In schools, we often say we believe in inclusion. The bigger question is: do students with disabilities feel welcomed in practice—on a random Tuesday, in a busy classroom, with real staffing constraints and real learning needs?
A research article from the Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership explores that exact issue by examining K-12 teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of inclusion for students with disabilities. As a Special Education Director, I read studies like this with two lenses: the “what does the data say?” lens and the “what can we do on Monday morning?” lens. Both matter—especially when districts are balancing legal compliance, student needs, and therapist staffing shortages.
Why perceptions of inclusion matter (more than we admit)
Inclusion is not only a placement decision; it is a daily experience. The article highlights a truth many of us have seen in IEP meetings: perceptions shape decisions. If a team believes inclusion “won’t work,” the team is more likely to default to restrictive options. If a team believes inclusion is achievable with the right supports, the team is more likely to design supplementary aids and services that make access possible.
Perceptions also influence:
Teacher confidence (self-efficacy) and willingness to try new strategies
Student belonging and peer relationships
IEP quality, including whether goals are functional, age-appropriate, and generalized across settings
District compliance risk related to LRE decisions that are not well supported by data
A quick refresher: inclusion sits on decades of legal and ethical progress
The article walks through the history of special education—from early segregation and institutional models to today’s expectation that students with disabilities are educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
Several key legal milestones are referenced, including:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which set the tone against segregation and influenced disability rights in education
PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971), supporting access to public education for children with disabilities
P.L. 94-142 (1975), the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, establishing FAPE and introducing LRE
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), clarifying that services must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit
Roncker v. Walter (1983), emphasizing “portability” of services—can supports be brought to the neighborhood school?
Daniel R.R. (1989), a two-part test examining whether needs can be met in general education with supports and whether inclusion is maximized when more restrictive placements are used
In other words, inclusion is not a trend. It is tied to civil rights, access, and long-standing legal expectations.
What the research says: benefits and challenges can both be true
The article summarizes research showing that inclusion can improve outcomes for students with disabilities, including stronger literacy gains and more meaningful engagement in instruction when compared to more restrictive settings. It also highlights a key point for families and staff: inclusion does not inherently reduce learning for students without disabilities. Studies cited show comparable (and sometimes greater) gains for nondisabled peers in inclusive settings, along with social benefits like relationship-building and richer learning opportunities.
At the same time, the article acknowledges challenges districts face, including:
Misconceptions (for example, the belief that special education is a “place” rather than a service)
Training gaps in evidence-based instruction, accommodations, and co-teaching models
Disproportionate restrictiveness for students with low-incidence or significant disabilities
System pressure on teachers and principals who are already managing heavy workloads
The study at a glance: who participated and what was measured
The study used a quantitative survey approach in a Western Pennsylvania school district. Participants included 72 teachers and 5 principals (with 100% principal participation). The district had been increasing inclusion rates over time, with a reported 69.9% of students with disabilities spending 80% or more of the day in general education.
The researchers used the MATIES survey, a validated tool that measures attitudes toward inclusion across three areas:
Cognitive (what educators believe)
Affective (how educators feel)
Behavioral (what educators are inclined to do)
They also asked about years of experience and perceived administrative support.
Key findings districts should pay attention to
1) Teachers and principals were more similar than different
One practical takeaway: teachers and principals did not show major statistically significant differences across the three attitude factors. That matters because it suggests culture is shared—beliefs about inclusion are not isolated to one role.
2) Years of experience related to perceptions of inclusion
The study found a significant relationship between years in education and perceptions of inclusion. Specifically, there were small negative relationships between years of experience and the affective and behavioral factors—meaning that as years increased, some attitudes and intended actions toward inclusion were slightly less positive.
In real district terms, this is not about blaming veteran educators. It is about recognizing that:
Teacher preparation programs have changed over time, and newer educators may have had more explicit training in inclusive models.
Long-term stress without adequate support can erode optimism, even in highly skilled staff.
Repeated exposure to “inclusion without enough support” can create understandable skepticism.
3) Perceived administrative support did not significantly change teacher perceptions
This finding surprises some people. The study did not find a significant relationship between teachers’ reported level of administrator support and their inclusion factor scores.
From a leadership standpoint, I read this carefully. It does not mean administrative support is unimportant. It may mean that “support” is complex and interpreted differently, or that broader system factors (training, staffing, service delivery models, caseload size) weigh more heavily than encouragement alone.
What this means for districts right now (and where TinyEYE fits)
Most districts are working hard to meet IEP service minutes, maintain compliance, and keep students in their LRE—while also navigating shortages in related service providers like speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists. When staffing is tight, inclusion can either become more fragile or more creative, depending on how we respond.
Here are practical, compliance-aligned steps districts can take:
Build shared understanding: “Special education is a service, not a place”
Use short, consistent messaging in staff meetings and IEP team training.
Reinforce that placement decisions must be individualized and based on data, not convenience or tradition.
Invest in targeted professional development that changes practice
Focus on supplementary aids and services, accommodations vs. modifications, and evidence-based instruction.
Train teams on co-teaching structures and role clarity.
Include practical examples by grade span (PreK-2, 3-8, 9-12), because inclusion looks different across levels.
Use related services strategically to stabilize inclusion
When districts partner with providers like TinyEYE for online therapy services, it can help reduce gaps caused by staffing shortages and support consistent service delivery. More importantly, teletherapy can be designed to complement inclusive programming by:
Supporting skill generalization through collaboration with school teams
Reducing missed sessions due to travel time or provider vacancies
Helping districts maintain service compliance while recruiting for hard-to-fill roles
Keep LRE decisions defensible and student-centered
Document supplementary aids and services tried (and their outcomes) before moving to more restrictive settings.
Use data: progress monitoring, observation notes, and work samples.
Revisit placement when circumstances change (new supports, new behavior plans, new assistive tech, new therapy access).
A final leadership note
The article’s title asks, “Will they be welcomed in?” That is a culture question as much as it is a compliance question. The most effective districts I’ve worked with treat inclusion as a systemwide responsibility: general education, special education, related services, and building leadership working together—especially when resources are stretched.
For more information, please follow this link.
