Psychoeducational Classroom Interventions Promoting Inclusion of Special Educational Needs Students in Mainstream Classes: The Case of the BATTIE Program

Abstract

Inclusive education emphasizes the right of all students, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), to access equitable learning opportunities in mainstream classrooms. This study presents the implementation and evaluation of a school-based intervention within the BATTIE (Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Trainings for Inclusive Education) project in Greece, aiming to enhance inclusion through differentiated instruction (DI) and a whole school approach. The intervention was conducted across 26 schools and involved 116 educators and 130 students with SEND. A qualitative methodology was employed, utilizing structured classroom observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews with teachers. The data were thematically analyzed using NVivo 11. Findings indicated notable improvements in student engagement, academic participation, and classroom collaboration, especially among students with SEND. Teachers reported enhanced professional confidence, better understanding of inclusive strategies, and improved collaboration with special education staff. However, limitations in interdisciplinary cooperation—particularly with school psychologists—were identified. This study concludes that sustained professional development, school-wide collaboration, and differentiated instruction are essential for fostering inclusive practices. It underscores the potential of structured, whole school interventions to improve learning environments for diverse student populations and provides insights for educational policy and practice reform.

1. Introduction

In recent years, education systems have increasingly aimed to ensure equal access and participation for all students, framing inclusion as a universal human right that encompasses diverse characteristics such as gender, disability, and cultural differences (Graham, 2020; UNESCO, 2008; United Nations, 2006). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) established the principle that every student, regardless of ability or need, has the right to learn. Many countries are adopting educational policies that promote inclusive education by continually adapting school systems to address the evolving needs of students (Allan, 2021), with quality education recognized as a fundamental right for all (Ainscow, 2005).

In Greece, the legislative framework for special education has been amended to institutionalize inclusion and promote “Education for All” (UNESCO, 2000). Recent laws (Law 3699/2008; Law 4823/2021) encourage inclusive practices but still maintain a deficit-oriented perspective (Koutsoklenis & Papadimitriou, 2024). Law 3699/2008 guarantees that students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) can attend general schools, supported by classroom teachers or special education teachers. Students may also access resource room units for individualized programs, though those with severe disabilities might attend special educational units when necessary.

Law 4368/2016 reinforced support within mainstream classrooms through proposed collaboration among educators and specialized support staff (Vlachou, 2023). This legislation promotes differentiated instruction, encouraging teachers to modify curricula to better engage students with disabilities. Nonetheless, the Greek educational system remains entrenched in an integrationist and “one size fits all” ideology (Koutrouba et al., 2018; Tsirantonaki & Vlachou, 2025), and faces challenges in moving from a deficit-based to an inclusive approach that bridges the gap between policy and practice.

Advancing inclusion requires thorough needs analysis at institutional and classroom levels, as well as robust implementation strategies (Ainscow, 2020). The “Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Trainings for Inclusive Education (BATTIE)” project, conducted from 2021 to 2024 under the EU’s Child Guarantee initiative, aimed to analyze obstacles to inclusion for marginalized groups, including migrants, refugees, Roma, and students with SEND. The project provided training and support to teachers and schools in Attica to enhance inclusive conditions for these students. This article discusses the design and implementation of the school-based intervention program for SEND students within the participating schools.

1.1. Inclusion and Students with SEND

Inclusion in education is a fundamental principle that ensures all students have equal learning opportunities in mainstream schools and has increasingly become a worldwide priority through supportive policies (Ainscow & César, 2006; Strogilos et al., 2023; United Nations, 2016). This shift towards inclusive schools is justified by education-focused arguments promoting teaching methods that cater to individual differences and benefit all students. Socially, inclusive schools foster positive attitudes towards diversity and contribute to a just society, while economically, they tend to be more cost-effective than separate specialized schools (Ainscow, 2020).

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) underscores the importance of inclusive classrooms with appropriate support, urging education systems to adapt rather than demand conformity from students. Inclusion involves not only physical placement in mainstream classrooms but also meaningful participation and differentiated instruction to remove barriers (Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Rose & Shevlin, 2021). Research highlights significant benefits for both students with special educational needs and their typically developing peers, enhancing academic, social, and emotional development (Buysse et al., 2002; Gaitas et al., 2025; Odom et al., 2012).

Students with SEND demonstrate notable academic improvements, achieving better results and higher secondary completion rates while experiencing increased social interactions and friendships (Dessemontet et al., 2012; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015). Inclusive environments foster a supportive culture, promote collaboration among teachers, and improve instructional strategies (OECD, 2012), ultimately enhancing the educational experience for all students.

1.2. A Whole School Approach

Inclusion is based on the concept of the “whole school approach,” which recognizes the social, emotional, and physical needs of children and young people and incorporates well-being and mental health as key learning objectives (Cefai et al., 2021). The “Whole School Approach” aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological approach, which views schools as small social systems composed of multiple interconnected subsystems that interact with each other. It emphasizes how interactions between individuals and their environment—such as family, school, and community—shape educational experiences and influence learning. Any change at one level of the system has an impact on other levels, meaning that the conditions and processes occurring within the classroom and the school as a whole effect students’ social and emotional development as well as their academic performance (Cefai et al., 2018, 2021). This approach views the inclusive school as an ecosystem that promotes quality education for all and includes principles and practices related to the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of children (Androulakis et al., 2021). It aims for “ideal inclusion,” where the school as a whole is expected to be a space where special education services are provided, aiming at improving students’ academic performance and psychosocial development through the implementation of new policies based on the collaboration of all school professionals (Goldberg et al., 2019).

The “whole school approach” provides a framework that enables school communities to progress towards their inclusion goals, emphasizing its collaborative nature and involving all members of the school. This framework is rooted in a dynamic process of reflection, planning, action, and outcome evaluation, which requires ongoing (re)definition of inclusive practices (McMaster, 2013). Ekins and Grimes (2009) present a model for comprehensive school development, illustrated in Figure 1, which seeks to integrate various processes and systems, referred to as Inclusion in Action. This Inclusion in Action model is characterized by its dynamic nature, allowing for the integration of processes that connect the three overarching educational domains of inclusion (that is, needs assessment, interventions and target setting), school development, and self-evaluation across all levels of the school community. This integration is essential for effectively advancing inclusion within schools (Androulakis et al., 2021).

Collaboration between the school and the family is also essential, as these two fundamental settings shape students’ learning and skill development (Goldberg et al., 2019; Stirling & Emery, 2016). The World Health Organization defines the “Whole School Approach” as consisting of three key elements: curriculum, teaching, and learning; school culture and environment; and school–community and school–family collaboration (Goldberg et al., 2019).

1.3. Differentiated Instruction

Inclusion in education is centered on providing equal learning opportunities for all students, particularly those with SEND, through approaches like differentiated instruction (DI). Recognized as an effective approach (Morgan, 2014; Tomlinson, 2017), DI involves proactively adapting teaching to address students’ specific needs, enhancing their learning experiences (Roy et al., 2013). This educational approach aims to cater to diverse readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles by adjusting content, processes, products, and the learning environment, fostering inclusive educational environments for everyone. DI allows for flexibility and diversity in how the curriculum is presented (Tomlinson, 2017). Therefore, DI could be considered as a comprehensive approach through which curriculum adjustments can be made for students with SEND as part of an inclusive curriculum designed for all learners in diverse classrooms (Strogilos et al., 2023). According to Thomas (2004, p. 581), the social relational model of disability suggests that “disability only comes into play when the restrictions of activity experienced by people with impairment are socially imposed”.

Recent research underscores the importance of meeting the unique needs of students with SEND while leveraging their strengths (Francis et al., 2017; Morningstar et al., 2015). Evidence shows that implementing DI in mixed-ability classrooms boosts student engagement and improves academic outcomes (Deunk et al., 2018; Subban, 2006). DI has been linked to positive results in primary education, enabling students to engage with curriculum content at their own pace (Tomlinson, 2017).

Moreover, DI is associated with enhanced motivation and concentration through multimodal teaching methods, which help reduce learning-related anxiety for students with SEND (Bondie et al., 2019; Pozas & Letzel, 2020). Psychosocially, DI fosters a sense of belonging and social inclusion, promoting positive peer relationships and emotional well-being among SEND students (Ainscow & Messiou, 2018; Alnahdi et al., 2022; Gaitas et al., 2025). These collaborative learning strategies contribute to improved academic self-concept, self-confidence, and resilience (Kulakow, 2020; Venetz et al., 2019). However, DI has faced criticism for potentially lowering standards by diluting the curriculum and adversely affecting children’s future opportunities by decreasing expectations and limiting their exposure to academic material. Additionally, it has been noted that differentiation may increase teachers’ workloads and make their tasks more complex (Graham et al., 2021). Despite its benefits, the successful implementation of DI requires teachers to possess extensive pedagogical knowledge and skills, as well as positive attitudes shaped by their beliefs and institutional support (De Jager, 2013; Van Casteren et al., 2017). Factors influencing these attitudes include classroom diversity, class size, preparation time, and available resources for professional development (Blatchford et al., 2011; Strogilos et al., 2023; Suprayogi et al., 2017).

Ultimately, collaboration within the school community is essential for fostering an environment conducive to effective DI (Smit & Humpert, 2012; Stollman, 2018). This integrated approach ensures that all students, especially those with SEND, have equitable access to meaningful learning experiences.

1.4. Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Trainings for Inclusive Education (BATTIE) Project

This study is part of the “Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Trainings for Inclusive Education-BATTIE” project, which focused on the inclusion of students from vulnerable groups within mainstream schools. The initiative aligned with Phase III of the Preparatory Action for a Child Guarantee, a program developed by the European Commission (EC) in collaboration with UNICEF’s Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (ECAR).

The project’s primary objective was to address poverty and social exclusion while safeguarding the fundamental rights of children and adolescents. Its aim was to ensure that all children have access to essential services, thereby promoting equality of opportunity for those in need. The Child Guarantee initiative provided a framework for EU Member States to implement support measures for children under 18 years old who face various disadvantages. These include homeless children, those experiencing severe housing challenges, children with disabilities, children from migrant backgrounds, minority racial or ethnic groups (particularly Roma), children in alternative care (especially in institutional settings), and those in emergency situations. Ultimately, the goal was to ensure that all children can access their basic needs, including food, education, and healthcare (Council Recommendation, 2021).

In Greece, the Child Guarantee concept was coordinated and directed by the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports, the Institute of Educational Policy, and UNICEF. Specifically, the “Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Training for Inclusive Education” project was funded by UNICEF and implemented by the Laboratory for the Study of Teaching and Dissemination of the Greek Language and Multilingualism at the University of Thessaly, in collaboration with the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, from 2021 to 2024, concerning three target groups: (a) students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), (b) Roma students, and (c) students with migrant/refugee background.

The BATTIE project consisted of three phases:

Phase I: Assessment of inclusion needs in Greece with emphasis on the above three target groups, which involved qualitative research culminating in a report titled “Bottleneck Analysis of Inclusive Education in Greece” (Androulakis et al., 2021).

Phase II: Capacity building for school staff, comprising 20 h of face-to-face learning and 10 h of distance learning on DI and the whole school approach.

Phase III: Monitoring and piloting the development of new skills across schools in Attica were carried out through school-based interventions in 30 selected mainstream schools per year. Of these, 15 schools had a significant number of Roma students and students with migrant or refugee backgrounds, while the remaining 15 schools included students with SEND.

1.5. Present Study Focus

In this study, the core principles of the school-based intervention programs implemented in schools with students with SEND from 2021 to 2024 during Phase III of the BATTIE project will be presented. The discussion will include an analysis of the results, as well as the challenges encountered throughout the implementation process. Additionally, recommendations will be offered to enhance the inclusion of students with SEND. More specifically, the primary aim of this study is to explore the implementation, challenges, and outcomes of the school-based intervention programs within the BATTIE project (2021–2024), which aimed to promote inclusive education for students with SEND in Greece.

The research questions are as follows:

-

How are the principles of DI and the whole school approach integrated into teaching practices during the implementation of the school-based intervention?

-

What are the effects of the school-based intervention on classroom interactions, student engagement and the inclusion of students with SEND, according to teachers?

-

Which challenges and enabling factors do teachers experience during the implementation of the intervention?

-

In what ways can the implementation of inclusive practices be enhanced to better support students with SEND?

2. Materials and Methods

The research methodology employed in this project was grounded in a qualitative approach, designed to explore in depth the perceptions and experiences of teachers participating in the project regarding inclusive education and the practices they utilize to foster inclusion. This qualitative methodology was selected to capture the complexity of educational environments and the challenges teachers encounter in their daily efforts to include students with special educational needs, behavioral issues, and those from refugee or immigrant backgrounds within the mainstream classroom.

The program involved a total of 26 schools with students with SEND, rather than the initially planned 45 schools (15 per year over three academic years, 2021–2024). This is because the remaining 19 schools stayed the same throughout the entire three-year period, with the enrollment of students with SEND serving as a key criterion for participation. The schools were recruited on a voluntary basis in collaboration with the Institute of Educational Policy. In addition, during the three years, 116 teachers and 130 students with SEND participated in the program (

Table 1. Data of schools participating in the BATTIE program.

	Schools (N = 26)	Classrooms (N = 80)	Teachers/Staff (N = 116)	Students with SEND (N = 130)
Elementary education	20 primary schools	56	84	103
Secondary education	6 junior high schools	24	32	27

). Each year, three researchers participated in the project, monitoring the implementation of the program in each school once a week from October to May. In accordance with ethical guidelines, informed consent was acquired from all participants. Initially, permission was requested from the Institute of Educational Policy, followed by approvals from school principals and participating teachers. Finally, students and their legal guardians were provided with written information about the program.

The participating schools received support in three key areas.

First, a pedagogical team was established in each school, consisting of the principal, vice principal, teachers involved in parallel support and/or integration and reception units, general and special education teachers, and additional staff such as psychologists and social workers. This team convened for a focused training session to (a) primarily discuss the school’s needs regarding the inclusion of these groups, the challenges they face, and the support they require to facilitate a smooth integration process for these children along with all students within the school; and (b) receive training on the principles of a whole school approach and the implementation of DI. Secondly, in collaboration with each school, an intervention plan was developed with the goal of ensuring the school functions as a cohesive system, fostering cooperation among teachers, parents, and members of the project’s scientific team. A researcher visited the schools regularly, once a week, serving as a liaison between the scientific team and the school. This researcher provided support through mentoring, assisting teachers in the effective implementation of the intervention plan.

Data collection was conducted through direct observation in classrooms participating in the BATTIE program, once a week, for 45 min in each class to record interactions between students and teachers, student-to-student interactions, teaching strategies employed by teachers, the level of student engagement in the learning process, students’ reactions, and the challenges students faced. Specifically, structured observation protocols and field notes were utilized to systematically capture the educational process, focusing on student participation and any changes resulting from the program’s implementation. Additionally, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers who actively participated in the program. This approach aimed to triangulate the data and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the program’s impact. The initial interviews with educators focused on the following main themes: (a) their perspectives regarding the inclusion of students with SEND, (b) the challenges faced by these students within the learning process, (c) the goals set by teachers to promote the inclusion of students with SEND in their classrooms, (d) the strategies employed by educators to facilitate inclusive education, (e) the difficulties encountered during the process of inclusion, and (f) the types of support needed to enhance inclusive practices and improve educational outcomes for students with SEND. At the conclusion of the project, follow-up interviews were conducted with 45 teachers. From each participating school, one or two teachers who had at least two students with SEND in their classrooms, and who volunteered to participate, shared their experiences. The main themes of the interviews conducted at the conclusion of the program included the following: (a) the benefits observed for all students, including those with SEND, as well as for the educators; (b) the inclusion strategies implemented by teachers; (c) the challenges encountered during the execution of the program; and (d) the impact of the program on the school as a whole system.

The school-based intervention program (SIP) was conducted in three phases:

Stage 1: This phase focused on identifying school needs through classroom observations and discussions with teachers and other participating staff, while also introducing the program’s objectives.

Stage 2: During this phase, the program was implemented through researchers’ weekly school visits, where classroom teaching methods were directly observed and the implementation of the SIP program within each school was monitored. Differentiated instruction (DI) and psychoeducational activities were organized across four domains: learning environment, teaching preparation, learning process, and assessment. Key principles of differentiated instruction and techniques to support students with special educational needs were analyzed, and tailored teaching activities were designed and implemented.

Stage 3: The final phase involved evaluating the educational interventions through direct observation, the completion of observation checklists, and interviews with teachers and school staff to assess the program’s effectiveness.

A brief overview of the three phases of the school-based intervention program will be presented next.

• Stage 1: Assessment of school needs

The first phase of the intervention program focused on assessing school needs related to the challenges of including students with SEND. Each school had a diverse student population, resulting in varying needs concerning academic and socio-emotional development.

Following the formation of the pedagogical team in each school, a needs assessment was conducted. One primary need identified was the adequate preparation and ongoing training of teachers in inclusive practices; many educators lacked knowledge about student-centered approaches like DI and psychosocial programs to manage behavioral issues.

During the assessment, classes selected for the program were evaluated through interviews with teachers and classroom observations gathering insights on the students’ profiles, academic challenges, classroom climate, and behavior. Most classes comprised approximately 20 students of mixed abilities, including those diagnosed with SEND. According to the data, a range of students’ academic challenges were observed, including attention issues, cognitive gaps from previous years, difficulties in information processing and comprehension, and challenges with expressive language. It was also noted that there was a lack of student interest in learning, low motivation, and reduced participation in classroom activities. While some schools fostered a positive school climate with supportive teacher–student relationships, others experienced tensions and struggles with managing behavioral issues, which hindered active participation from students with SEND. Some teachers adapted their instruction to meet student needs, while others adhered strictly to the curriculum. Overall, teacher collaboration in addressing classroom issues was minimal, and there was a lack of cooperation between general and special education teachers.

• Stage 2: Implementation of DI and psychosocial activities

The second phase of the project focused on developing an action plan for each school based on the needs assessment, which identified common objectives due to the similarities in the difficulties faced by teachers. Although the goals of the intervention program were common, the actions were tailored to the unique characteristics and challenges of each school. The finalized action plan was shaped by issues reported by teachers and supported by researchers’ observations in the school context.

Following the needs assessment, specific objectives were established:

• Enhancement of students’ academic performance.
• Strengthening motivation for classroom participation among students with SEND.
• Improvement in social relationships through the development of communication and collaboration skills.
• Implementation of DI.
• Promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration among staff to create joint interventions.

Educational intervention programs are vital for addressing student diversity, promoting inclusion, and enhancing academic achievement. A well-structured intervention program incorporates multiple components tailored to support students experiencing learning difficulties, behavioral issues, and socio-emotional challenges. These programs rely on an integrated framework that fosters collaboration among teachers, employs evidence-based instructional strategies, and cultivates an inclusive learning environment. The intervention program comprises six key components, as illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Collaboration among teachers and school staff formed the foundation of the intervention program. The interdisciplinary partnership between general and special education teachers, along with psychologists and social workers, is essential for effectively addressing classroom challenges. The program aimed to raise awareness among general education teachers about collaborating with special education teachers through co-teaching and differentiated instructional strategies. Additionally, it emphasized the importance of teamwork among all school staff, including mental health specialists, to facilitate the sharing of information and effective classroom management strategies. This collaboration enabled educators to develop targeted interventions tailored to students’ needs. To support these efforts, the school’s pedagogical team met monthly with the principal, special education teachers, and mental health professionals to discuss challenges encountered in their classrooms.

Creating a supportive learning environment was a key component of the intervention program. Such an environment stems from the interplay of psychological, social, and pedagogical factors that contribute to students’ academic, emotional, and social development. The project’s goal was to help teachers create classrooms where students feel safe to take initiative, express ideas, and make mistakes without fear of negative criticism, thus fostering creativity and self-expression. Teachers aimed to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation by providing opportunities for choice in the learning process and fostering a sense of community. They were also encouraged to strengthen extrinsic motivation through praise and tangible rewards, such as point boards for primary school students, to boost engagement and positive behavior.

Building trusting relationships with students through discussions and collaborative conflict resolution through psychoemotional programs, implemented in the classrooms in cooperation with the school psychologist, was another important focus. Flexible grouping was a fundamental pillar of the intervention program, fostering inclusion and enhancing collaborative learning. Teachers were encouraged to implement various grouping strategies, including homogeneous groups based on students’ abilities for targeted instruction and heterogeneous groups to promote cooperation and mutual support. Additionally, rotating groups provided opportunities for students to collaborate with different classmates, thus strengthening their social and communication skills.

Implementing instruction that accommodates student diversity is essential for achieving inclusion. To ensure that all students receive appropriate support, DI was employed. Teachers aimed to align curriculum objectives with individual students’ needs and abilities, fostering active participation in the learning process.

Assessment was an important prerequisite of the intervention program, ensuring that teaching and learning remain adaptable to student needs. In line with the principles of DI, teachers conducted initial assessments to evaluate students’ readiness and prior knowledge as well as interests and learning profiles. Formative assessments were integrated throughout the learning process, providing immediate feedback for both students and teachers. Strategies such as exit cards, multiple-choice quizzes, and brief assessments enabled teachers to monitor student progress while fostering active participation in learning. For summative assessments, teachers adapted their evaluations to align with students’ learning profiles, ensuring a more inclusive and effective assessment process. Assessment data enabled teachers to tailor content, processes, products, and learning environments effectively:

▪

Content: Teachers employed strategies such as advance organizers, diagrams, keywords, multiple texts and graphic organizers to enhance note-taking and comprehension.

▪

Process: A variety of instructional activities, including concept maps, trivia games, cube activities, and collaborative methods like RAFT and Jigsaw, were utilized to engage students with the material.

▪

Product: Formative assessments, such as short questionnaires and multiple-choice questions, were implemented alongside diverse evaluation measures, including the Jigsaw test, to assess students’ knowledge and skills.

▪

Learning Environment: Flexible grouping strategies and paired activities were employed to encourage collaboration and peer learning.

Effective classroom management is vital for enhancing student outcomes. A well-managed classroom fosters a positive, supportive learning environment that actively engages students and encourages meaningful participation. Regarding classroom management, teachers provided continuous support by offering guidance and creative learning ideas to keep all students engaged and motivated. Through the implementation of these differentiated strategies, teachers effectively promoted an inclusive learning environment in which every student had the opportunity to thrive.

Teachers were encouraged to design classrooms that promote trust and interaction, such as arranging seating to facilitate collaboration and communication. The use of multisensory materials also enhanced comprehension, making learning more accessible to diverse learners. To further support student behavior and academic engagement, classroom rules were rewritten in clear and inclusive language, ensuring that all students understood expectations for behavior and performance. This proactive approach helps minimize disruptions and anger outbursts during lessons. Additionally, quiet spaces were anticipated at the back of primary classrooms, providing a calming area for students who struggle with distractions or conduct disorders to self-regulate and regain focus.

3. Results

• Stage 3: Evaluation of the Program

Thematic analyses of researchers’ field notes, class observations and teachers’ follow-up interviews were conducted. In the present study, the results concerning teachers’ follow-up interviews are presented. In particular, using NVivo 11, the six phases of thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) were conducted: familiarize oneself with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name themes. The coding system used in this process involved a combination of deductive and inductive approaches: Deductive coding was guided by predefined categories related to inclusion strategies, challenges, benefits, and impacts. Inductive coding allowed for the emergence of new, data-driven codes that capture teachers’ unique insights and experiences. The thematic analyses revealed significant insights regarding the effectiveness of the school-based intervention program. The results are organized into seven key categories, each highlighting various dimensions of the program’s impact (see

Table 2. Themes and subthemes of thematic analyses.

Themes	Subthemes
1. Student engagement and participation	1.1 Student voice and agency in classroom activities 1.2 Engagement of students with SEND 1.3 Student confidence in group settings
2. Attitudes towards learning and school	2.1 Positive academic emotions with certain subjects (e.g., Language) 2.2 Sense of belonging and inclusion 2.3 SEND student motivation
3. Collaborative learning environment and classroom climate	3.1 Peer relationships/support and group work 3.2 Cooperation and mutual respect among students 3.3 Student-centered learning environment 3.4 SEND student contribution to group work
4. Teacher professional development	4.1 Teacher self-confidence in inclusive teaching 4.2 Acquisition of new classroom strategies 4.3 Assessing students’ needs
5. Understanding of social concepts	5.1 Respect of DI 5.2 Fostering respect and social awareness in the classroom 5.3 Application of social-emotional learning (SEL)
6. Sustaining differentiation within the curriculum	6.1 Flexibility in lesson planning 6.2 Student engagement through adaptive teaching 6.3 Integration of student interests and profiles 6.4 Student choice in tasks and assessments
7. School staff collaboration	7.1 Collaboration between general and special education staff 7.2 Feeling empowered by collegues 7.3 Lack of of interdisciplinary cooperation

).

1. 

Student Engagement and Participation

Teachers reported a marked increase in student participation, particularly among those with SEND. One fifth grade primary school teacher noted, “I’ve noticed that my students with SEND are more eager to participate now. They raise their hands more often and G. who has dyslexia even lead group discussions, which is a huge change!”. This enhanced engagement was seen as a pivotal aspect of the intervention’s success.

2. 

Attitudes towards learning and school

The program fostered positive changes in students’ attitudes towards learning and school. A first year high school history teacher noted, “Many of my students and particularly those with learning difficulties and behavioral problems have started to develop more positive attitudes towards class and school, generally. They feel like they’re part of the class team, and this is obvious in how they interact with one another. For example, M. a boy with many behavioral difficulties who was out of my class very often started attending my class more regularly at the end of the year and even participated in the lesson. He liked working in team…”. This shift contributed to a more supportive environment that benefited all students.

3. 

Collaborative Learning Environment and Classroom Climate

Collaboration among students significantly improved, as evidenced by teachers’ comments regarding group work and classroom setup. One second grade primary school teacher remarked, “The group projects in spelling have fundamentally changed how my students collaborate. They share ideas freely and support one another, creating a much more inclusive classroom atmosphere. Even N., a boy with autism, contributes his artistic talent by illustrating the new words in our language lessons!” This collaborative environment encouraged students to interact positively with their peers and enhanced their sense of belonging.

Furthermore, modifications to the physical classroom environment were recognized as important for improving student engagement. A second year high school English teacher commented, “Changing the arrangement of desks to encourage collaboration has really improved our classroom climate. Students are more engaged and willing to work with their peers.” These structural changes fostered a more dynamic learning atmosphere, allowing students to thrive in collaborative settings.

4. 

Teacher Professional Development

Teachers reported that the program enhanced their professional skills and confidence in handling diverse classrooms. “This program has equipped me with new strategies for managing a diverse classroom. I feel more confident now in my ability to address the varying needs of my students,” remarked one second grade primary school teacher, underscoring the professional growth fostered by the intervention.

5. 

Understanding of Social Concepts

The program facilitated students’ understanding of important social concepts such as diversity and respect. A fourth grade primary school teacher shared, “We’ve done some great activities around diversity and respect, so my students did not react negatively when not everyone was doing the same assignments in class.” This acknowledgment illustrates the program’s impact beyond academic performance.

6. 

Sustaining Differentiation within the Curriculum

The intervention encouraged teachers to adapt their lessons to better meet students’ needs, resulting in more engaging and effective teaching practices. One third grade primary school teacher noted, “Being able to tailor my lessons has made a significant difference. I’ve integrated fun learning activities that cater to different learning styles, and the kids love it!” This adaptability played a crucial role in the program’s success.

Additionally, teachers expressed a newfound understanding of how to incorporate differentiation effectively within their existing curriculum. One Greek language teacher in a high school stated, “I used to think that differentiation meant completely changing my lesson plans. Now I realize that even small adjustments make a big difference in engaging all my students.” This realization highlights the flexibility and practicality of the program, showing that meaningful differentiation does not require overhauling lesson plans but can often be achieved through thoughtful adjustments based on students’ needs that enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

7. 

School staff collaboration

The collaboration between general and special education teachers plays a pivotal role in creating an inclusive and supportive learning environment. A first year high school Math teacher commented: “The collaboration between me and the special education teacher was very fruitful. We’ve learned to exchange ideas and strategies that benefit all the students, creating a more inclusive environment. I feel more supported knowing that my special education colleague is there to help adapt the lessons for the students who need it.” As highlighted by this quote, when educators work together, they can share valuable strategies and insights that cater to the diverse needs of students. This partnership not only enhances teaching practices but also fosters a sense of community and shared responsibility for student success.

Unfortunately, this was not the case with the school psychologist. The challenges posed by limited collaboration with psychologists can hinder this process. A second year high school Greek Language teacher states: “Unfortunately, we often miss out on valuable insights from our school psychologist because there simply isn’t enough time to meet regularly. It’s frustrating because their expertise is crucial for addressing student behavior.” As the teachers expressed, the constraints on time significantly reduce the opportunity to utilize psychologists’ insights on student behavior and mental health. This lack of collaboration can have serious implications, particularly for students who require additional support.

In addition, some teachers expressed a sense of isolation among teachers with different specializations in addressing the needs of students with SEND and frustration when working within distinct roles without sufficient dialogue or shared strategies. A fifth grade primary school music teacher commented: “I often feel isolated in addressing the needs of my students with special educational needs. Sometimes I feel like we’re all trying to tackle the same problems independently. Better collaboration could help us align our strategies and it could be more effective for our student.” And another arts teacher added: “It’s really frustrating when we meet at meetings and discuss changes, but there’s no follow-up or collaboration in practice.”

4. Discussion

The “Bottleneck Analysis and Teacher Trainings for Inclusive Education (BATTIE)” project aimed to analyze obstacles to inclusion for marginalized groups, including students with SEND, and to enhance inclusive conditions through teacher training and support. This study focused on the implementation and evaluation of a school-based intervention program within this larger project.

The qualitative data provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of this intervention. The findings demonstrate that the intervention, grounded in principles of DI and the whole school approach, had a significant positive impact on student engagement and attitudes towards learning and the classroom climate, as well as teacher professional development. Moreover, the importance of school staff collaboration was underscored, while challenges regarding collaboration with psychologists were identified.

The BATTIE program’s success aligns with the core tenets of a whole school approach, which recognizes that effective inclusion requires a comprehensive, systemic effort involving all members of the school community (Ainscow, 2020; Cefai et al., 2021). The marked improvements in classroom climate and collaborative learning environments reflect the ecological perspective, emphasizing that interactions between students, teachers, and the school environment shape educational experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Furthermore, the enhanced sense of belonging and increased social interactions reported by students with SEND underscore the effectiveness of inclusive practices in fostering supportive and equitable learning environments (Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Rose & Shevlin, 2021).

The implementation of DI played a crucial role in promoting inclusion by addressing the diverse needs of students (Tomlinson, 2000, 2017). By empowering teachers with the skills to tailor their approaches to individual student requirements, the BATTIE program has effectively enhanced student engagement, fostered greater motivation for learning, and created pathways for improved academic performance. The positive outcomes observed, such as increased student engagement, improved academic performance, and enhanced motivation for learning, correspond with findings in the literature that highlight the benefits of DI for students with and without SEND (Deunk et al., 2018; Strogilos, 2018; Strogilos et al., 2023; Subban, 2006). By adapting teaching methods, materials, and assessments to cater to individual student needs, teachers were able to create more engaging and effective learning experiences.

The study also highlighted the crucial role of collaboration between general and special education teachers in fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment (Ainscow, 2016, 2020; Stollman, 2018). This partnership not only enhances teaching practices but also promotes a sense of community and shared responsibility for student success. However, the challenges related to limited collaboration with school psychologists suggest that systemic barriers may hinder the effective integration of mental health support in schools. Addressing these barriers is essential for ensuring holistic support for students, particularly those with complex behavioral and emotional needs. In addition, the collaboration among the educators on the pedagogical team of the program at each school began to take root, leading to the formation of connected groups that exchanged ideas and concerns regarding the better inclusion of students with SEND and other vulnerable groups, as well as for all their students in general. Besides collaboration, the assistance provided by the program’s researchers to teachers was particularly beneficial in developing skills, such as identifying and assessing educational needs, choosing suitable differentiated strategies and designing appropriate differentiated activities. This aligns with the research about the formal role of the academic coach, which involves advising teachers on how to support students with special needs and offering instructional guidance during regular discussions about student performance and the objectives to be achieved (Van Geel et al., 2022). Nevertheless, a broader culture of collaboration among all teachers within the school had not yet developed. This was related to the fact that some school principals did not make efforts to establish a routine of cooperation among all the educators in the school.

Despite the fact that BATTIE successfully attracted a substantial number of teachers who participated in the program and subsequently became enthusiastic advocates for it, some educators believed that implementing DI in the mainstream classroom is too difficult. They echoed the findings of both international and Greek research. According to relevant research reviews, teachers believe that differentiating in the classroom is time-consuming because they think DI implies that students need to do extra work (Graham et al., 2021). They also express that they are already overwhelmed with various responsibilities and, therefore, lack the time to invest additional effort in preparing differentiated lessons (Nicolae, 2014; Van Casteren et al., 2017). There is often resistance among teachers to alter their teaching methods (Aldossari, 2018; Heacox, 2018; Nicolae, 2014), along with their approaches, materials, and beliefs about student learning (Graham et al., 2021; Strogilos et al., 2017). Additionally, the teachers participating in the present study often claimed that, in secondary school education, the standardized curriculum and high-stakes examinations constitute critical impediments for not implementing DI as a pedagogical classroom practice to address the diversity of students.

Implementing DI in remote school classrooms alone is insufficient for promoting inclusion of students with SEND. As Ainscow (2020) points out, promoting inclusion and equity in education is less about implementing specific techniques or new organizational structures, and more about fostering social learning processes within specific contexts. It is important to focus on whole school approaches that integrate inclusion values, needs assessment, and collaborative culture implementation of inclusive practices and DI, as well as on-going support and training for teachers. In addition, it is important to encourage partnerships beyond school. Forming partnerships among key stakeholders, that is, other schools, parents, other educational professionals, teacher trainers, and policymakers who can support and own the process of change is, therefore, essential. The whole school approach should evolve into a whole education approach, which situates the school within its broader social context, encompassing not only the local education community but also society at large. This approach emphasizes the importance of technological tools that enhance relationships within this expansive framework. By providing a holistic and integrated policy framework, a whole education approach guides the design, development, and comprehensive implementation of future initiatives aimed at achieving inclusive education. It highlights the necessity of societal values, attitudes, and resource allocation as critical components for fostering effective inclusive education (Kenny et al., 2023).

4.1. Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this study have practical implications for policymakers and educators worldwide who are seeking to create more inclusive education systems. By providing concrete examples of successful approaches and highlighting areas for improvement, the BATTIE project offers a roadmap for promoting inclusion at the classroom, school, and system levels. In particular, the study provides empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of DI and whole school approaches in promoting inclusive education for students with SEND. This is valuable for policymakers and educators globally who are seeking evidence-based practices to implement in their own contexts. The BATTIE project also highlights the critical role of teacher training and support in successful inclusive education. This resonates with international efforts to enhance teacher capacity and underscores the need for ongoing professional development opportunities that equip educators with the skills and knowledge to address diverse student needs. Finally, the study identifies both factors that facilitate and barriers to collaboration among school staff, particularly the challenges of limited collaboration with school psychologists. This is an issue that transcends national boundaries and can inform international dialogues on how to better integrate mental health support into inclusive education systems.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

While the findings of this study are encouraging, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. The qualitative nature of the research design, while providing rich insights into the experiences of teachers and students, limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the focus on schools in Attica, Greece, may not fully capture the diverse contexts and challenges faced by schools in other regions or countries.

Future research should explore the long-term impact of the BATTIE program on student outcomes and the sustainability of inclusive practices within schools. Additionally, quantitative studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of DI and the whole school approach in promoting academic achievement and psychosocial well-being among students with SEND. Furthermore, investigations into the factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration between school staff, including general educators, special educators, and mental health professionals, are warranted. Finally, future research should focus on implementing school-based interventions rooted in a whole school approach that enhances parental involvement and fosters a meaningful connection between the school and the community. These elements are essential for ensuring the sustainability and growth of an inclusive culture.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into the implementation and effectiveness of a school-based intervention program run within the BATTIE program designed to promote inclusion of students with SEND in mainstream classrooms. The results support the integration of DI and the whole school approach as promising for fostering inclusive learning environments, enhancing student engagement, and improving academic and social outcomes. Addressing the identified challenges related to school staff collaboration is essential for maximizing the benefits of inclusion for all students. The results indicate that the school-based intervention program was effective in enhancing student engagement and academic performance while fostering a supportive and collaborative classroom environment. Teachers not only benefited from enhanced professional development but also recognized the importance of differentiation and collaboration in addressing the needs of all students, particularly those with SEND. This study highlights the critical role of structured intervention programs in promoting inclusive education and improving outcomes for diverse learners.