathways, and sensory-friendly zones (Adam & Koutsoklenis, 2023). Preschool teachers acknowledge the pedagogical and social significance of outdoor play but report barriers including safety concerns, resource limitations, and restrictive policies (Sakellariou & Banou, 2020). Gendered dynamics are also evident: boys frequently dominate central spaces through competitive sports, relegating girls and students with disabilities to peripheral areas (Lithoxoidis & Giaouri, 2024; Voukantsi, 2021). These practices, embedded within school culture, shape peer interactions and teacher perceptions, underscoring the need for targeted interventions. Greek scholarship adds further depth, documenting persistent gender inequalities in secondary and higher education (Maragoudaki, 2003), the role of free play in preschool socialization and teachers’ views of outdoor play as central to early education (Chatzopoulou, 2021). Students themselves perceive greener schoolyards as healthier, more attractive, and socially engaging (Tsantopoulos et al., 2013).

Schoolyards also function as “hidden curricula,” structuring identities and hierarchies. While they can support creativity and life-skill development (Bishop & Curtis, 2001), peer dynamics during breaktimes may reproduce inequality (Blatchford & Sharp, 1994; Titman, 1992, 1994; Weinstein & Pinciotti, 1988). The Green Schoolyard Movement promotes ecological and flexible spaces that foster learning, social connection, and well-being (Danks, 2010; Danks-Gamson, 2014). Yet outdoor learning literature warns that normative assumptions about who “belongs in nature” may marginalize non-dominant identities (Gqola et al., 2024), emphasizing the importance of disrupting spatial inequalities through inclusive design.

Exclusionary dynamics also manifest in harmful practices. Bullying is often enacted and reinforced by bystanders (Craig & Pepler, 1997), with age and gender influencing its patterns (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). Football frequently serves as a mechanism of gender policing, reinforcing hegemonic masculinity and marginalizing peers who resist dominant norms (Mayeza, 2023), in line with Connell’s (1987, 2009, 2020) broader theorization of gendered power.

Alternative models illustrate possibilities for change. In Barcelona, the Equal Saree collective’s Patios Coeducativos applies feminist, participatory principles to reimagine schoolyards as inclusive, cooperative spaces (Saldaña Blasco et al., 2019). In Greece, the project The Schoolyard: A Space of Equality and the work of Gavana and Grigoriadou (2023) advance similar concepts, demonstrating how co-design and gender awareness can promote equity, democratic participation, and children’s sense of ownership. These initiatives show that sustainable transformation requires combining cultural change with physical redesign, positioning schoolyards as microcosms of democracy and equality.

Teachers’ perspectives further complicate this landscape. Even when opposing gender segregation in principle, educators often describe boys as competitive and girls as passive, inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes (Samartzis & Pitsou, 2024). This aligns with international evidence that teacher expectations and supervisory practices sustain boys’ dominance in central spaces (Li & Wong, 2016; Rönnlund, 2015). By contrast, participatory approaches highlight the value of children’s voices: greener and more diverse schoolyards are linked with creative play and improved peer interactions (van den Bogerd et al., 2025), adolescents report preferring restorative and aesthetically rich environments (Leigh et al., 2025), and co-design projects connect schoolyard transformation with civic awareness and socio-ecological benefits (Blanc et al., 2025; Wolf et al., 2024). Such processes place children’s agency and well-being at the center, while also enhancing teacher capacity and fostering authentic collaboration (Kelly et al., 2019). Nevertheless, Holland et al. (2010) caution that youth participation often remains rhetorical, with adult-driven agendas undermining genuine agency.

Sabir Onat and Yirmibeşoğlu (2022) conceptualize schoolyards as sustainable learning landscapes by integrating ecological principles such as natural elements and green spaces, thereby fostering environmental awareness, stewardship, and interdisciplinary education through experiential pedagogies. Their model emphasizes community engagement, ensuring that students, teachers, and stakeholders co-shape both design and use. Fraser’s (2009) theory of justice further frames equitable schoolyards as requiring redistribution (physical accessibility), recognition (cultural inclusion), and representation (democratic participation). Models of student participation (Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007) likewise stress that children should be listened to, given space, and actively involved in decision-making, while Wenger et al. (2020) show that children with disabilities feel more included when their feedback is valued. Co-design processes enhance children’s agency and well-being while strengthening teacher professionalism and collaboration (Kelly et al., 2019), though risks of tokenism remain when adult agendas dominate (Holland et al., 2010).

An intersectional perspective sharpens this analysis. Cultural constraints may limit girls’ presence in central play areas (Karsten, 2003), while socioeconomic disadvantage restricts access to safe, inclusive environments (Dyment & Bell, 2008). Gender, disability, class, ethnicity, and migration status intersect to produce compounded exclusions. Overall, schoolyards emerge as spaces shaped by overlapping inequalities. Greek research reflects international patterns while revealing context-specific dynamics. Addressing these complexities requires an explicitly intersectional framework integrating gender, disability, socioeconomic background, and cultural diversity. Despite the breadth of international evidence, Greek scholarship remains fragmented, underscoring a critical gap that this study seeks to address by examining teachers’ perceptions of inclusivity and accessibility.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

The study involved 350 teachers selected through convenience sampling, with a balanced distribution by gender and teaching level (primary/secondary). Participants represented a wide age range, were mostly university or postgraduate degree holders, and reported varied employment statuses (permanent, substitute, hourly-paid). Their professional development spanned multiple domains—Special Education, ICT, pedagogy, administration, intercultural education, psychology, and gender studies—while a minority reported no additional training. Teaching experience ranged from early-career to over 30 years. Most participants worked in medium or large schools, primarily located in urban or semi-urban areas.

Eligible participants were active teachers in Greek primary or secondary schools. Electronic invitations were distributed via regional education networks and professional associations. Participation was voluntary, with no exclusion criteria beyond current employment. Although recruitment relied on professional and online networks, efforts were made to include diverse geographical regions. The sample size (N = 350) was chosen to ensure adequate statistical power for detecting medium effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.30) in group comparisons and correlational analyses, following standard power analysis guidelines in quantitative educational research.

Overall, the sample’s balance and diversity allowed for meaningful comparisons across key variables while reflecting a broad spectrum of educational backgrounds, though the non-random sampling method limits the generalizability of the findings. A comprehensive overview of demographic and institutional variables is displayed in

Table 1. Sample Characteristics (N = 350).

Variable	Categories
Gender	Women (50.0%), Men (50.0%)
Age	22–35 (28.0%), 36–50 (30.0%), 50–60 (30.0%), 60+ (12.0%)
Education	TEI (7.0%), University (42.0%), Master’s (40.0%), Doctorate (6.0%), Other (5.0%)
Level of teaching	Primary (50.0%), Secondary (50.0%)
Training field	None (18.0%), ICT (21.0%), Pedagogy (10.0%), Educational Administration (7.0%), Special Education (24.0%), Gender Studies (3.0%), Intercultural Education (9.0%), Psychology (5.0%), Other (3.0%)
Employment status	Permanent (70.0%), Substitute (27.0%), Hourly-paid (3.0%)
Years of service	0–5 (20.0%), 6–10 (18.0%), 11–20 (20.0%), 21–30 (30.0%), 30+ (12.0%)
School location	Urban (45.0%), Semi-urban (35.0%), Rural (20.0%)
Student population	1–30 (10.0%), 30–60 (12.0%), 60–100 (18.0%), 100+ (60.0%)
Number of teachers	1–5 (7.0%), 6–12 (24.0%), 12–18 (10.0%), 19+ (59.0%)
School co-location	Yes (8.0%), No (92.0%)

Note. TEI = Technological Educational Institute; ICT = Information and Communication Technologies. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

.

3.2. Research Instrument

The questionnaire was a self-developed instrument designed to assess teachers’ perceptions of the inclusiveness of Greek schoolyards. It was theoretically grounded in the literature on inclusive schoolyard design and gender-sensitive educational environments, drawing particularly on the conceptual frameworks proposed by Moore and Lynch (2015), Prellwitz and Skär (2007), Li and Wong (2016), and Rönnlund (2015). Although inspired by themes and dimensions discussed in these studies, the instrument was developed from scratch to reflect the Greek educational and cultural context. Expert reviewers ensured the content validity of the adapted items and their alignment with the study’s objectives.

The questionnaire comprised six thematic domains:

(1)

Demographic and institutional information (e.g., gender, years of service, school type, and location);

(2)

Schoolyard design and usability, including items such as “The schoolyard is adequately maintained” and “The design allows accessibility for students with disabilities”;

(3)

Inclusion related to disability and gender, with items like “The schoolyard design encourages interaction between students with and without disabilities” and “Play areas are equitably used by both genders”;

(4)

Social and pedagogical functions, featuring statements such as “The schoolyard promotes cooperation and socialization among students”;

(5)

Barriers and improvement needs, for example “There are physical or organizational barriers preventing equal participation in schoolyard activities”; and

(6)

Leadership support, including items such as “School leadership encourages inclusive outdoor activities for all students.”

All closed-ended items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). For each domain, composite mean scores were computed by averaging the responses of the items within the corresponding subscale. Higher scores indicated more positive perceptions of inclusivity, accessibility, or support. Reverse coding was applied where necessary to maintain a consistent direction of scoring.

The questionnaire was administered electronically via Google Forms, ensuring anonymity, efficiency, and broad geographic coverage, which facilitated data collection from a large and diverse sample of teachers across Greece.

3.3. Reliability and Construct Validity of the Questionnaire

To establish content validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by four experts in inclusive education and piloted with 15 teachers. Feedback from both processes informed revisions that improved item clarity and relevance. Reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, which indicated satisfactory internal consistency across all subscales: schoolyard design and functionality (α = 0.80), inclusion related to disability and gender (α = 0.82), social and pedagogical functions (α = 0.83), barriers and improvement needs (α = 0.85), and leadership support (α = 0.81). These values demonstrate high internal consistency, confirming the instrument’s reliability in capturing teachers’ perceptions.

Reliability analyses were conducted using the full dataset to obtain stable estimates across the entire sample. Inter-item correlations ranged from 0.42 to 0.68, further supporting internal consistency. Test–retest reliability was not assessed, as the study followed a cross-sectional design.

To examine construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction with varimax rotation was performed. The five-factor solution accounted for 68% of the total variance, aligning with the conceptual framework of the instrument (design/usability, inclusion, pedagogical function, barriers, and leadership). All items loaded above 0.50 on their respective factors, indicating sound dimensionality and robust construct validity.

3.4. Procedure

The survey was administered electronically to teachers across Greece during the 2024–2025 academic year, distributed through professional and academic networks. Participation was voluntary, with anonymity and confidentiality assured, and the questionnaire required about 15 min to complete. Data were collected via Google Forms and exported for statistical analysis. All procedures followed ethical standards, including informed consent, the right to withdraw, and GDPR compliance.

3.5. Data Analysis

Prior to analysis, the dataset was screened for missing values and examined for normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity using descriptive statistics and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. The analyses incorporated both demographic variables (gender, teaching level, years of service, and school location) and the composite variables derived from the questionnaire dimensions (appearance and design, inclusion, social–pedagogical functions, leadership support, and barriers).

Data were analyzed using quantitative statistical methods. Descriptive statistics summarized participants’ responses, while t-tests, ANOVA, chi-square tests, correlation analyses, and logistic regression were conducted to explore differences and associations across gender, years of teaching experience, educational level, and school context. Pearson’s correlations were applied to normally distributed variables, and Spearman’s rho to ordinal or non-normally distributed data. Independent variables included gender, teaching level, years of service, and professional training, while dependent variables corresponded to the five composite dimensions of the questionnaire (design/usability, inclusion, pedagogical functions, barriers, and leadership support).

Missing data were minimal (<2%) and handled through pairwise deletion to preserve sample size integrity. In the logistic regression analysis, the dependent variable was the dichotomized overall inclusion score (high vs. low), with school type, gender, and years of experience entered as predictors. Multicollinearity diagnostics indicated no concerns, as all variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below 2.

Overall, the study employed a cross-sectional, correlational survey design aimed at exploring relationships among teachers’ perceptions, demographic characteristics, and school contexts, rather than establishing causal inference.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Findings

The descriptive analysis, based on responses from 350 teachers, provides an overview of perceptions regarding the inclusivity of Greek schoolyards. While schoolyards were generally considered functionally adequate, important shortcomings emerged in relation to accessibility, representation, and inclusivity.

Infrastructure and Maintenance. As presented in

Table 2. Schoolyard Infrastructure and Maintenance (N = 350).

Variable	% Reporting Positive (Adequate/High)	% Reporting Negative (Low/Inadequate)
Maintenance	72.8	27.2
Adequacy for student numbers	57.6	42.4
Capacity satisfaction	82.7	17.3
Accessibility	53.3	35.9
Flexibility	66.3	33.7

, almost three-quarters of teachers assessed schoolyard maintenance positively, though a notable minority (27.2%) expressed concerns about upkeep. More than half of respondents judged schoolyards to be adequate for student numbers, and the majority expressed satisfaction with overall capacity. In contrast, accessibility for students with disabilities was far more problematic: over one-third of teachers rated accessibility as low or inadequate, while only a small proportion evaluated it as high.

Inclusivity and Representation. The inclusivity dimension revealed pronounced gaps (

Table 3. Inclusivity and Representation (N = 350).

Variable	% Absence/Low	% Adequate/High
Gender-representative drawings	54.9	45.1
Disability representation	85.9	14.1
Equipment for disability	43.5	56.5
Usability for disability	60.9	39.1
Gender-sensitive design	69.6	30.4

). More than half of the teachers reported the absence of gender-representative drawings, while nearly nine in ten noted no representation of children with disabilities. Equipment for students with disabilities was mostly judged as moderate, with only a very small minority rating it as high. Similar concerns were evident regarding usability: a majority of respondents viewed schoolyards as inadequate or only slightly adequate in this respect. Gender-sensitive design was also evaluated poorly, with around seven in ten teachers perceiving little or no inclusivity.

Gender Equity and Spatial Use. Responses also pointed out significant inequities in spatial arrangements (

Table 4. Gender Equity and Spatial Use (N = 350).

Variable	% Absence/Low	% Adequate/Frequent
Differentiated spaces	44.6	55.4
Quiet/relaxation areas	34.2	65.8
Mixed-gender play	59.8	40.2
Cross-gender/ability play	38.6	61.4
Alternative activities	48.4	51.6

). Almost half of the participants reported the absence or very limited availability of differentiated spaces, while more than one-third highlighted the lack of quiet or relaxation areas. Although opportunities for mixed-gender play were relatively common, cross-gender and cross-ability interactions were less frequently encouraged. Furthermore, nearly half of teachers emphasized the limited presence of alternative or diverse activities, suggesting a restricted scope for inclusive participation.

Overall, the findings indicate that, despite fulfilling basic functional requirements, Greek schoolyards remain substantially lacking in terms of inclusivity. The absence of inclusive design elements, weak representation of diversity, and inequitable spatial organization highlight persistent structural barriers and underscore the pressing need for systemic, comprehensive interventions.

4.2. Inferential Findings

All analyses were conducted with α = 0.05, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported for significant results where applicable. Composite scores for inclusivity and accessibility were created by averaging item responses within each domain, consistent with the factor structure confirmed by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). These analyses provide deeper insight into the factors shaping teachers’ perceptions of schoolyard inclusivity.

Results from the Kruskal–Wallis tests (N = 350) revealed significant associations between years of service and inclusivity evaluations. Teachers with more than 20 years of experience provided consistently more critical assessments, particularly regarding surface materials—cement (H(2, N = 350) = 8.52, p = 0.014, η² = 0.03)* and grass (H(2, N = 350) = 8.12, p = 0.017, η² = 0.02)—as well as accessibility (H(2, N = 350) = 7.95, p = 0.018, η² = 0.02) and the perceived need for further interventions (H(2, N = 350) = 9.01, p = 0.016, η² = 0.03)*. Although these represent small-to-moderate effects, they indicate that accumulated professional experience sensitizes educators to infrastructural deficiencies and inclusivity gaps.

Correlation analyses confirmed these trends. Years of service correlated negatively with accessibility ratings (r = –0.28, p < 0.01, N = 350, 95% CI [–0.36, –0.19])—a medium effect—while training in Special Education was associated with more critical inclusivity evaluations (r = –0.24, p < 0.05, N = 350, 95% CI [–0.33, –0.15]). Teachers with higher academic qualifications showed a modest positive correlation with perceived need for redesign (r = 0.19, p < 0.05, N = 350, 95% CI [0.10, 0.28]), reflecting a small effect.

Group comparisons revealed no significant gender differences; accessibility ratings did not differ between male and female participants (t(348) = 0.87, p = 0.387, d = 0.09, trivial effect, N = 350). Differences by teaching level were modest: secondary teachers rated schoolyards slightly less inclusive than primary teachers (M₁ = 2.40, M₂ = 2.70; t(348) = –1.95, p = 0.053, d = 0.21, small effect, N = 350).

Chi-square tests further highlighted contextual disparities. Schools in urban areas were more likely to lack quiet or relaxation spaces compared with rural schools (χ²(2, N = 350) = 6.72, p = 0.035, V = 0.14, small effect). Larger schools (more than 100 students) were disproportionately associated with inadequate accessibility (χ²(3, N = 350) = 7.81, p = 0.049, V = 0.15, small effect).

Finally, logistic-regression analyses (N = 350) identified years of service (OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.12, 1.77], p < 0.01), training in Special Education (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.05, 2.39], p < 0.05), and school location (urban vs. rural; OR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.01, 1.67], p < 0.05) as significant predictors of inclusivity perceptions. Although the effect sizes were small-to-moderate, they underscore the decisive role of professional experience, specialized training, and institutional context in shaping teachers’ evaluations.

In sum, the inferential findings demonstrate that inclusivity perceptions are not random but systematically associated with specific professional and contextual variables. Years of service, training background, and school environment emerged as meaningful predictors, whereas gender and teaching level exerted minimal influence.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of Key Findings

Teachers identified an interplay of structural and cultural barriers constraining schoolyard inclusivity. Structural obstacles such as uneven or unsafe surfaces, limited adaptive equipment, and the absence of sensory-friendly areas intersected with cultural patterns particularly the dominance of competitive sports in central spaces that marginalized girls and students with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2001; Li & Wong, 2016; Lithoxoidis & Giaouri, 2024; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Raney et al., 2023; Rönnlund, 2015; Slee, 2011; van Melik & Althuizen, 2020; Voukantsi, 2021). Teachers with longer professional experience, higher academic qualifications, and training in Special Education exhibited greater critical awareness of accessibility and equity issues (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Schalk & Kim, 2020). Gender differences were minimal, though secondary-level educators tended to be more critical, reflecting adolescence as a stage where hegemonic masculinity and competitive sports reinforce exclusionary dynamics (Clark & Paechter, 2007; Connell, 1987; Swain, 2000). Collectively, these findings address the study’s four research questions by clarifying how teachers assess inclusivity, how demographic and contextual variables shape their perceptions, what barriers persist, and which practical actions they consider necessary for improvement.

5.2. Positioning Within International Scholarship

These findings align with international research indicating that seemingly “neutral” playground designs often privilege able-bodied boys engaged in competitive sports, thereby reinforcing spatial and social hierarchies (Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Raney et al., 2023; van Melik & Althuizen, 2020). As Fraser (1998) notes, claims of neutrality frequently obscure structural inequities, while Wenger et al. (2020) emphasize that true inclusion extends beyond physical design to encompass supervision, peer relations, and school culture. Such dynamics, evident in the current study, situate Greek schools within global debates about how educational spaces reproduce or challenge social hierarchies (Craig & Pepler, 1997; Li & Wong, 2016; Mayeza, 2023; Rönnlund, 2015). At the same time, the data illustrate that schoolyards can serve not only as sites of inequality but also as spaces for resistance and creativity, consistent with research framing them as a “hidden curriculum” where power relations are negotiated (Bishop & Curtis, 2001; Blatchford & Sharp, 1994; Epstein et al., 2001; Karsten, 2003; Titman, 1992, 1994; Weinstein & Pinciotti, 1988). Moreover, contemporary advocacy for ecological, flexible, and learning-oriented schoolyard design resonates with both the principles of UDL and the aims of the Green Schoolyard Movement, emphasizing inclusive, adaptive, and sustainable educational environments (Bates et al., 2018; Burgstahler, 2001; Danks, 2010; Danks-Gamson, 2014).

5.3. Interpreting the Results in the Greek Context

In Greece, teachers’ testimonies reveal that infrastructural shortcomings are compounded by cultural norms that naturalize boys’ control of central play spaces (Lithoxoidis & Giaouri, 2024; Voukantsi, 2021). These inequalities are further reinforced by systemic barriers including limited resources, funding shortages, and weak institutional leadership (Shields & Hesbol, 2020; Tsirantonaki & Vlachou, 2023). Framed through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) and UDL principles (CAST, 2024), sustainable inclusion necessitates multi-level interventions: redesigning physical environments, reorganizing supervision and timetables, and fostering a culture of participation. Within this framework, football emerges as a symbolic locus of power, reproducing gender hierarchies during adolescence unless educators consciously redistribute space, diversify activities, and model inclusive engagement (Clark & Paechter, 2007; Connell, 1987; Paechter & Clark, 2007; Swain, 2000). These dynamics reflect broader societal patterns of spatialized gender inequality (Gqola et al., 2024).

Teachers with advanced training or extensive experience may demonstrate heightened awareness because professional learning fosters reflective practice, exposure to diversity, and greater familiarity with inclusive pedagogies. Conversely, early-career teachers often operating with limited institutional autonomy and high instructional demand may prioritize classroom teaching over environmental inclusion. This suggests that professional development and mentoring are key mechanisms through which educators develop inclusive mindsets, moving from compliance-based inclusion to transformative advocacy.

5.4. Implications for Policy and Practice

Infrastructure and design. Teachers’ recommendations ranging from safer surfaces, ramps, and quiet zones to multipurpose areas, adaptive equipment, and natural elements echo international evidence on the cognitive, emotional, and social value of nature-rich and inclusive schoolyards (Bikomeye et al., 2021; Blanchet-Cohen & Elliot, 2011; Chawla et al., 2014; Kelz et al., 2015; Luís et al., 2020; Raney et al., 2023; van Dijk-Wesselius et al., 2020). In line with Wenger et al. (2020), participatory design processes that involve children with diverse abilities are essential to ensure that spatial interventions reflect authentic lived experiences rather than adult assumptions. These priorities are broadly compatible with the Greek educational policy framework, which promotes participatory, democratic, and environmentally sustainable school practices. However, large-scale infrastructure redesign such as the installation of sensory zones or the retrofitting of older school buildings for accessibility requires systemic investment and interministerial coordination, exceeding the capacity of individual schools.

Cultural change and pedagogy. Beyond physical redesign, sustainable inclusion depends on cultivating inclusive school cultures. This involves implementing supervision protocols that prevent monopolization of central areas, rotating access to high-demand spaces, and encouraging mixed-gender and mixed-ability play. Anti-bullying initiatives should explicitly address bystander dynamics and gender policing (Bishop & Curtis, 2001; Craig & Pepler, 1997). Teacher professional development is a realistic and cost-effective measure within existing structures, particularly when embedded in ongoing training frameworks and grounded in UDL principles and inclusive pedagogy (CAST, 2024; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Schalk & Kim, 2020). Aligning these practices with the Sustainable Development Goals reinforces their transformative potential, positioning inclusive schoolyard reform as part of a broader educational and social sustainability agenda (Sabir Onat & Yirmibeşoğlu, 2022; United Nations, 2015).

Participation and leadership. Co-design processes involving students, families, and local communities—well documented in both Greek and international research—can translate inclusive discourse into tangible practice while enhancing children’s agency and civic engagement (Blanc et al., 2025; Danks, 2010; Gavana & Grigoriadou, 2023; Kelly et al., 2019; Leigh et al., 2025; Wolf et al., 2024). Effective leadership plays a pivotal role in securing resources, legitimizing innovation, and sustaining inclusive initiatives over time (Shields & Hesbol, 2020; Tsirantonaki & Vlachou, 2023). Nonetheless, as Holland et al. (2010) caution, adult-driven agendas may undermine genuine participation; thus, mechanisms ensuring meaningful child involvement in decision-making are essential.

Policy feasibility. Within the current Greek educational framework, short-term, feasible actions include targeted teacher training, gender and inclusion sensitive supervision protocols, low-cost spatial modifications (e.g., shaded areas, play rotation schedules), and structured participatory planning with students. In contrast, systemic reforms such as universal accessibility retrofits, comprehensive green redesigns, and multi-agency inclusion strategies require national-level policy coordination, long-term funding commitments, and cross-sectoral collaboration. Distinguishing between what is immediately achievable and what demands structural reform ensures that policy ambitions remain both strategically realistic and progressively transformative.

5.5. Original Contribution and the Role of Teachers

This study offers an original contribution as one of the first large-scale investigations in Greece to examine schoolyard inclusivity through an intersectional perspective. Drawing on the social model of disability, UDL, and Fraser’s theory of social justice, it interprets teachers’ perceptions of accessibility and exclusion as expressions of structural inequities within educational spaces. This framework provides an integrated lens for understanding how gender, disability, and environmental design intersect to shape inclusive schooling practices.

The findings demonstrate that global patterns of exclusion are reproduced through everyday routines supervision, spatial allocation, and activity organization while revealing culturally specific dynamics that demand context-sensitive policy responses. Conceptually, the study advances the field by integrating social justice, ecological, and UDL perspectives, arguing that genuine inclusion requires parallel transformation of space and culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; CAST, 2024; Fraser, 1998).

Practically, it positions teachers as agents of change, capable of restructuring routines, redistributing resources, and leading co-design initiatives that promote accessibility, gender equity, and participation (Danks, 2010; Gavana & Grigoriadou, 2023; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Hellenic Republic, 2024; UNESCO, 2019; Schalk & Kim, 2020). To ensure meaningful participation, mechanisms must prevent adult-driven agendas, allowing children to exert authentic influence in shaping inclusive school environments (Holland et al., 2010).

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study demonstrates that while many Greek schoolyards are perceived as functionally adequate, they remain far from inclusive. Persistent deficiencies in accessibility, gender responsiveness, and spatial diversity limit equitable participation, underscoring the need to reconceptualize the schoolyard not as a peripheral recreational area but as a core educational and social space.

The findings carry implications across three interrelated domains. (a) Infrastructural redesign should prioritize accessibility through ramps, safe and diverse surfaces, quiet or sensory-friendly zones, multipurpose areas, and adaptive equipment. (b) Institutional support must include leadership engagement and sustained professional development focusing on inclusive and gender-responsive pedagogy. (c) Policy measures should provide clear inclusion guidelines, secure long-term funding, and establish monitoring mechanisms to evaluate implementation. Crucially, participatory planning is essential—integrating students’ voices and engaging teachers, parents, and local communities in co-design processes. Embedding gender-responsive pedagogy across curricula can further promote equity by challenging stereotypes, shaping inclusive teacher practices, and fostering democratic participation.

These recommendations align with international frameworks such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the European Disability Strategy 2021–2030, situating Greek reforms within broader global commitments to inclusion and sustainability.

The study’s limitations include reliance on self-reported perceptions and convenience sampling, which restrict generalizability and introduce potential response bias. Moreover, the absence of triangulation with observational or student data and the relatively homogeneous cultural context may have constrained the depth of interpretation. Future research should employ more representative sampling and integrate qualitative approaches including interviews, spatial mapping, and participatory or child-centered methods such as co-design workshops and ethnographic observation to capture the lived experiences of diverse stakeholders. Longitudinal and cross-cultural comparisons would further illuminate how design and leadership practices influence participation over time.

In conclusion, transforming Greek schoolyards into truly inclusive environments requires the integration of physical redesign with cultural and pedagogical transformation. Embedding accessibility, gender equity, and diversity within outdoor spaces can align school practices with both national priorities and international human rights frameworks, ensuring that schoolyards, alongside classrooms, become genuine arenas of participation, belonging, social justice, and environmental learning. Ultimately, this study extends understanding of how teachers conceptualize inclusion beyond classroom walls, revealing the interplay of spatial design, social dynamics, and professional culture, and offering actionable pathways toward equitable, inclusive, and participatory school environments.