Attitudes, Sentiments, And Concerns In Inclusive Education: A Quantitative Causal-Comparative Analysis Of General And Special Educators In India

Education is widely acknowledged as a powerful instrument for advancing social justice and equity. Within this broader framework, inclusive education is regarded as essential for the realization of an equitable society (Brig (Dr) Sujay Ranjan Chaudhuri (Retd), 2026b). Although the concept has gained substantial acceptance across industrialized nations, many education systems continue to face challenges in identifying and implementing appropriate frameworks that effectively serve all learners (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015a). Despite sustained policy-level emphasis, the pace of implementation remains inadequate relative to the targets established under SDG-4.

The transition toward inclusive education has been impeded by multiple barriers, among which attitudinal constraints among key stakeholders—particularly general teachers and special educators—are especially significant. As noted by Hussey et al., (2017), attitudinal factors lie at the core of implementation challenges, with positive attitudes being recognized as a crucial determinant of successful inclusion (Florian & Spratt, 2013). Teachers play a pivotal role in fostering an inclusive and supportive classroom environment for all learners (Costello & Boyle, 2013a). Consequently, their attitudes toward integration and inclusion have been extensively examined over several decades due to their critical influence on educational practice (Saloviita, 2020b). Empirical evidence suggests that, while teachers generally hold favourable views toward inclusion, these attitudes are shaped by factors such as the severity of students’ disabilities, the extent of in-service training, prior experience with Children with Special Needs (CwSN), and contextual environmental variables (Avramidis et al., 2000).

Given that attitudes toward inclusion are predictive of the intention to adopt and sustain inclusive practices in mainstream classrooms, it is essential to systematically assess these attitudes in order to identify and address barriers to effective policy implementation (Ewing et al., 2018). A comprehensive understanding of teachers’ attitudes constitutes a foundational step in the design and evaluation of interventions aimed at promoting inclusive practices for CwSN (Livneh et al., 2000). Furthermore, attitudes toward CwSN are inherently multidimensional (Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002); therefore, the use of psychometrically robust instruments is necessary to examine potential differences in attitudes, sentiments, and concerns between general teachers and special educators regarding the implementation of inclusive education in India.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is a multidimensional construct encompassing the recognition and appreciation of diversity, alongside commitments to human rights, social justice, and equity. It is further informed by the social model of disability and a broader socio-political perspective on education (Garry Hornby, 2014). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines inclusive education as a system in which students with and without disabilities learn together, with teaching–learning processes appropriately adapted to address the diverse needs of learners with disabilities (Schuelka et al., 2020). Additionally, inclusive education emphasizes collaborative engagement and partnership between students and teachers (Shutaleva et al., 2023).

Attitudes

Attitude is a psychological construct referring to an individual’s predisposition toward engaging in a particular activity (De Boer et al., 2011). It has also been conceptualized as the manner in which individuals perceive and evaluate the world around them, including other people, objects, behaviours, and institutional norms (Hill et al., 1977).

Sentiments

Sentiments refer to teachers’ levels of comfort and emotional orientation toward individuals with disabilities (Shields, 2020a).

Concerns

Concerns include a strong interest or regard for, as well as apprehension or fear about, establishing inclusive educational approaches (Brig (Dr) Sujay Ranjan Chaudhuri (Retd), 2026a).

General teacher

The general teacher of record for general education, co-teach, and inclusion classes who is a highly qualified content expert (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015b).

Special educators

According to Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act 2004 (IDEA), special educator is a teacher with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and state certification in special education who is knowledgeable of disabilities (Shields, 2020b). Special educators (also called resource teachers) are a group of teachers who are trained to teach students with disabilities (NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY: Opportunities & Challenges A White Paper on India’s National Education Policy and Disability Inclusive Education National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People, n.d.).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Objective

The study sought to examine whether significant differences exist between general teachers and special educators with respect to their attitudes, sentiments, and concerns regarding the implementation of inclusive education in India.

Research Question

The study addressed the following research question:

To what extent, if any, do general teachers and special educators differ in their attitudes, sentiments, and concerns toward the implementation of inclusive education in India?

Hypotheses

H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no significant difference between general teachers and     special educators in their attitudes, sentiments, and concerns regarding the            implementation of inclusive education in India.

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a significant difference between general   teachers and special educators in their attitudes, sentiments, and concerns regarding the            implementation of inclusive education in India.

Research Design

A quantitative causal-comparative research design was employed to examine the factors influencing the attitudes, sentiments, and concerns of general teachers and special educators toward the implementation of inclusive education.

Instrument Used

Data for the study were collected using the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale (Forlin et al., 2011). The validity of the instrument was established through a sample of 542 pre-service teachers drawn from nine institutions across four countries—Canada, Hong Kong, India, and the United States. The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.74 (Loreman et al., 2013). Furthermore, a review by Ewing et al., (2018) identified the SACIE-R as a robust instrument with sound psychometric properties for assessing attitudes toward inclusive education (Opoku et al., 2021).

The SACIE-R comprises 15 items categorized into three dimensions: sentiments, attitudes, and concerns (Opoku et al., 2021). The Sentiments dimension evaluates respondents’ comfort levels in interactions with Children with Special Needs (CwSN); the Attitudes dimension assesses acceptance of such students; and the Concerns dimension captures apprehensions related to the implementation of inclusive education (Loreman et al., 2007). Items 2, 5, 9, 11, and 13 correspond to the sentiments dimension; items 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 15 pertain to attitudes; and items 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14 relate to concerns. Responses were recorded on a four-point Likert scale comprising the options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree.

Psychometric characteristics of instrument

Table 1 displays the psychometric characteristics for the three scale scores. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranged from α= .73 to α= .76, which were calculated using following formula:

Table 1.   The Cronbach’s alpha values

Selection of participants

This study was conducted in 31 schools representing all regions of India, viz., geographically spread from Amritsar to Trivandrum, and, from Bhuj to Shillong.

Sample size

G*Power calculated a sample size of 382, as given in figure 1.

Figure 1.   Calculation of sample size for quantitative study

A total of 1,205 participants initially undertook the survey, all of whom completed it in full, yielding a completion rate of 100%. Following data cleaning procedures, including the removal of univariate outliers, 1,175 responses were deemed suitable for statistical analysis (N = 1,175). This final sample size exceeds the a priori sample size estimate of 382 obtained using G*Power. Moreover, the achieved sample size is consistent with the values reported in the published sample size determination table presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.  Sample Size for ±3%, ±5%, ±7%, and ±10% Precision Levels where Confidence Level Is 95% and P=.5.

Note:  Adapted from Determining Sample Size (Morse, 2000)

Data Collection Methodology

Data were collected using online Google Forms, a cloud-based platform used for the design and administration of web-based questionnaires. This tool, developed by Google, is freely accessible and widely used for survey-based research. Upon accessing the survey link, participants were presented with an informed consent statement outlining the voluntary nature of participation, potential risks, and assurances of confidentiality. Demographic information, along with responses to the SACIE-R scale, was collected electronically.

Coding of Quantitative Data

Following data collection, responses were systematically coded into numerical values for analysis. For instance, teacher categories were coded as 1 for general teachers and 2 for special educators. Years of teaching experience were categorized and coded as follows: 0–4 years (1), 5–9 years (2), 10–14 years (3), 15–19 years (4), and above 20 years (5). Higher scores indicated more positive sentiments, attitudes, and concerns toward inclusive education.

Items in the SACIE-R scale that were negatively worded were reverse-coded to ensure consistency in interpretation. Specifically, responses were recoded such that “Strongly Agree” = 1, “Agree” = 2, “Disagree” = 3, and “Strongly Disagree” = 4. While items within the attitude’s subscale were positively framed, those within the sentiments and concerns subscales were negatively worded and therefore subjected to reverse coding during analysis. Scores above the midpoint value of 2.5 were interpreted as indicating a favourable disposition toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Opoku et al., 2021).

Test for Normality of Quantitative Data

The distribution of the data was assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. The results from both tests indicated a statistically significant deviation from normality, suggesting that the data did not follow a normal distribution. The outcomes of these normality tests for the scale scores are presented in table 2.

Table 2.  Normality Test for Scale Scores (N=1175)

Factor structure of the SACIE-R data

Confirmatory factor analysis to test for data fit of the expected factor structure of the SACIE-R scale was carried out by using SPSS 26 and AMOS 26. The model fit summary is as under (refer table 3): -

Table 3.  Model fit summary

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

CMIN

RMR, GFI

Baseline Comparisons

The results for the CFA model indicated that overall, it is an acceptable model fit since GFI (.941) being more that .90 indicates a good fit (Ivey & Kline, 2010) as also RMSEA value (.064) is less than 0.07, which indicates an adequate data fit (Steiger, 2007).  Even values of CFI (.882) and TLI (.858) are considered barely adequate. The Confirmatory factor analysis of the model is as given figure 2 under.

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the model

Data Analysis

Demographic information of sample

The data analysis revealed that, of the 1,175 participants, 43 (3.66%) were special educators, while the remaining 1,132 (96.34%) were general teachers. Participants’ teaching experience ranged from 0–4 years (19.66%) to 20 years and above (18.38%). A total of 519 respondents (44.17%) reported prior experience working with CwSN.

The distribution of age groups varied from 20–29 years (14.98%) to 50–60 years (17.02%). Female participants constituted the majority (80.60%), compared to male participants (19.40%). Approximately 79% of the respondents held a Master’s degree. Additionally, 443 participants (37.70%) reported having received training in inclusive or special education. The frequency distributions for these variables are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.  Frequency Counts for Variables (N=1175)

The findings of the present study indicate that teachers generally exhibit a positive orientation toward inclusive education (M = 2.89) (see Table 5).

Among the subscales, sentiments recorded the highest mean score (M = 3.00), suggesting that teachers are largely comfortable interacting with CwSN. Specifically, respondents indicated that they are not apprehensive about engaging with such students (M = 2.856), maintaining eye contact (M = 3.055), or reflecting on the possibility of disability in themselves (M = 3.044). However, their responses reflected relative neutrality when interacting with individuals with severe physical disabilities (M = 2.627).

The attitudes subscale yielded the lowest mean score (M = 2.557), indicating comparatively limited readiness among teachers to fully embrace certain aspects of inclusion. For instance, teachers expressed lower willingness to include students requiring assistive communication technologies. In contrast, they demonstrated greater acceptance of students who experience difficulty in verbal expression (M = 2.620) and those who encounter challenges in examinations (M = 3.011). These findings are broadly consistent with earlier research (Agavelyan et al., 2020). Notably, however, teachers showed a relatively high level of willingness (M = 3.144) to accommodate students requiring individualized curricula within regular classrooms.

The concerns subscale reported a mean value of 2.84, indicating moderate levels of concern. Teachers expressed apprehension regarding increased workload in inclusive settings (M = 2.552). At the same time, they reported comparatively lower concern about experiencing stress due to the presence of CwSN in their classrooms (M = 3.029). Respondents also indicated confidence in their knowledge and skills for teaching students with disabilities (M = 2.927) and their ability to provide adequate attention to all learners in an inclusive classroom (M = 2.746). A particularly positive finding was the belief that CwSN would be accepted by their peers (M = 2.955). These results align with findings from qualitative studies examining peer acceptance and the preparedness of general teachers for inclusive education.

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for scores on the SACIE-R Scale

According to the decision rule proposed by (Nachar, 2008), the null hypothesis is rejected when the absolute value of the calculated z exceeds or equals the critical (tabulated) z value. The Mann–Whitney U test was conducted using XLSTAT, and the results were cross-validated using an online calculator available at Statistics Kingdom. The computed values are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Mann-Whitney Test for Scale Scores Based on Teacher Group (N =1175)