Shaping Inclusive Classrooms: Key Factors Influencing Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with Special Needs

Abstract

This study investigates factors influencing Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward including students with special needs in mainstream classrooms following recent reforms. Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, 40 female mainstream teachers who attended a special education workshop were interviewed. The research reveals general support for inclusive education but significant concerns about preparedness, institutional support, and managing diverse needs. Four main themes emerged: nuanced support for inclusive education, factors influencing self-efficacy, key determinants of successful inclusion, and challenges based on disability severity. The findings emphasize the importance of comprehensive training, adequate institutional backing, and teacher self-efficacy in implementing inclusive practices. The study provides insights into the complex landscape of inclusive education in Israel, offering guidance for policymakers, educators, and school leaders. It highlights the need for targeted professional development, collaborative approaches, and systemic policy alignment to improve inclusion implementation.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education, which aims to provide equal opportunities for all students regardless of their abilities or needs, has become a global priority in recent decades (Mansur et al., 2023). This approach, endorsed by international agreements such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, seeks to create educational environments where students with special needs can learn alongside their peers in mainstream classrooms (United Nations, 2006). As countries worldwide grapple with the challenges of implementing inclusive education, Israel has been undergoing its own comprehensive changes to foster more inclusive learning environments (Heiman & Avissar, 2024).

The education system in Israel, similar to various countries worldwide, has been undergoing significant transformations in recent years (Natour, 2024). One of the most prominent changes has been the push towards greater inclusion of students with special educational needs into the mainstream education system (Natour, 2024; Tarantino et al., 2022). This shift aims to provide these students with equal opportunities for academic and social success, aligning with global trends in education that emphasize the importance of creating diverse and inclusive learning environments (Juvonen et al., 2019).

The journey towards inclusive education in Israel can be traced back to 1988, when the Special Education Law was first enacted (Natour, 2024). Since then, this law has undergone several amendments, each pushing for greater inclusion. The most recent and significant amendment came in 2018, which emphasized the right of students with special needs to be educated in regular education settings and introduced a new funding model to support inclusive practices (Ministry of Education, 2018). This legislative change has led to a substantial reduction in the number of students with special needs in separate special education schools and a corresponding increase in their presence in inclusive mainstream classes (Razer et al., 2015).

Building on this legislative foundation, the Israeli Ministry of Education launched a comprehensive five-year Inclusion Implementation Plan (2020–2025). This ambitious initiative aims to increase the inclusion rate of students with special needs in mainstream schools from 60% in 2020 to 80% by 2025 (Ministry of Education, 2022). As of 2024, significant progress has been made, with approximately 70% of students with special needs now educated in mainstream settings, either through full inclusion or partial integration programs (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2023).

To support this shift towards greater inclusion, Israel has made substantial changes to its teacher education programs and professional development opportunities (Özyürek, 2023). All teacher training institutions are now required to include courses on special education and inclusive practices in their core curricula (Ministry of Education, 2022). Some educational institutions have implemented comprehensive “Inclusion Tracks” within their B.Ed. programs, providing aspiring teachers with in-depth knowledge and skills necessary for creating inclusive learning environments (Ministry of Education, 2022).

For in-service teachers, the Ministry of Education has implemented several initiatives to support ongoing professional development in inclusive education. These include mandatory workshops and seminars held every three years, online learning platforms offering self-paced courses on inclusive practices, school-based professional learning communities, and mentorship programs pairing experienced teachers with novice educators (Gubernan & Mcdossi, 2023).

Despite these advancements, the implementation of inclusive education in Israel faces several challenges (Crispel & Kasperski, 2021). Resource allocation remains a significant issue, with many schools struggling to secure the necessary supports for students with diverse needs (Werner et al., 2021). Teacher preparedness is another concern; while teacher education programs have improved, many in-service teachers still report feeling underprepared for inclusive classrooms (Crispel & Kasperski, 2021).

Amidst these challenges, the attitudes, qualifications, and skills of teachers have been identified as critical factors affecting inclusion outcomes, both in Israel and internationally (Amor et al., 2019). Teacher attitudes play a crucial role in shaping the success of inclusive practices. This connection between teacher attitudes and inclusion effectiveness has been established through decades of research by influential scholars who have continuously contributed to the field (Azorín & Ainscow, 2020; Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Forlin & Depperler, 2022), documenting the evolution of inclusive practices across multiple international contexts and shaping contemporary understanding of inclusion implementation challenges.

Previous research has shown that positive teacher attitudes towards inclusion are associated with more effective implementation of inclusive strategies and better outcomes for students with special needs (Saloviita & Schaffus, 2016; Werner et al., 2021). However, studies examining teacher attitudes towards inclusion have yielded inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings. While some researchers have reported generally positive attitudes among teachers (Saloviita, 2020), others have found more negative or ambivalent views (Lindner et al., 2023). These varying results suggest a complex interplay of factors influencing teacher attitudes, including personal experiences, professional training, and systemic support.

Recent international research has made significant strides in understanding the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Savolainen et al. (2022) identified several key predictors of positive teacher attitudes, including higher levels of self-efficacy, more extensive training in inclusive practices, and previous positive experiences with students with disabilities. Similarly, a systematic review by Paulsrud and Nilholm (2023) highlighted the role of school culture, administrative support, and access to resources in shaping teacher attitudes. However, these studies also noted significant variations across different national and cultural contexts, underscoring the need for context-specific research (Dignath et al., 2022).

The present study contributes to this body of knowledge by examining these factors within the unique context of Israel’s rapidly evolving inclusive education landscape. Unlike many countries where inclusive education policies have remained relatively stable for decades (Ainscow, 2020; Norwich, 2019), Israel has undergone particularly significant reforms in recent years, including the 2018 Special Education Law amendment and the ambitious Inclusion Implementation Plan (2020–2025). This creates a distinct research context that addresses an important gap in the literature: how teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion develop and manifest during periods of accelerated policy transformation.

Previous research on teacher attitudes toward inclusion has predominantly focused on contexts with established, gradually evolving inclusion systems. For example, studies from Finland (Saloviita, 2020), Canada (Campbell, 2021), and Australia (Carrington et al., 2024) examine teacher attitudes in educational systems where inclusion approaches have developed through incremental changes over decades. In contrast, Israel represents a case of accelerated policy transformation, with significant structural changes implemented within a compressed timeframe. This rapid transition creates unique pressures and challenges for teachers that have been insufficiently explored in existing literature on inclusion attitudes.

While countries with more established inclusion systems provide valuable insights into steady-state implementation, they offer limited understanding of how teachers navigate rapid policy shifts. Our study addresses this research gap by specifically examining how teachers’ attitudes, concerns, and implementation challenges manifest during a period of substantial systemic change. By documenting teacher perspectives during this critical transition period (2018–2024), our research provides novel insights into the dynamic relationship between policy reform pace and teacher attitudes—a dimension often overlooked in inclusion research that tends to examine more stable policy environments.

Furthermore, existing research has primarily focused on either the theoretical foundations of inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011) or implementation outcomes (Werner et al., 2021), with less attention to the lived experiences of teachers during transitional periods. Our study bridges this gap by examining the psychological, practical, and systemic factors that shape teacher attitudes during active reform implementation, offering unique insights into the mechanisms that facilitate or hinder inclusion during periods of significant change. These findings can inform not only Israel’s ongoing inclusion efforts but also provide valuable lessons for other educational systems undertaking similar accelerated reforms.

Given the ongoing changes in the Israeli education system and the critical role of teacher attitudes in successful inclusion, there is a pressing need for up-to-date research examining the factors shaping teachers’ perspectives on inclusion in the Israeli context. While previous studies have explored teacher attitudes in various settings, the rapid pace of policy changes and reforms in Israel necessitates a fresh examination of how teachers are responding to these shifts.

This study aims to address this gap by exploring the key factors influencing Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms. Specifically, this research seeks to answer the following questions:

• What are the current attitudes of Israeli teachers towards the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms?
• What are the key factors influencing these attitudes?
• How do these factors shape teachers’ perspectives on and approaches to inclusive education?

By focusing on these questions, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the elements that contribute to forming and potentially changing teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in the context of recent Israeli educational reforms. This knowledge is crucial for developing effective strategies to support teachers in creating truly inclusive classroom environments.

The insights gained from this research have the potential to contribute significantly to the development of more effective inclusive education practices in Israel. By identifying the factors that influence teacher attitudes, this study can inform policy decisions, guide the design of teacher preparation programs, and shape professional development initiatives. Ultimately, this research aims to support the ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive education system in Israel, benefiting students with special needs and fostering a more equitable society.

2. Methods

This study employed an interpretive phenomenological framework (Creswell, 2013) to explore and interpret the collective experiences and perceptions of Israeli teachers regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms. This methodological approach was chosen for its ability to provide an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences, challenges, and insights of teachers as they navigate the complexities of inclusive education. By examining the experiences of teachers who have been directly involved in the inclusion process, the study aims to uncover key factors that influence their attitudes and self-efficacy in including students with special needs into mainstream educational settings (Reid et al., 2005). These insights are crucial for identifying the elements that contribute to the success or challenges of inclusion, particularly in light of recent reforms in the Israeli education system aimed at promoting inclusive practices.

2.1. Participants

A total of 40 mainstream Israeli teachers who recently participated in a special education training workshop participated in the current study. Among the participants were kindergarten teachers, high school teachers, and elementary and middle school teachers.

The selection of teachers who recently participated in a special education training workshop was deliberate rather than merely convenient. From approximately 55 teachers who attended the workshop, we selected 40 participants based on their willingness to participate in in-depth interviews and to ensure representation across different educational settings (kindergarten, elementary, and high school levels). This sampling approach ensured that participants had a baseline level of exposure to inclusion concepts and could reflect on the gap between theoretical training and practical implementation challenges. While our study did not measure pre-post training attitudes (which would be valuable for future research), recruiting participants from this setting provided access to teachers actively engaged with inclusion concepts. This engagement facilitated rich discussions about implementation barriers and supports, which was central to our research questions about factors influencing attitudes toward inclusion.

All participants were women and their ages ranged from 27 to 49. Out of the forty participants, 66% were interns, 27% had a B.Ed. certificate, and 7% had an M.Ed. certificate. 63% of the participants reported not having participated in any course or training related to special education or inclusion of students with special needs. Of the participants, 15% reported participation in short programs (up to 2–3 months), and 10% reported participating in a yearlong course. Of the participants, 12% reported acquaintance with special education children via voluntary programs in the community. The extent of their teaching experience ranged from 1 year to 10 years of teaching, either in schools or kindergartens. Of the participants, 49% reported that they do not possess any experience in special education or inclusion of students with special needs. Of the participants, 41% reported having 1–3 years of experience in special education or inclusion, and only 12% reported having over 4 years of experience in the field.

The participants in this cohort exhibited diverse educational methodologies and perspectives. They also displayed variations in terms of their individual histories, residential locations (urban or rural), religious orientations (religious or secular), as well as their ethnic and cultural heritages.

After conducting all interviews and analyzing them separately, and since no further issues emerged, the authors concluded that they had reached theoretical saturation (Fusch & Ness, 2015; Weller et al., 2018).

2.2. Data Collection

This study utilized semi-structured interviews (Silverman, 2013) consisting of 12 general background questions as well as 10 open-ended questions that allowed participants to express their personal perceptions and attitudes (see Appendix A for interview questions). In particular, participants were asked regarding their experience with the inclusion of students with special needs. The topics addressed in the interviews included: (1) personal knowledge regarding the special education reform in Israel and the existing inclusion programs in schools; (2) personal experience and general attitude towards inclusion of students with special needs; (3) subjective attitude and feeling toward the inclusion of students in one’s classroom; and (4) individual strategies for managing the inclusion process within one’s classroom.

The primary benefit of utilizing this tool lies in its capacity to extract individual perspectives (Creswell, 2013). The participants were actively encouraged to divulge their personal narratives and subjective interpretations (Weller et al., 2018).

2.3. Ethical Considerations

All interviews were conducted in Hebrew and transcribed by the researchers. Before each interview, participants were provided with a comprehensive explanation of the study’s objectives and were then asked to sign an informed consent form. Participants were informed that the study focused on their perspectives regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream education and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. To protect their privacy, pseudonyms were used in place of their real names in the manuscript.

This study was approved by the college’s ethics committee prior to the recruitment process. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. All names were replaced with pseudonyms to ensure the protection of their identities throughout the study.

2.4. Data Analysis

To analyze the interview data in this study, we employed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach, chosen for its flexibility and ability to yield a rich and detailed understanding of the data. The analysis involved six phases: familiarizing them with the data through repeated readings of the transcripts, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report.

Initially, we generated codes such as “positive views on inclusion” and “concerns about implementation challenges”. These codes were then collated into potential themes. Through an iterative process of review and refinement, we identified four main themes: (1) nuanced support for inclusive education, (2) factors influencing self-efficacy in inclusion implementation, (3) key determinants of successful inclusion, and (4) acceptance challenges based on disability severity.

Within these main themes, we identified several subthemes. For example, under “Factors Influencing Self-Efficacy in Inclusion Implementation”, we identified three subthemes: lack of adequate training and preparation, insufficient institutional support, and fear of negative outcomes. Similarly, for “Key Determinants of Successful Inclusion”, we identified four subthemes: student-teacher ratio and its impact on inclusion, support from educational staff and administration, need for proper training and knowledge, and parental cooperation.

To ensure reliability, two researchers independently coded the data, resolving any discrepancies through discussion. The research team collaboratively reviewed the final themes and subthemes, refining them through an iterative process to ensure they accurately represented the core experiences of the participants regarding the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms.

Table 1. Relationship between interview dimensions, codes, and emergent themes.

Interview Questions	Example Codes	Main Themes and Subthemes
1. What do you know about the inclusion reform in Israel? 2. What are your thoughts regarding the inclusion reform? 3. What do you think about including students with special needs in mainstream educational settings?	* “Society has to promote inclusion” * “Allows equality for children with special needs” * “Benefits all classroom students” * “We all need to learn to respect different kind of people”	Theme 1: Nuanced support for inclusive education
1. What do you think about including students with special needs in your classroom? 2. How do you cope with the inclusion? 3. Please provide insights into your experiences with integrated students.	* “I do not feel skilled or trained” * “I have little support from the school” * “I can’t do this alone” * “I fear I won’t be able to continue with it for a whole year”	Theme 2: Factors influencing self-efficacy in inclusion implementation * Subtheme 2.1: Lack of adequate training and preparation * Subtheme 2.2: Insufficient institutional support * Subtheme 2.3: Fear of negative outcomes
1. What do you think promotes successful inclusion or failure of a student with special needs in a mainstream classroom? 2. Please refer to the various factors in the education system that may affect the inclusion process. 3. Do you think it is necessary to make changes to improve the inclusion?	* “Large number of children makes it impossible” * “We need to increase the number of trained staff” * “Need proper training and knowledge” * “Parents are very important to the inclusion process”	Theme 3: Key determinants of successful inclusion * Subtheme 3.1: Student-teacher ratio and its impact on inclusion * Subtheme 3.2: Support from educational staff and administration * Subtheme 3.3: Need for proper training and knowledge * Subtheme 3.4: Parental cooperation
1. What do you think about including students with special needs in your classroom? 2. Would you recommend other teachers include students with special needs?	* “Student with great difficulty paying attention, hurts his friends physically” * “It depends on what the disability is” * “If the disability is too severe, it may not be possible”	Theme 4: Acceptance challenges based on disability severity

illustrates the relationship between our interview questions, the codes derived from participant responses, and the themes and subthemes that emerged through our analysis.

This thematic analysis allowed us to capture the nuanced and complex nature of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, revealing both the general support for the concept and the significant challenges faced in its implementation. The themes and subthemes provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the factors that influence teachers’ perspectives on and approaches to inclusive education in the Israeli context.

Our thematic analysis revealed that participants’ responses often addressed similar concerns across different interview questions, demonstrating the interconnected nature of their experiences with inclusion. For example, while classroom size was explicitly discussed when participants were asked about factors promoting successful inclusion (contributing to Theme 3), these concerns also emerged when teachers described their personal experiences with inclusion (contributing to Themes 2 and 4). This cross-cutting nature of key factors across different question types demonstrates how teachers’ conceptual understanding of inclusion is deeply informed by their lived experiences in the classroom. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between our interview questions, the codes derived from participant responses, and the themes and subthemes that emerged through our analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Theme 1: Nuanced Support for Inclusive Education

Teachers generally expressed positive attitudes towards the concept of inclusion, regardless of their experience level. However, this support was nuanced, revealing a complex understanding of inclusion’s benefits and challenges.

Participants emphasized the broader societal impact of inclusion. Shani articulated this perspective, stating, “We, as a society have to promote the concept of inclusion. Only then, we can all feel equal”. This view suggests that teachers see inclusion not just as an educational practice but as a pathway to a more equitable society.

The reciprocal benefits of inclusion were also highlighted. Sara observed that inclusion “benefited all classroom students as they learn how to accept, mediate. When it is done properly it is blessed”. This comment indicates an understanding that inclusive classrooms foster important social skills and empathy among all students, not just those with special needs. However, it also suggests an awareness of the challenges in implementation and the need for proper resources and strategies to make the inclusion successful.

Some teachers viewed inclusion as an opportunity for personal and professional growth. Malka noted, “It is good for everyone… we all need to learn to respect different kind of people”. This perspective frames inclusion as a learning experience for teachers as well as students.

Abigail summed up the importance of inclusion, stating, “I think this is very important to include students with special needs. It allows us all to see others as well as accept them, allowing equality for children with special needs”. This comment encapsulates the multifaceted benefits of inclusion perceived by teachers, spanning from individual growth to societal progress.

Analysis of the data revealed that teachers’ comments about inclusion often implicitly or explicitly referenced the recent educational reforms. For example, Sara’s comment that inclusion “is blessed when it’s done properly” indicates awareness of implementation challenges following policy changes. Several participants directly mentioned the reform timeline, with statements such as “Everything is changing so quickly, it’s hard to keep up with the new requirements” (Maya) and “The reform has good intentions, but we weren’t given enough time to prepare” (Leah). These references to timing and preparation suggest that the pace of policy implementation has influenced teachers’ experiences with and attitudes toward inclusion.

Analysis of responses across educational levels revealed some differences in how teachers conceptualized inclusion benefits. While the general support for inclusion was consistent, kindergarten teachers tended to emphasize early socialization benefits, high school teachers more frequently mentioned preparation for future life and academic considerations, and elementary teachers often focused on the balance between social and academic development. These nuanced perspectives reflect the different contexts and challenges faced at each educational stage.

3.2. Theme 2: Factors Influencing Self-Efficacy in Inclusion Implementation

While teachers generally supported the concept of inclusion, many expressed concerns about their ability to implement it effectively. Three key subthemes emerged: lack of adequate training and preparation, insufficient institutional support, and fear of negative outcomes.

3.2.1. Subtheme 2.1: Lack of Adequate Training and Preparation

Many teachers felt unprepared to meet the challenges of inclusive education due to insufficient training. Ester exemplified this concern: “I want to do it; however, I do not feel skilled or trained to meet the special needs of these students… therefore, for now, I prefer not to…”. This reluctance stemmed not from a lack of willingness, but from a perceived lack of competence.

The need for comprehensive, practical training was emphasized by Keren: “Before I get into this, I need to take a course. Not just a short meaningless course but a course that will prepare me for the challenges I am about to face”. This comment highlights the desire for in-depth, relevant professional development rather than superficial training.

Some teachers, such as Yael, were actively seeking to address this gap: “I want to do it; I am participating in a training program so I will know what to do”. This proactive approach demonstrates the willingness of teachers to engage in professional development to enhance their inclusive practice skills.

3.2.2. Subtheme 2.2: Insufficient Institutional Support

Teachers expressed frustration with the lack of institutional support for implementing inclusive practices. Rina shared her isolation in this endeavor: “I am the only teacher in my school who agreed to try… I do not feel like I am succeeding in helping him…. I have little support from the school… it’s very hard”. This comment reveals the challenges faced by individual teachers when inclusion is not supported at an institutional level.

The need for collaborative effort was emphasized by Batia: “How can you do it with no support from the school staff. I simply can’t do this alone…”. This sentiment underscores the importance of a school-wide approach to inclusion.

Practical support, such as flexible scheduling, was also highlighted as crucial. Sally noted, “There should be more supportive and flexible with the daily schedule… this is crucial…”. This comment points to the need for systemic changes to accommodate inclusive practices effectively.

3.2.3. Subtheme 2.3: Fear of Negative Outcomes

Teachers expressed significant concerns about potential negative consequences of unsuccessful inclusion attempts. Daniella shared her apprehension: “I don’t think that all teachers are able to cope with children with special needs, even if they feel it is totally necessary. From my experience, it can go wrong, and then all is lost: the other students in the classroom as well as the students with special needs…”. This comment reveals a fear of failure that could negatively impact all students.

Nati’s comment, “I don’t think it will turn out the way I want it to…”. reflects a lack of confidence in achieving desired outcomes. Similarly, Shila expressed concern about the long-term sustainability of inclusion efforts: “I want to try… I fear the outcomes… I fear I won’t be able to continue with it for a whole year… and then what will happen to my student?” These concerns highlight the need for ongoing support and resources to ensure the success and sustainability of inclusive practices.

The concerns about self-efficacy in implementing inclusion varied across educational settings. Analysis of the data revealed that kindergarten teachers more frequently expressed concerns about identifying and addressing developmental needs in young children. High school teachers tended to focus on challenges related to subject-specific accommodations and academic standards, while elementary and middle school teachers often emphasized the need for balanced support across social and academic domains. These differences highlight how self-efficacy concerns are shaped by the specific demands of different educational contexts.

3.3. Theme 3: Key Determinants of Successful Inclusion

Teachers identified several critical factors that influence the success of inclusive education. These factors include student-teacher ratio, support from educational staff and administration, need for proper training and knowledge, and parental cooperation.

3.3.1. Subtheme 3.1: Student-Teacher Ratio and Its Impact on Inclusion

Class size emerged as a significant concern for effective inclusion. Chen articulated this challenge: “The inclusion is important and necessary; however, it depends on the number of children studying in the classroom. I think a large number of children makes it impossible for the teacher to cope with students with special needs”. This comment highlights the practical difficulties of managing diverse needs in large classrooms.

Sharon further emphasized this point: “It’s almost impossible to be there for 30+ students as well as for the students with special needs… We must reduce the size of inclusive classrooms. Otherwise, there’s no chance in my opinion”. This statement underscores the perceived necessity of smaller class sizes for successful inclusion.

3.3.2. Subtheme 3.2: Support from Educational Staff and Administration

Teachers stressed the importance of comprehensive support from school leadership and colleagues. Ayala noted, “I definitely think it’s important. However, it will never succeed unless we have full support from the school principals as well as the parents’ full cooperation in the process…”. This comment highlights the need for a collaborative approach involving all stakeholders.

Danit emphasized the need for additional trained staff: “I think that inclusion is a very good idea, but in order to include students with special needs and promote them, we need to increase the number of trained educational staff members in classrooms as well as flexible daily schedules…”. This suggests that successful inclusion requires not just teacher effort but systemic support and resources.

Rachel succinctly stated the need for in-class support: “We need more help inside the classroom… One teacher can’t do it all…”. This comment reflects the understanding that inclusive education often requires additional personnel to be effective.

3.3.3. Subtheme 3.3: Need for Proper Training and Knowledge

The critical role of specialized training was consistently emphasized. Einat explained, “I think it is a great idea (inclusion…), but very challenging for teachers when they don’t know how to actually do it since they were not taught or trained how to teach in a classroom with students who have special needs…”. This comment underscores the gap between theoretical support for inclusion and practical implementation skills.

Shifra highlighted how lack of training could negatively impact attitudes: “Teachers and kindergarten teachers don’t always have the knowledge and skills to assist or support a child with special needs, so they might not see it as something positive…”. This suggests that negative attitudes towards inclusion may stem from a lack of confidence and competence rather than inherent opposition to the concept.

Anat directly linked training to success: “If the teacher has the knowledge and proper training, he can succeed; otherwise, it’s frustrating…”. This comment emphasizes the role of professional development in building teacher confidence and effectiveness in inclusive settings.

3.3.4. Subtheme 3.4: Parental Cooperation

Teachers identified parental involvement as crucial for successful inclusion. Ariela stated, “Parents are very important to the inclusion process and can make it either successful or a failure”. This comment highlights the significant impact that parent attitudes and involvement can have on inclusion outcomes.

Tamar further emphasized this point: “Cooperation with the parents of integrated children is very important and can determine whether the inclusion will be successful or a nightmare…”. This vivid description underscores the potential of parental cooperation to dramatically influence the success of inclusive efforts.

The factors identified as crucial for successful inclusion showed some variation across educational levels. Kindergarten teachers placed greater emphasis on physical environment adaptations and staff support for basic skill development. High school teachers more frequently highlighted the importance of specialized subject knowledge and accommodations for complex academic content. Elementary teachers often focused on the need for flexible supports that could evolve as students progressed through grade levels with increasing academic demands. These patterns reflect the distinct inclusion challenges faced at different educational stages.

3.4. Theme 4: Acceptance Challenges Based on Disability Severity

Teachers reported varying levels of acceptance towards students with different types and severities of disabilities. Generally, there was lower acceptance of students with severe disabilities or behavioral-emotional difficulties compared to those with mild disabilities.

Vered shared a specific challenge: “A student with great difficulty paying attention, hurts his friends physically thinking it’s funny, or part of a game, has big gaps in learning causes great reluctance”. This comment illustrates the specific behavioral challenges that can make teachers hesitant about inclusion.

Shlomit emphasized the need for individual assessment: “I think it depends on what the disability is, sometimes. In some cases, if the disability is too severe, it may not be possible for a school or teacher to effectively accommodate certain needs, and attempting to do so may even be detrimental to the child’s well-being”. This nuanced perspective suggests that teachers consider the best interests of the child when evaluating the appropriateness of inclusion, recognizing that full inclusion may not always be the optimal solution for every student.

These findings reveal a complex landscape of teacher attitudes towards inclusion in Israel. While there is general support for the concept of inclusion, teachers express significant concerns about implementation challenges, particularly regarding their own preparedness, institutional support, and the varying needs of students with different types of disabilities. The results highlight the need for comprehensive support systems, including targeted professional development, institutional backing, and collaborative approaches involving all stakeholders, to bridge the gap between the ideological support for inclusion and its effective practical implementation.

Teachers’ acceptance of students with different disabilities also showed patterns related to educational level. Kindergarten teachers generally expressed more comfort with a wider range of disabilities but noted particular challenges with severe behavioral issues that might affect classroom safety. High school teachers reported greater concerns about including students with significant cognitive disabilities as academic content becomes more abstract and complex. Elementary teachers often described changing attitudes as academic expectations increase in higher grades. These findings suggest that acceptance challenges are not only related to disability type and severity but are also influenced by the specific demands of different educational contexts.

4. Discussion

This study provides valuable insights into the attitudes of Israeli teachers towards the inclusion of students with special needs in mainstream classrooms following recent educational reforms. The findings reveal a complex landscape of perceptions, challenges, and opportunities in implementing inclusive education practices.

One of the most significant findings of this study is the generally positive attitude teachers hold towards the concept of inclusion. This aligns with global trends in education that emphasize the importance of creating diverse and inclusive learning environments (Yada et al., 2021). However, our research also highlights a crucial gap between theoretical support for inclusion and the practical challenges teachers face in implementing inclusive practices effectively, a discrepancy noted in recent studies (Amor et al., 2019; Van Mieghem et al., 2020).

The discrepancy between conceptual support and practical implementation raises important questions about the current state of inclusive education in Israel. While teachers recognize the value of inclusion, many express concerns about their ability to meet the diverse needs of all students in their classrooms. This finding is consistent with recent studies that found that teachers across different countries acknowledge the importance of inclusion but express frustration and reluctance in its implementation (Aas et al., 2024; Lyra et al., 2023). This implementation gap between ideology and practice has been documented in longitudinal research by established inclusion scholars (Norwich, 2022; Slee & Tomlinson, 2018), suggesting a persistent structural challenge rather than simply an issue of teacher willingness. Similarly, a study by Ratliff (2024) in the USA revealed a comparable pattern, where teachers expressed positive sentiments towards the philosophy of inclusion but harbored significant reservations about their preparedness and the practical feasibility of inclusive education.

Notably, our findings provide unique insights into teacher attitudes during Israel’s accelerated inclusion reform period (2018–2024). Unlike studies conducted in more stable policy environments, our research captured teachers’ perspectives during a time of significant transition. While participants generally supported inclusion conceptually, many expressed concerns specifically related to the rapid pace of policy implementation. Comments about “changing requirements”, “insufficient preparation time”, and “catching up with new expectations” reflected the challenges of navigating accelerated reform. These temporal references suggest that the compressed timeline of Israel’s inclusion reform has amplified implementation challenges. This connection between reform pace and implementation difficulties adds nuance to previous findings by Slee and Tomlinson (2018) and Norwich (2022), who identified similar structural challenges but in contexts of more gradual policy evolution. Our study thus highlights how accelerated reform timelines may intensify the theory-practice gap in inclusion implementation, creating additional pressure on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and resources.

Our findings indicate that several key factors influence teachers’ attitudes and their perceived ability to implement inclusive education successfully. These include class size, availability of support staff, professional development opportunities, parental involvement, administrative support, and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. The interplay of these factors creates a complex ecosystem that either facilitates or hinders inclusive practices, a complexity also noted by Paseka and Schwab (2020) in their recent review of research on inclusive education. Their review highlights how elements at micro (individual teacher), meso (school), and macro (policy and societal) levels interact to shape inclusive practices. Our current study observed these interactions firsthand. For instance, teachers’ self-efficacy (micro-level) was influenced by available support and professional development (meso-level), which were in turn affected by policy decisions (macro-level). Similarly, attitudes towards including students with severe disabilities were shaped by individual experiences, school culture, and broader societal expectations. Paseka and Schwab (2020) emphasize that successful inclusive education requires alignment across these levels. Our findings support this view, showing that misalignment–such as policy pushes for inclusion without corresponding resource allocation or teacher preparation–can hinder effective implementation. This underscores the need for a systemic approach to inclusive education that addresses challenges at all levels of this complex ecosystem.

The matter of class size emerged as a significant concern for many teachers. Large class sizes were consistently associated with more negative attitudes towards inclusion, as teachers felt overwhelmed by the prospect of meeting diverse needs in crowded classrooms. This finding aligns with the study of Saloviita (2020) and Tjernberg and Mattson (2021), suggesting that smaller class sizes can facilitate more individualized attention and support for students with special needs. Our current finding, as well as Saloviita (2020) and Tjernberg and Mattson (2021)’s findings, shows that class size could significantly predict teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and their ability to implement differentiated instruction.

Professional development and training emerged as critical factors in shaping teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy regarding inclusion. This underscores the importance of ongoing, high-quality professional development opportunities that focus on practical strategies for inclusive education, a finding supported by recent studies (Amir et al., 2022; Crispel & Kasperski, 2021). A meta-analysis by Donath et al. (2023) on studies regarding teacher training programs for inclusive education found that such programs significantly improved teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and skills related to inclusive practices. Their analysis revealed that training programs incorporating both theoretical knowledge and practical application were particularly effective in enhancing teachers’ competence and confidence in implementing inclusive strategies. This aligns with our findings and emphasizes the need for comprehensive professional development that bridges theory and practice. Furthermore, Donath et al.’s (2023) study demonstrated that active learning opportunities within professional development programs were associated with greater improvements in teachers’ skills, particularly in their use of inclusive teaching methods. Their meta-analysis also showed small but positive effects on teachers’ beliefs towards inclusion and small-to-moderate effects on student behavior, indicating that the benefits of teacher training extend beyond the teachers themselves to positively impact student outcomes. These findings provide robust support for our results and underscore the potential of well-designed, ongoing professional development to create lasting positive changes in teachers’ approaches to inclusive education.

The present study reveals a nuanced relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and the severity of students’ disabilities. Consistent with recent research by Gallego-Ortega and Rodríguez-Fuentes (2021), our findings indicate that teachers generally exhibit more positive attitudes towards including students with mild disabilities compared to those with severe disabilities or complex behavioral challenges. This distinction appears to be primarily influenced by the severity of the disability rather than its specific type.

Our analysis demonstrates that participants conveyed lower levels of acceptance towards students with severe disabilities compared to those with mild disabilities. The challenges reported by teachers often stem from difficulties in managing behavioral and attentional issues, which can lead to hesitation in including these students in mainstream classrooms. For instance, one participant articulated concerns about students with severe attention deficits and physical aggression, highlighting the perceived obstacles in accommodating students with complex behavioral issues.

Furthermore, our findings suggest that teachers approach the inclusion of students with severe disabilities with a degree of caution. Some participants expressed concerns about the feasibility and potential drawbacks of inclusion for students with very severe disabilities, reflecting an awareness of the limitations of inclusive practices in certain contexts. This cautious approach underscores the need to consider the individual needs of each student when implementing inclusive education. These results align with recent studies by Grimes et al. (2020) and Øen and Johan Krumsvik (2022), which found that teachers tend to express more reservations about including students with behavioral-emotional difficulties. These studies posit that such negative attitudes may stem from inadequate theoretical and practical training, resulting in uncertainty and discomfort when working with students exhibiting behavioral-emotional difficulties or severe disabilities.

The role of school leadership and administrative support emerged as another crucial factor in shaping teachers’ attitudes and practices towards inclusion. This highlights the importance of creating a school-wide culture that values and supports inclusion at all levels, a finding echoed in the study conducted by Leithwood et al. (2020). Effective leadership can play a pivotal role in providing the necessary resources, fostering a supportive environment, and facilitating the professional development opportunities that teachers need to successfully implement inclusive practices. Our study revealed that teachers emphasized the need for strong administrative support to implement inclusive education effectively. Participants highlighted that without full backing from school principals and active cooperation from parents, inclusion efforts are unlikely to succeed. Furthermore, teachers stressed the importance of increased support from trained educational staff and flexible daily schedules to effectively support students with special needs. These findings align with Leithwood et al.’s (2020) work, which emphasizes the pivotal role of school leadership in fostering inclusive environments through resource allocation and supportive practices. These results highlight the need for a comprehensive approach to implementing inclusive education, one that recognizes and strengthens the role of school leadership. By fostering strong, inclusion-focused leadership and providing the necessary support structures, schools can create an environment where inclusive practices are valued, supported, and effectively implemented, ultimately benefiting all students.

Parental involvement and cooperation were also identified as significant factors influencing the success of inclusive education. Teachers emphasized the importance of collaboration between educators and parents to ensure consistent support for students with special needs. This aligns with recent research suggesting that strong home-school partnerships can enhance the effectiveness of inclusive education (Gal et al., 2024).

Perhaps most notably, our study underscores the critical role of teacher self-efficacy in shaping attitudes towards inclusion. This finding is consistent with recent applications of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to inclusive education contexts (Bandura, 1977) and aligns with recent research by Savolainen et al. (2022), who found a strong relationship between teacher self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion.

Further support for this finding comes from a recent meta-analysis by Yada et al. (2021), which examined research on teacher self-efficacy in inclusive settings. Their comprehensive review revealed that teachers with higher self-efficacy were more likely to implement inclusive instructional strategies, manage classroom behavior effectively, and show greater commitment to inclusive practices. Importantly, they found that self-efficacy not only influenced teachers’ attitudes but also had a positive impact on student achievement and motivation in inclusive settings. These recent studies reinforce our findings and emphasize the pivotal role of self-efficacy in shaping teachers’ attitudes and practices in inclusive education. They underscore the importance of not only providing knowledge and skills through professional development but also focusing on building teachers’ confidence and belief in their ability to successfully implement inclusive practices.

5. Conclusions and Practical Implications

This study provides a nuanced understanding of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in the Israeli context, revealing a complex interplay of factors influencing inclusive education practices. Our study’s timing during Israel’s significant inclusion reform period (2018–2024) offers valuable insights into the challenges of implementing rapid policy changes. The findings suggest that while the reform’s goals were generally supported by teachers, the accelerated implementation timeline created significant practical challenges. This temporal dimension of policy implementation deserves greater attention in both research and practice. Future reforms should consider more carefully the pace of change and ensure adequate preparation time, resources, and support systems before full implementation.

While overall attitudes are positive, a significant gap exists between theoretical support and practical implementation. Our findings highlight several key challenges, including concerns about class size, the need for specialized training, varying attitudes based on disability severity, and the critical role of teacher self-efficacy.

Our findings suggest several practical implications. There is a critical need to revise teacher preparation programs to include more robust training in inclusive practices. Ongoing professional development should focus on practical strategies for implementing inclusive education principles. These programs should address not only knowledge and skills but also aim to enhance teacher self-efficacy, which our study has shown to be crucial in shaping attitudes and practices towards inclusion.

The pivotal role of school leadership in fostering inclusive environments cannot be overstated. School leaders should be trained to create and maintain a school-wide culture that values diversity and supports inclusive practices. Schools should prioritize the development of strong collaborative networks, including professional learning communities and partnerships with special education experts.

Addressing class size and resource allocation remains a significant challenge. Policy makers should consider innovative resource allocation models that provide additional support for classrooms with a higher proportion of students with diverse needs. Our findings indicate a need for targeted interventions and support strategies for including students with severe disabilities or complex behavioral challenges.

Enhancing home-school partnerships is crucial for successful inclusion. Schools should develop comprehensive strategies for engaging parents in the inclusive education process. Moreover, there is a need for greater alignment between inclusion policies and other educational policies.

While this study provides valuable insights, several limitations should be noted. First, although our participant sample included teachers from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our analysis did not specifically examine how these factors influenced attitudes toward inclusion. The cultural dimensions of inclusion attitudes in Israel’s diverse society remain an important area for future investigation. Additionally, while we included teachers from different educational levels, our sample size of 40 participants limited our ability to make definitive comparisons across these groups. The relatively small sample size also means our findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution regarding generalizability to the broader population of Israeli teachers. Further, our study recruited participants who had recently attended a special education training workshop, which may have influenced their perspectives compared to teachers without such recent training exposure. While this sampling approach facilitated rich discussions about implementation barriers, it may not represent the views of teachers who have not had similar professional development opportunities. Additionally, all participants in our study were women, which limits our understanding of potential gender differences in attitudes toward inclusion.

Future studies could begin by comparing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion before and after participating in training interventions or between those with and without specialized training in inclusive education. This would help clarify the impact of such programs, especially given our sample’s recent exposure to a special education workshop. Longitudinal research examining the effects of comprehensive professional development over time would further deepen understanding. In addition, exploring how cultural and religious backgrounds shape teachers’ perceptions of disability and inclusion could offer valuable insights for crafting culturally responsive practices and policies. Given Israel’s diverse society, research specifically examining how different cultural communities conceptualize and approach inclusion would be particularly valuable. Comparative studies across different cultural and educational systems may also reveal whether these challenges are universal and whether effective strategies can be adapted across contexts. Studies with larger, more diverse samples, including male teachers, would address the gender limitation of our current study and potentially reveal important differences in perspectives. Finally, focused research on specific educational levels (kindergarten, elementary, and high school) could provide more targeted insights into the unique challenges and opportunities at each stage of education.

Ultimately, this study serves as a call to action for policymakers, school leaders, and teacher educators to recognize the complex nature of implementing inclusive education and to develop comprehensive, evidence-based strategies to support teachers in this crucial endeavor. The path to effective inclusion is undoubtedly challenging, but with continued research, targeted interventions, and a commitment to supporting teachers, it is a goal within reach.