Inclusive Culture in Compulsory Education Centers: Values, Participation and Teachers’ Perceptions

Abstract

This article explores teachers’ perceptions concerning educational inclusion as part of an inclusive culture. The study focuses on compulsory education from the teachers’ point of view. We used three factors indicated in the “Index of Inclusion”: inclusive values, degree of participation in the educational community, and the teachers’ perceptions of the educational response offered to SEN students. To comply with the proposed objective, we explored nine variables to understand their influence on the attitudes of teachers and other professionals towards educational inclusion. These variables were gender, age, teaching seniority, educational stage, professional profile, type of center, geographic location of the center, years of experience and characteristics of SEN students, as well as the training received to meet the needs of all students. We found significant differences in the variables of age, educational stage, student characteristics, and training received, and recommendations are provided to address the needs detected.

Full text

Citation: Valle-Flórez, R.-E.; de Caso
Fuertes, A.M.; Baelo, R.;
Marcos-Santiago, R. Inclusive
Culture in Compulsory Education
Centers: Values, Participation and
Teachers’ Perceptions. Children 2022,
9, 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/
children9060813
Academic Editors: María
Fernández-Hawrylak, Sebastià
Verger Gelabert and António J. Santos
Received: 1 May 2022
Accepted: 27 May 2022
Published: 31 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
children
Article
Inclusive Culture in Compulsory Education Centers: Values,
Participation and Teachers’ Perceptions
Rosa-Eva Valle-Flórez 1, Ana María de Caso Fuertes 2, Roberto Baelo 1,* and Rosario Marcos-Santiago 2
1
Department of General and Specific Didactics and Educational Theory, University of León, 24071 Leon, Spain;
rosa-eva.valle@unileon.es
2Department of Psychology, Sociology, and Philosophy, University of León, 24071 Leon, Spain;
amcasf@unileon.es (A.M.d.C.F.); mrmars@unileon.es (R.M.-S.)
*Correspondence: roberto.baelo@unileon.es
Abstract:
This article explores teachers’ perceptions concerning educational inclusion as part of an
inclusive culture. The study focuses on compulsory education from the teachers’ point of view. We
used three factors indicated in the “Index of Inclusion”: inclusive values, degree of participation in
the educational community, and the teachers’ perceptions of the educational response offered to SEN
students. To comply with the proposed objective, we explored nine variables to understand their
influence on the attitudes of teachers and other professionals towards educational inclusion. These
variables were gender, age, teaching seniority, educational stage, professional profile, type of center,
geographic location of the center, years of experience and characteristics of SEN students, as well as
the training received to meet the needs of all students. We found significant differences in the variables
of age, educational stage, student characteristics, and training received, and recommendations are
provided to address the needs detected.
Keywords:
inclusion; inclusive culture; special educational needs (SEN); inclusive education; teacher
training; compulsory education
1. Introduction
Culture can be understood as an integrated set of learned behavioral traits that are
manifested and shared by the members of society. Its essential elements are the values,
conceptions, and guidelines for actions within a community, which define what is good,
bad,desirable, or rejectable. From them, a whole normative fabric is generated by which
the conduct of its members is governed and serves as a reference to evaluate the behavior
of others. Values and responses to people considered different or disabled have changed
throughout history and cultures, ranging from religious demonization, medical pathol-
ogization, discrimination, and normalization to the defense of human diversity and the
fight for social inclusion. For Castellanos and Lucero [
1
], “disability is defined within
each culture according to the imaginary and the meanings that are held about the body.”
For Ferreira [
2
], the same society that defines the (social) identity of the disabled is the
one that culturally and symbolically “disables” the disabled. People with disabilities are
perceived as “the others”, they are not within the norm, who “are not normal”, so they present
a deviation regarding the expectations of behavior and values of a specific society in a
particular moment. In this way, disabilities “involve social processes of breaking norms, labeling
and, often, dehumanization” [3].
To understand the process of disability, it is essential to reflect on Goffman’s ap-
proach [
4
] from a paradigm of symbolic interactionism. He studied how stigmatizing
labels, understood as social marks with negative connotations that society uses to define
people, serve to show violations of the norm. He introduced the concept of social identity
to describe the personal qualities that remain constant through situations. These identities
Children 2022,9, 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9060813 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children

Children 2022,9, 813 2 of 22
are consolidated by the reactions of others towards us and how social judgments can create
stigmatized identities that are difficult to avoid.
The categorization and tagging of students and the use of the terms “SEN-special
educational needs” and “disability” in particular have awakened considerable confusion
while highlighting the existence of different ideological approaches [
5
,
6
]. In recent decades,
progress has been made towards an approach to disability linked to the social model of
disability. This adoption has meant a significant change in the study and assessment
of disability. This theoretical approach focuses on individuals and their insufficiencies
in doing so on environments and social attitudes, focusing on how prejudice permeates
cultural representations, language, and socialization itself. In this line, Barnes [
7
] pointed
out that “while social responses to insufficiency are not universal, there have been permanent
cultural prejudices against people who suffer from insufficiencies”, emphasizing the relationship
between culture and the oppression suffered by disabled people.
Within this approach, an inclusive society must encompass all the people’s diversity,
emphasizing acceptance and respect for diversity among the various human identities
linked to issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and also disability,
avoiding previous judgments about them and their pathologization or labeling [8].
There is a consensus that educational institutions form the fundamental axes in the
socialization process, together with families. Furthermore, through the Education for All
initiative, UNESCO [
9
–
13
] has promoted forums and declarations on the need for inclusive
and equitable quality education that promotes equal opportunities and lifelong learning for
all. In this regard, Casanova [
14
] carried out a complete normative analysis that confirms
the existence of a solid normative framework based on the principles of inclusive education,
which indicates the presence of sufficient evidence [
15
–
17
] to affirm that there is a new
paradigm that allows interpreting and intervening on human differences in the educational
field. Furthermore, under this new paradigm, numerous actions and cases of good practices
have been analyzed in the academic context in which inclusion is conceived as a process of
continuous improvement that allows the identification and elimination of barriers or factors
that limit the possibilities of participation and the educational success of all students.
However, inclusive education continues to be a challenge; it involves a change in
culture and values since the focus must not be solely on students with specific needs but
also on the changes and actions required by teachers, students, and their families. This aims
to identify the barriers that underlie low performance and participation and representation
within society [18].
This work is intended to investigate school culture, the values, beliefs, and interactions
that concur in the compulsory education centers, understanding them as guides that favor
or, on the contrary, hinder the behaviors, practices, and participation of the education
community in achieving an inclusive culture [19].
2. Background
A review of the different meta-analyses works that have been developed on this sub-
ject [
20
–
23
] indicates that the most studied factor within the field of compulsory education
and concerning inclusive culture is based on the relationships between the perceptions of
teachers towards students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and other study variables.
This review also reveals the lack of studies that collect the voice of students at these educa-
tional levels (from 6 to 16 years old) and the fact that there are few that deal with inquiring
about family opinions. In addition, practically all the studies have been based on Likert-
type questionnaire application designs, taking teachers as a sample, specifically in their
initial training phase (mainly with students in training). They collected opinions before pro-
fessional practice and in the first stages of service (pre-service/in-service). They analyzed
them with variables such as gender, age, teaching experience with students with special
educational needs, the training obtained about the types of needs, and educational support
measures. However, the conclusions of these studies are not conclusive. Lacruz-Pérez’s
paper [
24
], which analyzes eighteen studies to look for the differences in the perception of

Children 2022,9, 813 3 of 22
attitudes towards inclusive education concerning gender, points out that seven of them
show how women tend to be more positive towards inclusive education, both in the initial
training and in the development of professional practice [
25
–
28
]. However, other works
affirm the opposite, pointing out that men have better attitudes towards inclusive educa-
tion [
29
,
30
]. This paper [
24
] also highlights results that indicate that teaching experience
positively correlates with favorable attitudes towards educational inclusion [
31
–
33
]. It
is also shown how other investigations define the association between the training that
teachers have with the presence of a disposition, an attitude more favorable to respond to
the specific needs of the students [34,35].
Similarly, in the research mentioned above, a relationship can be seen between the
favorable predisposition toward educational inclusion and in which educational stage they
are working. Thus, the most positive attitudes among teachers decrease as the level of the
educational stage progresses. There is a more significant positive predisposition toward
the educational inclusion of early childhood education teachers than those who work in
primary education, who also have a more favorable inclination than those in secondary
education. On the contrary, few studies concerning the variable “contact with people with
SEN” according to the students’ degree or type of educational need, or other personal and
environmental characteristics.
3. General Purpose
This research seeks to describe and analyze inclusive culture in compulsory education
centers, taking the province of Leon (Spain) as the geographical framework of reference.
For this, practicing teachers’ opinions and perceptions were investigated to identify the
barriers that hinder inclusive education.
4. Materials and Methods
It was decided to develop work under a design non-experimental and descriptive,
using mixed techniques to analyze the data obtained. A questionnaire developed and
validated ad hoc for the study was used to obtain the quantitative data. Depending on the
nature of the data obtained, the analysis was carried out using non-parametric techniques
to associate variables. This study was complemented with contributions of qualitative data
(from a discussion group) to deepen the understanding of quantitative data, determine
the barriers that prevent or limit educational inclusion, and propose corrective measures
according to the situations perceived as susceptible to improvement.
4.1. Participants
The regional statistical services (http://www.jcyl.es/sie/v2/educaCv2irAmodulo.
html, accessed on 20 April 2022) reported the existence of 2583 teachers in compulsory
education. This number formed our population (N = 2583). 67.56% (N = 1745) belong
to kindergarten and primary education, and 32.44% (N = 838) to compulsory secondary
education. The percentage of teachers in public education is 76.28%, and 23.72% in private-
concerted education. The percentage of women is 64.58%, and 38.42% are men. A formula
was used for finite populations to calculate the sample size, with a confidence level of
95% and a precision range of 2.5% [
36
], resulting in the need for 335 subjects to ensure the
sample’s representativeness.
A stratified random sampling of centers was carried out considering the criteria of
ownership of the center (public/concerted-private), location (rural or urban), and educa-
tional stage. Based on this selection of centers, and with the collaboration of the director,
several volunteer participants were requested proportional to the population data in terms
of sex and educational stage, with the condition that they had had students with specific
educational support needs in their classes.
The selected teachers belonged to twenty-eight ordinary educational centers located in
the province of León (Spain). In our country, all publicly funded schools (private and public
schools) must provide schooling for students with educational needs, except for private

Children 2022,9, 813 4 of 22
schools without financial support from the state and specific special education centers that
provide schooling for students with very severe SEN or multiple handicaps. These centers
and their teachers were excluded because they were not the object of the study. The sample
of this study was composed of 311 teachers and eleven teachers after 17 questionnaires
were eliminated because they were incomplete or did not meet the indicated requirements.
The sample comes from 28 educational centers located in the province of Leon (Spain). It
was randomly selected among the 215 Early Childhood, Primary, Secondary, and High
School education centers in the province mentioned above considering the criteria of
ownership of the center (public/subsidized/private), location of the center (rural or urban),
educational stage in which they teach, and on the condition that they have had students in
their classes who need specific educational support. Therefore, the sample maintained the
trend in proportion to the population data shown in the previous paragraph. The data was
triangulated to generate a series of data that was as heterogeneous and representative as
possible in terms of characteristics, location, and typology of the educational center.
The discussion group consisted of six professionals with extensive teaching experience:
two Primary Education teachers and the other two from High School. Four were special
education teachers, and the other two were not. Three were teachers at rural schools, while
the other three were teachers in urban schools. It should be noted that the six participants
were officials belonging to the public education system of the province of León (Spain).
They had completed the questionnaire previously, considering the criteria followed to
make up the questionnaire’s sample. They were five women and men of different ages
(ranging from 34 to 59 years old). They were considered key informants and representative
of the professional profiles involved in inclusion: tutors, subject teachers, management
teams, and support professionals. It should be noted that the six participants were officials
belonging to the public education system of the province of Leon (Spain).
4.2. Instruments and Procedure
The questionnaire was developed specifically for this study. It was designed for
more comprehensive research led by the research group Diversity Disability and Special
Educational Needs of the University of Almeria, which collected data from many other
schools in different Spanish provinces. Authors validated it and found three significant
factors by principal components analysis: organizational and curricular aspects, composed
of nineteen items; faculty and resources, which included seventeen items; and inclusive
culture, which was conformed of twenty-two items [
37
]. These factors had an explained
variance of 62.617%. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire was 0.84, which is
satisfactory since it yields scores above 0.80.
We only used the third-factor items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) to look for differences
in inclusive culture across the eight independent variables considered. This factor was
composed of nine items related to inclusive values, eight items related to participation in
the educational community, and five items of teachers’ perceptions. All these items made
up the dependent variables of our study.
As for the dependent variables, twenty-two items referring to inclusive culture were
collected and grouped into three categories (Table 1). These categories were based on those
described by Booth [
17
] and the indicators on inclusion prepared by the European Agency
for the Development of Education for Students with SEN [
34
]. We defined each of them as:
•
Inclusive values. Values guide and are the foundation of our actions. They are what
give meaning and purpose to our efforts. Values affect the content of what we teach,
how we teach, and how we relate to students and their families. In this sense, the items
associated with this category aim to check the presence or absence of inclusive values
in schools, such as equality, respect for differences, and non-discrimination. We asked
the teachers if the criteria and indicators they used were consistent with inclusive
principles to establish the center’s access, the formation of groups, the organization of
support for SEN, and the methodology of curricular and complementary activities.

Children 2022,9, 813 5 of 22
•
Participation in the educational community. Teaching involves students, their fami-
lies, and other professionals. This category gathers information about who usually
participates in schools and the opportunities they must be involved and accepted to
participate in decisions about their children’s school life.
•
Perceptions. Referring to teachers and other SEN support professionals’ beliefs con-
cerning the learning abilities of SEN students in mainstream schools. The impact of
their schooling on their peers’ learnings, the training, and perceived self-efficacy to
cope with the needs of students perceived as “different”.
Table 1. Indicators of the questionnaire on inclusive culture.
Category No. Items Category Code
Inclusive values 9 CV.1–CV.9
Participation in the educational community 8 Cpa.1–Cpa.8
Perceptions 5 Cpe.1–Cpe.5
The response format to the items was Likert-type with five response alternatives. The
score ranged from 1 to 5, increasing the level of agreement, success, or frequency, depending
on the formulation of the question.
To construct the factors and items under study and perform content validity, a biblio-
graphic review of the subject was carried out, and the analysis of similar scales. The initial
battery of items was submitted to a validity procedure through “Expert Judgment” among
expert university professors in this field of study. To analyze the scale’s psychometric
properties, a previous pilot study was carried out with samples of teachers from different
autonomous communities of the state. First, principal components analysis was performed,
identifying three factors with an explained variance of 62.617%, and the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin sample adequacy measure (KMO = 0.922), and Bartlett’s sphericity test (<0.000) to
determine the factorial adequacy of the instrument, resulting in suitable in the different
factors analyzed. Next, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was analyzed using
Cronbach’s alpha (
α
) and McDonald’s omega (
ω
). As shown in Table 2, the scale’s reliability
was satisfactory since it yielded scores above 0.80.
Table 2. Scale reliability statistics.
95.0% Confidence Interval
McDonald’ ωCronbach’s αLower Upper
Scale 0.86 0.84 0.830 0.885
Values 0.90 0.90
Participation 0.90 0.90
Perception 0.70 0.65
Note. Of the observations, 311 were used, 0 were excluded, and 311 were provided.
Once the bibliographic review, design, and validation of the instrument had been
carried out, the centers and teachers were randomly selected according to the criteria
determined in the independent variables, the willingness to collaborate freely, and based
on the census provided by the Provincial Directorate of Education of Leon (Spain).
The centers were contacted by telephone, and the project and the research objectives
were presented to them. They were informed about the anonymity and confidentiality
clauses on data collection. After this first contact, the questionnaire was sent both online
and on paper by regular mail, depending on the preference of the center’s management,
and the reminders and deadlines for completion or collection of the questionnaires were
established. We must highlight and thank the high level of collaboration of the teaching
staff and the management teams. Subsequently, the data were coded and analyzed to arrive
at provisional quantitative results complemented by the qualitative data obtained by the

Children 2022,9, 813 6 of 22
discussion group. The composition of these groups was under the professional profiles and
circumstances indicated in the independent variables: tutor teachers, specialist educational
support personnel, and members of management teams with heterogeneous professional
experience and the center’s location to generate a richer discourse.
5. Results
5.1. Sample
Our study sample was finally made up of 74.6% female teachers. The highest percent-
age of the sample (37%) was in the age range of 45 to 54 years, and a similar percentage
(36.7%) had professional experience of more than 20 years. Of the sample, 67.5% worked in
public schools (Table 3). Over half of the sample (51.4%) had between 5 and 20 years of
experience working with SEN students. The sample had a similar percentage of teachers
who worked in localities representing different population densities. Different professional
profiles included the main specializations of the teaching staff grouped into the two se-
lected categories: professionals specialized in supporting inclusion and professionals from
different academic disciplines. Therefore, we can indicate, based on the population data
of the registered categories, that the sample represented the proportional tendency of the
different professional roles and was representative about sex, age, teaching experience,
location, and type of center education of teachers in the province of Leon.
Table 3. Sample distribution. Categorization of the socio-professional variables of the sample.
Fr %
Sex Women 232 74.6
Men 79 25.4
Age
24 to 34 51 16.4
34 to 44 97 31.2
45 to 54 115 37
55 and more 48 15.4
Teaching experience
4 years or less 38 12.2
5 to 10 years 55 17.7
11 to 20 years 104 33.4
More than 20 years 114 36.7
Educational stage Early Childhood and Primary 191 61.4
Secondary and High School 120 38.6
Professional profile
Support teachers/Specialist (Therapeutic Pedagogy,
Counselors, Hearing, and Speech) 47 15.1
Other teachers (tutors, subject specialists, heads of study,
principals, etc.) 264 84.9
Center by
Funding/Ownership
Public 210 67.5
Subsidized 101 32.5
Center by number of
inhabitants in which is located
Equal or less than 3000 82 26.4
From 3000 to 10,000 (included) 75 24.1
From 10,000 to 100,000 (included) 63 20.3
More than 100,000 91 29.3
Teaching experience with SEN
students
4 years or less 116 37.3
5 to 10 years 79 25.4
11 to 20 years 81 26
More than 20 years 35 11.3
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normal distribution test with Lilliefors correction was
performed to apply the appropriate analyses, finding a significance of less than 0.05 in all
the variables studied, so the null hypothesis of normality was rejected and non-parametric
analyses were used.

Children 2022,9, 813 7 of 22
5.2. Descriptive Analysis by Category
We present the results by the categories indicated in the structure section of the
questionnaire to collect the most relevant contributions by the dimensions under study:
inclusive values, participation in the educational community, and perceptions.
The opinion of teachers about the existence of “inclusive values” in schools was highly
positive. Of the teachers, 80.71% considered that “almost always” or “always” (Figure 1)
individual differences are considered, and academic achievement is related to the efforts
and barriers that must be overcome.
Children 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
More than 20 years 35 11.3
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normal distribution test with Lilliefors correction was per-
formed to apply the appropriate analyses, finding a significance of less than 0.05 in all the
variables studied, so the null hypothesis of normality was rejected and non-parametric
analyses were used.
5.2. Descriptive Analysis by Category
We present the results by the categories indicated in the structure section of the ques-
tionnaire to collect the most relevant contributions by the dimensions under study: inclu-
sive values, participation in the educational community, and perceptions.
The opinion of teachers about the existence of “inclusive values” in schools was highly
positive. Of the teachers, 80.71% considered that “almost always” or “always” (Figure 1)
individual differences are considered, and academic achievement is related to the efforts
and barriers that must be overcome.
Figure 1. Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions about the presence of inclusive values in
their schools.1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost always; 5: Always.
In the category referring to the “degree of participation in the educational community”,
71.06% of the teaching staff considered that almost always or always there is collaboration
and coordination necessary to attend to the needs of the SEN student between the teaching
staff and professionals who intervene in the educational process (Figure 2). In addition,
flexibility and opportunity are provided for families to engage and participate in their
child’s learning.
Figure 2. Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions on the degree of participation in the ed-
ucational community in the educational process. 1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost al-
ways; 5: Always.
Regarding the category related to “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that
should be offered to SEN students”, the data provided contradictions with the results ob-
tained as an average in the values dimension (Figure 3). This circumstance could indicate
that individual differences are not perceived as a factor of enrichment, expressing concern
about a possible decrease in the academic level of the rest of the students due to the class-
Figure 1.
Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions about the presence of inclusive values in
their schools.1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost always; 5: Always.
In the category referring to the “degree of participation in the educational community”,
71.06% of the teaching staff considered that almost always or always there is collaboration
and coordination necessary to attend to the needs of the SEN student between the teaching
staff and professionals who intervene in the educational process (Figure 2). In addition,
flexibility and opportunity are provided for families to engage and participate in their
child’s learning.
Children 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
More than 20 years 35 11.3
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normal distribution test with Lilliefors correction was per-
formed to apply the appropriate analyses, finding a significance of less than 0.05 in all the
variables studied, so the null hypothesis of normality was rejected and non-parametric
analyses were used.
5.2. Descriptive Analysis by Category
We present the results by the categories indicated in the structure section of the ques-
tionnaire to collect the most relevant contributions by the dimensions under study: inclu-
sive values, participation in the educational community, and perceptions.
The opinion of teachers about the existence of “inclusive values” in schools was highly
positive. Of the teachers, 80.71% considered that “almost always” or “always” (Figure 1)
individual differences are considered, and academic achievement is related to the efforts
and barriers that must be overcome.
Figure 1. Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions about the presence of inclusive values in
their schools.1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost always; 5: Always.
In the category referring to the “degree of participation in the educational community”,
71.06% of the teaching staff considered that almost always or always there is collaboration
and coordination necessary to attend to the needs of the SEN student between the teaching
staff and professionals who intervene in the educational process (Figure 2). In addition,
flexibility and opportunity are provided for families to engage and participate in their
child’s learning.
Figure 2. Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions on the degree of participation in the ed-
ucational community in the educational process. 1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost al-
ways; 5: Always.
Regarding the category related to “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that
should be offered to SEN students”, the data provided contradictions with the results ob-
tained as an average in the values dimension (Figure 3). This circumstance could indicate
that individual differences are not perceived as a factor of enrichment, expressing concern
about a possible decrease in the academic level of the rest of the students due to the class-
Figure 2.
Percentage of responses about teachers’ opinions on the degree of participation in the
educational community in the educational process. 1: Never; 2: Rarely; 3: Occasionally; 4: Almost
always; 5: Always.
Regarding the category related to “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that
should be offered to SEN students”, the data provided contradictions with the results obtained
as an average in the values dimension (Figure 3). This circumstance could indicate that
individual differences are not perceived as a factor of enrichment, expressing concern about
a possible decrease in the academic level of the rest of the students due to the classroom
heterogeneity. Similarly, this result shows that the concept of therapeutic intervention is still
present, with resistance to assuming the commitment of the specific needs
of the students.

Children 2022,9, 813 8 of 22
Children 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
room heterogeneity. Similarly, this result shows that the concept of therapeutic interven-
tion is still present, with resistance to assuming the commitment of the specific needs of
the students.
Figure 3. Percentage of responses about teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that
should be offered to SEN students. 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Undecided; 4: Agree; 5:
Strongly Agree.
5.3. Quantitative Results of Our Study According to Different Variables
To apply the appropriate analyzes, first, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors
correction was performed to determine whether the data were normally distributed (null
hypothesis of the analysis). When finding a significance of less than 0.05 in all the variables
studied, the null hypothesis of normality was rejected, and non-parametric analyzes were
chosen. The Mann-Whitney U for the study of two independent groups (gender, educa-
tional stage, professional profile, and center by funding/ownership), and the Kruskal-Wal-
lis H for the study of three or more independent groups (age, teaching experience, center
by the number of inhabitants in which is located, and teaching experience with SEN stu-
dents) were used.
As the data did not follow a normal distribution, we did not work with means, but
rather ranges were used to contrast the hypothesis that K samples were obtained from the
same population. This is a matter of contrasting whether different independent samples
are equally distributed and that, therefore, they belong to the same population, and com-
paring medians can be considered.
5.3.1. Results by Gender
A Mann-Whitney U analysis was performed to check whether there were differences
between men and women, which compares the results of two independent groups. No
statistically significant differences were observed between male and female teachers to
the answers provided in the questionnaire. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.022)
was only observed between men and women when asked whether only support special-
ists should treat SEN students, with women mostly supporting this statement.
The magnitude of the effect size was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate,
which uses the median differences between the two groups through the biserial rank cor-
relation (r
b
), interpreting an effect size as irrelevant if it is <0.1; small (0.1); medium (0.3)
and large 0.5 [38]. In this case, we found in item Cpe.2 a statistically significant difference
with an association strength close to a medium-size value (r
b
= 0.22) between the female
gender and the perception that support for specific needs of students is a task for support
specialists. However, in the discussion group analyzed, no differences were observed in
the arguments used due to gender.
5.3.2. Results by Age
To compare those aspects with three or more independent groups, non-parametric
analyzes of the Kruskal-Wallis test were used (Table 4). In this way, the age of the partic-
ipants was divided into four ranges: those between 24 and 34 years old, those between 35
and 44 years old, those between 45 and 54 years old, and, finally, those 55 years or older.
Figure 3.
Percentage of responses about teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that
should be offered to SEN students. 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Undecided; 4: Agree; 5:
Strongly Agree.
5.3. Quantitative Results of Our Study According to Different Variables
To apply the appropriate analyzes, first, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors
correction was performed to determine whether the data were normally distributed (null
hypothesis of the analysis). When finding a significance of less than 0.05 in all the variables
studied, the null hypothesis of normality was rejected, and non-parametric analyzes were
chosen. The Mann-Whitney U for the study of two independent groups (gender, educational
stage, professional profile, and center by funding/ownership), and the Kruskal-Wallis H
for the study of three or more independent groups (age, teaching experience, center by the
number of inhabitants in which is located, and teaching experience with SEN students)
were used.
As the data did not follow a normal distribution, we did not work with means, but
rather ranges were used to contrast the hypothesis that K samples were obtained from the
same population. This is a matter of contrasting whether different independent samples are
equally distributed and that, therefore, they belong to the same population, and comparing
medians can be considered.
5.3.1. Results by Gender
A Mann-Whitney U analysis was performed to check whether there were differences
between men and women, which compares the results of two independent groups. No
statistically significant differences were observed between male and female teachers to the
answers provided in the questionnaire. A statistically significant difference (p= 0.022) was
only observed between men and women when asked whether only support specialists
should treat SEN students, with women mostly supporting this statement.
The magnitude of the effect size was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate,
which uses the median differences between the two groups through the biserial rank
correlation (r
b
), interpreting an effect size as irrelevant if it is <0.1; small (0.1); medium (0.3)
and large 0.5 [
38
]. In this case, we found in item Cpe.2 a statistically significant difference
with an association strength close to a medium-size value (r
b
= 0.22) between the female
gender and the perception that support for specific needs of students is a task for support
specialists. However, in the discussion group analyzed, no differences were observed in
the arguments used due to gender.
5.3.2. Results by Age
To compare those aspects with three or more independent groups, non-parametric an-
alyzes of the Kruskal-Wallis test were used (Table 4). In this way, the age of the participants
was divided into four ranges: those between 24 and 34 years old, those between 35 and
44 years old, those between 45 and 54 years old, and, finally, those 55 years or older.

Children 2022,9, 813 9 of 22
Table 4. Kruskal-Wallis analysis by teachers’ age.
Variables 24–34 Years 35 to 44 Years 45 to 54 Years More than
55 Years p-Value
CV.6. The academic achievement of the
SEN students is related to difficulties and
barriers that must be overcome.
181.36 149.38 145.50 167.59 0.045
Cpa.3. Teachers feel empowered to
facilitate the participation of families. 207.03 137.60 153.36 145.29 0.000
Cpa.4. There is flexibility in the class
groups that encourages collaboration and
communication between students.
188.47 152.06 146.40 152.47 0.026
Cpa.6. The center offers families various
ways to motivate them to get involved in
their children’s learning.
189.52 140.22 155.43 153.67 0.011
Cpa.7. The active participation of all
students in the center’s life is facilitated. 183.16 145.25 151.25 160.25 0.049
Cpa.8. Families are informed of the
progress of their children with SEN. 180.54 144.20 147.90 173.19 0.011
Total 192.46 148.57 146.19 155.78 0.011
Note. N between 24 and 34 years = 51; N between 35 and 44 years = 97; N between 45 and 54 years = 115; N more
than 54 years = 48.
The analyzes showed significant differences in the different age groups of the teachers
regarding the items of the category “Participation in the educational community” above all.
In addition to item CV.6: The academic achievement of the SEN students is related to
difficulties and barriers that must be overcome” from the “Inclusive Values” category.
After performing post hoc analyzes (Table 5), it was observed that these statistically
significant differences occurred mainly among the group of younger teachers (between
24 and 34 years
old) to the rest of the age groups. In this way, it can be said stated that the
youngest teachers are the most “optimistic” regarding the degree of participation of the
“Educational Community in the attention to students with Special Educational Needs”,
and those who most firmly believe that there is a relationship between the effort invested
and the barriers overcome by the SEN students and their achievements. Furthermore, a
significant difference was also found between teachers who are between 35 and 44 years old
and those 55 or older in the item that stated that in the centers, you keep families informed
of the progress of their SEN children associated with disability, the older ones being those
that affirmed this fact more forcefully.
Table 5.
Post hoc Kruskal-Wallis analysis according to the different age groups of teachers that
are significant.
Variables
24–34 Years
vs.
35–44 Years
24–34 Years
vs.
24 to 54 Years
24–34 Years
vs.
+55 Years
35–44 Years
vs.
+55 Years
45–54 Years
vs.
+55 Years
p24–34 r 35–44 r p24–34 r 45–54 r p24–34 r +55 r p35–44 r +55 r p45–54 r +55 r
CV.6. 0.031 84.16 69.42 0.009 97.07 77.48
Cpa.3. 0.000 95.76 63.32 0.000
104.11
74.36 0.001 59.16 40.27
Cpa.4. 0.017 85.41 68.76 0.002 99.59 76.37 0.037 55.47 44.19
Cpa.6. 0.002 88.84 66.96 0.013 96.67 77.66 0.022 56.00 43.63
Cpa.7. 0.009 85.90 68.51 0.016 95.63 78.12
Cpa.8. 0.007 85.58 68.68 0.010 95.73 78.08 0.037 68.58 81.94
Total 0.006 87.50 67.66 0.001
101.44
75.54 0.040 55.52 44.14
Note. N between 24 and 34 years = 51; N between 35 and 44 years = 97; N between 45 and 54 years = 115; N more
than 54 years = 48.

Children 2022,9, 813 10 of 22
When using categorical variables to calculate the strength of the effect size, Cramer’s
V was used. Its interpretation indicates if the effect size is irrelevant if <0.1; small if 0.1;
moderate (0.3); and large 0.5. The results obtained in the association of the significant
variables indicated that the size of the effect was between small and moderate in the items
indicated below: CV.6 (V = 0.15); Cpa.3. (V = 0.2); Chp.4. (V = 0.14); Chp.6. (V = 0.16);
Chap.7. (V = 0.12); Chp.8. (V = 0.2).
5.3.3. Results by Teaching Seniority
When the teaching seniority of the sample was compared, we obtained only three
variables whose differences between the four groups (less than 5 years of teaching, between
5 and 10 years of teaching, between 11 and 20 years of teaching, or more than 20 years
of teaching) were statistically significant: one item regarding the Participation in the
educational community and two related to the teachers’ perceptions about the degree of
how SEN students are perceived to be included in the Center (Table 6).
Table 6. Kruskal-Wallis analysis according to teaching seniority.
Variables <5 Years 5 to 10 Years 11 to 20 Years >20 Years p-Value
Cpa.3. Teachers feel empowered to
facilitate the participation of families. 208.47 158.78 140.35 151.44 0.000
Cpe.2. Only the support specialists
should attend to SEN students since they
are the ones trained for it.
174.99 126.79 156.72 163.11 0.034
Cpe.4. All students can achieve the
general objectives in an inclusive
classroom with the necessary help.
178.09 180.94 142.86 148.59 0.016
Note. N less than5 years = 38; N between 5 and 15 years = 55; N between 11 and 20 years = 104; N over 20 years = 114.
After the post hoc analyses were carried out, it could be verified how the statistically
significant differences occurred between the group with less than 5 years of teaching
experience and the rest of the groups, those with less teaching experience obtaining the
highest scores. There were also statistically significant differences between those with
between 5 and 10 years of teaching experience and those with more teaching experience,
also in favor of those with less teaching experience. Therefore, there is a relationship
between the teacher’s experience and the perception of an inclusive culture. The less
the teaching experience, the more favorable the perception. However, it should be noted
that there were not many indicators in which statistically significant differences were
found (Table 7).
Table 7.
Post hoc Kruskal-Wallis analysis according to the different age groups of teaching seniority.
Variables
<5 Years
vs.
5–10 Years
<5 Years
vs.
11–20 Years
<5 Years
vs.
>20 Years
5–10 Years
vs.
11–20 Years
5–10 Years
vs.
>20 Years
11–20 Years
vs.
>20 Years
p<5 r 5–10 r p<5 r 11–20 r p<5 r >20 r p5–10 r 11–20 r p5–10 r >20 r p11–20 r >20 r
Cpa.3. 0.005 55.96 40.81 0.000 93.45 63.48 0.000 98.07 69.31
Cpe.4. 0.032 83.24 67.21 0.009 92.52 73.38 0.021 96.97 79.22
Note. N less than5 years = 38; N between 5 and 10 years = 55; N between 11 and 20 years = 104; N over 20 years = 114.
The strength of the effect size performed by Cramer’s V demonstrated that the strength
of association between the items and the referenced age groups was small: Cpa.3. Teachers
feel empowered to facilitate the participation of families (V = 0.15); Cpe.2. Only the support
specialists should attend to SEN students since they are the ones trained for it (V = 0.12);
Cpe.4. All students can achieve the general objectives in an inclusive classroom with the
necessary help (V = 0.13).

Children 2022,9, 813 11 of 22
5.3.4. Results by Educational Stage
Concerning the educational stage at which the surveyed teachers teach, we observed
statistically significant differences in the three categories evaluated: “inclusive values“,
“degree of participation in the educational community”, and “teachers’ perceptions of the educational
response that should be offered to SEN students”. In this way, both the inclusive values
and the degree of participation in the educational community were higher in the Early
Childhood and Primary Education stage than in the Compulsory Secondary Education and
Baccalaureate stage. At the same time, the perceptions were more favorable in this latter
educational stage (Table 8).
Table 8. Analysis of the Mann Whitney U according to the educational stage of teaching.
Early Childhood and
Primary Education
Compulsory Secondary
Education and
Baccalaureate
Zp-Value
N Rank N Rank
CV.3. The work done by all students
(with and without disabilities) is
equally valued.
191 165.87 120 140.29 −2.559 0.010
CV.4. SEN students actively participate
in all activities center (exhibitions,
works, musical activities, theatrical
performances . . . ).
191 164.49 120 142.48 −2.333 0.020
Cpa.3. Teachers feel empowered to
facilitate the participation of families. 191 167.81 120 137.20 −3.052 0.002
Cpa.4. There is flexibility in the class
groups that encourages collaboration
and communication between students.
191 165.56 120 140.79 −2.514 0.012
Cpa.5. The support provided by the
Integration Support Classroom is
coordinated with the work in the
ordinary classroom.
191 170.00 120 133.71 −3.645 0.000
Cpa.6. The center offers families various
ways to motivate them to get involved
in their children’s learning.
191 164.23 120 142.90 −2.132 0.033
Total PartiCom 191 166.77 120 138.86 −2.756 0.006
Cpe.1. Teachers think that classrooms
that have Sen students have lower
academic levels than those that do not
have these students.
191 147.14 120 170.10 −2.248 0.025
Cpe.2. Only the support specialists
should attend to SEN students since
they are the ones trained for it.
191 146.52 120 171.09 −2.406 0.016
Cpe.5. For attending SEN students, it is
necessary to start from what they know
how to do and not from the general
level of the classroom.
191 163.62 120 143.87 −2.251 0.024
In this case, items CV.3: The work done by all students (with and without disabilities)
is equally valued; Cpa.3: Teachers feel empowered to facilitate the participation of families;
Cpa.4: There is flexibility in the class groups that encourages collaboration and communica-
tion between students; Cpa.5: The support provided by the Integration Support Classroom
is coordinated with the work in the ordinary classroom; Cpe.5: For attending SEN students,
it is necessary to start from what they know how to do and not from the general level of

Children 2022,9, 813 12 of 22
the classroom and Cpe.1: Teachers think that classrooms that have Sen students have lower
academic levels than those that do not have these students, showed statistically significant
differences with a strength of association between small and medium (r
b
= 0.21). The effect
size was smaller (r
b
= 0.12) in items CV.4: SEN students actively participate in all activities
center (exhibitions, works, musical activities, theatrical performances); Cpa.6: The Center
offers families various ways to motivate them to get involved in their children’s learning
and Cpe.2: Only the support specialists should attend to SEN students since they are the
ones trained for it.
When we analyzed the discussion group, where four participants teach in the Early
Childhood Education and Primary Education stages and two who teach in the Compulsory
Secondary Education and Baccalaureate stages, the greatest difference observed revolved
around who should promote the change of attitude of the students when facing “the future”.
In this way, the Compulsory Secondary Education and Baccalaureate teachers believed that
it is a work for the educational center.
“let them leave the center with a changed mind, so when they have children, they would
understand that education is the priority” (1:06:55)
Faced with this statement, a Primary Education teacher stated:
“and do you think we can do that from the educational center?” (1:07:12)
“it is very difficult to fight for something that you live in your house” (1:07:30).
These differences can be explained by the fact that in Compulsory Secondary Education
and Baccalaureate, the students are older and are closer to emancipation and that the family
has ceased to be the main source of influence on them. However, in Primary Education,
between the ages of 6 and 12, children still depend on parents who have a predominant
role in their development.
5.3.5. Results by Type of Center
The information collected according to the type of center where the surveyed teaching
staff teach showed multiple significant differences in the three categories evaluated, espe-
cially in terms of “degree of participation in the educational community” and “inclusive values”.
In the category of “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that should be offered to SEN
students”, only in the item “All students can achieve the general objectives in an inclusive
classroom with the necessary help” were significant differences found between teachers
from public schools and teachers at subsidized schools (Table 9). In all cases, the differences
indicate a greater awareness of “inclusive values”, a greater “degree of participation in the
educational community”, and more favorable “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response
that should be offered to SEN students” among teachers who work in subsidized education
centers than those who work in public school.
Table 9. Analysis of the Mann Whitney U according to the type of center’s funding/ownership.
Public Subsidized Z p-Value
N Rank N Rank
CV.1. Attention to diversity is a priority in the
educational project of the Center 210 149.13 101 170.28 −2.070 0.038
CV.2. Measures to address diversity are applied
from inclusive policies. 210 142.66 101 183.74 −4.005 0.000
CV.5. SEN students are considered in both group
interactions and tasks. 210 147.97 101 172.70 −2.480 0.013
CV.6. The academic achievement of the SEN
students is related to difficulties and barriers that
must be overcome.
210 143.33 101 182.35 −3.862 0.000

Children 2022,9, 813 13 of 22
Table 9. Cont.
Public Subsidized Z p-Value
N Rank N Rank
CV.7. Among the colleagues, there is a climate of
collaboration and help to SEN students. 210 148.32 101 171.97 −2.347 0.019
CV.8. In the center, it is considered that the SEN
students have the right to have education
adapted to these needs.
210 147.58 101 173.50 −2.667 0.008
Cpa.1. Collaboration and coordination of
teachers of different levels and subjects allow
adequate attention to SEN students.
210 142.96 101 183.11 −3.888 0.000
Cpa.2. Teachers encourage collaboration and
acceptance of all students in the classroom
and center.
210 140.73 101 187.74 −4.738 0.000
Cpa.3. Teachers feel empowered to facilitate the
participation of families. 210 144.11 101 180.72 −3.510 0.000
Cpa.4. There is flexibility in the class groups that
encourages collaboration and communication
between students.
210 143.07 101 182.89 −3.888 0.000
Cpa.5. The support provided by the Integration
Support Classroom is coordinated with the work
in the ordinary classroom.
210 148.93 101 170.70 −2.103 0.035
Cpa.6. The center offers families various ways to
motivate them to get involved in their
children’s learning
210 148.28 101 172.05 −2.287 0.022
Cpa.7. The active participation of all students in
the center’s life is facilitated. 210 147.44 101 173.80 −2.672 0.008
Cpe.4. All students can achieve the general
objectives in an inclusive classroom with the
necessary help.
210 142.87 101 183.30 −3.872 0.000
We found, in all items, statistically significant differences with a strength of association
between small and medium: The items with the smallest effect size were CV.1 and Cpa.5
(r
b
= 0.1), followed by items CV.5; CV.7; CV.8; Cap.3 Cap.5, Cap.6; Cpa.7 (r
b
= 0.2). The
items with a larger effect size (r
b
= 0.3) were CV.2; CV.6: Cap.1; Cap.2; Cap.4; Cpe.4. The
median value of the three categories resulted in an effect size of 0.2 using the Rank-Biserial
Correlation.
Since the participants of the discussion group all belonged to the public school, we
cannot corroborate these results obtained at a qualitative level, but a biased vision of the
public-school teachers was observed regarding the inclusive values and showing their
discontent with issues such as
“. . . lack of educational response adapted to these kids” (10:12),
“. . . lack of teacher training to accept diversity” (9:10),
or the
“. . . curricular adaptations are not valid” (39:10)
as well as the lack of resources such as human, technical, and time, which prevent the
application of true inclusive policies:
“. . . we have few professionals,” “we are patching up, very little by little” (12:34)
“
. . .
We have to educate that way; it is much more difficult to accommodate a different
person” (1:34:00).

Children 2022,9, 813 14 of 22
This negative vision extended to the participation in the educational community,
which was shown through expressions such as:
“teachers who call themselves wonderful experts . . . but they are not” (18:49)
“there is an attitude of I don’t say anything because if not
. . .
there is a mess of papers
. . . let’s see who calls the mother and tells her . . . ”(29:03)
“. . . I will mark the student with a 5 because otherwise, I will have problems” (39:40)
and they demand greater coordination between teachers since they stated that there
was still resistance to “Special Education” teachers entering the classrooms (8:47; 32:18).
In Secondary Education, they also pointed out the lack of stability and continuity in
the staff of public education centers, which contributes to less involvement.
“
. . .
when the teachers begin to realize the reality of the school, well, a year or two years
have passed, and they have to leave” (38:38).
However, there was a very positive assessment about the participation of the students’
families, and they recognized the existence of intense work with the students’ parents:
“
. . .
coordination does not have to be only between teachers, but also with families” (56:20)
“. . . professionals have to take care of our students’ families” (56:35)
“Parents value us a lot, and that is important for your personal self-esteem” (57:40).
5.3.6. Results by Professional Profile
About the professional specialization profile of the teacher, we found that there were
differences in the categories “inclusive values “and “degree of participation in the educational
community” among the surveyed teachers who are specialists in supporting special ed-
ucational needs (Special Education, Hearing and Speech and Educational Counselors),
and the surveyed teachers who have a more general profile or belong to specialties other
than attention to diversity (Table 10). In this sense, the opinion of the special education
specialists was more negative than the rest of the teachers, having a lower score in the
five items of “inclusive values” and the four items of “degree of participation in the educa-
tional community”. This circumstance could be attributed to the “sense of loneliness” that
these professionals experience as they feel little or no support from the rest of the center’s
educational team teachers.
Table 10. Analysis of the Mann Whitney U according to teachers’ professional profile.
SEN Specialist Others Z p-Value
N Rank N Rank
CV.1. Attention to diversity is a priority in
the educational project of the Center 47 132.49 264 160.19 −2.074 0.038
CV.5. SEN students are considered in both
group interactions and tasks. 47 130.90 264 160.47 −2.267 0.023
CV.6. The academic achievement of the
SEN students is related to difficulties and
barriers that must be overcome.
47 129.47 264 160.72 −2.366 0.018
CV.7. Among the colleagues, there is a
climate of collaboration and help to
SEN students.
47 127.18 264 161.13 −2.577 0.010
CV.8. In the center, it is considered that the
SEN students have the right to have
education adapted to these needs.
47 123.12 264 161.85 −3.050 0.002

Children 2022,9, 813 15 of 22
Table 10. Cont.
SEN Specialist Others Z p-Value
N Rank N Rank
Total “Inclusive values”. 47 122.47 264 161.97 −2.916 0.004
Cpa.2. Teachers encourage collaboration
and acceptance of all students in the
classroom and center.
47 118.60 264 162.66 −3.396 0.001
Cpa.3. Teachers feel empowered to
facilitate the participation of families. 47 111.40 264 163.94 −3.853 0.000
Cpa.4. There is flexibility in the class
groups that encourages collaboration and
communication between students.
47 117.36 264 162.88 −3.399 0.001
Cpa.6. The center offers families various
ways to motivate them to get involved in
their children’s learning
47 128.05 264 160.98 −2.422 0.015
Total “degree of participation in the
educational community.”47 129.39 264 160.74 −2.278 0.023
In this case, the items with a medium strength of association and that could be
considered to have a significant effect size (r
b
= 0.3) were the items Cpa.2, Cpa.3, and Cpa.4
in the category on the “teachers’ perceptions of the educational response that should be offered
to SEN students” that the teaching staff has about the participation of SEN students in the
center life. The items that refer to the category of “inclusive values” (CV.1, CV.5, CV.6, CV.7,
and CV.8) obtained a slightly lower effect size (rb= 0.2).
This last perception was corroborated when we analyzed the discussion group since
the specialists in support of special educational needs (two Special Education teachers, a
Hearing and speech teacher, and an Educational Counselor from a Secondary Education
Center) stated they were completely overwhelmed (4:11; 27:50) while calling for a truly
inclusive educational model in which the weight of attention to diversity does not fall only
on special educational needs support specialists
“as much as we talk about inclusion . . . it is not done” (1:34:35)
“no division of functions, that is, if we are 3 people working in the classroom,
. . .
it is not
only me, it is not just the Special Education teacher
. . .
the three of us evaluate, the three
of us teach . . . no division of functions . . . that is an inclusive classroom ” (1:17:24).
5.3.7. Results by Years of Experience with SEN Students
When specifying the teaching experience of the participants in terms of SEN students’
attention, we found only two variables where statistically significant differences appeared:
the total of the “inclusive values” (p= 0.029); and the item related to promotion, on the
teachers’ part, of the collaboration and acceptance of all the students (Cpa.2) (p= 0.024).
In both variables, as the post hoc analyses showed, it was once again the teachers with
fewer years of experience in this area who obtained the highest scores. In descending order,
the most favorable age groups were 5 vs. 5–10 years, 5 vs. >20, and 11–20 vs. >20 years. In
all cases, the strength of the effect size was small (V = 0.16)
5.3.8. Results by the Number of Inhabitants of the Locality Where the Center Is Located
There were hardly any statistically significant differences between the groups de-
pending on the number of inhabitants of the locality where the educational center of the
respondents was located. Statistically, significant differences were only observed in the two
variables. The first was the variable of “degree of participation in the educational community”,
which states that “the center offers families various ways to motivate them to get involved in the
learning of their sons and daughters” (p= 0.034). When doing post hoc analyses, we saw how

Children 2022,9, 813 16 of 22
the difference (p= 0.003) lay between the teachers who carry out their work in centers of
localities with between 10,001 and 100,000 inhabitants (range = 65.13) and teachers who
carry out their work in centers of localities with more than 100,000 inhabitants (rank = 86.06).
This difference was positive in favor of the latter. The second was the “teachers’ perceptions of
the educational response that should be offered to SEN students” variable that considers that only
specialists in support of special educational needs should care for students with special
educational needs since they are the ones who are fully trained to do so (p= 0.02).
Post hoc analyses found statistically significant differences between teachers in lo-
calities with fewer than 3000 inhabitants and teachers in localities between 3000 and
10,000 inhabitants
(p= 0.002), teachers from localities with less than 3000 inhabitants, and
those from localities with more than 100,000 inhabitants (p= 0.001), teachers from localities
with between 10,001 and 100,000 inhabitants, and those from localities with more than
100,000 inhabitants (p= 0.025). In all cases, teachers from the most populated localities
were the ones who obtained the best scores.
The strength of the effect size for the two items with statistical significance was Cpa.6:
The Center offers families various ways to motivate them to get involved in their children’s
learning (V = 0.14) and Cpe.2: Only the support specialists should attend to SEN students
since they are the ones trained for it (V = 0.16).
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The results show a gap in inclusive education between the legal provisions and
the practices developed in the educational centers. Many barriers continue to hinder
the development of an inclusive educational model. In this sense, the issues that have
been mentioned in relation to the lack of resources (human, time), support from the
administration, and others are still relevant.
The perception of the professionals working in the educational centers about the
inclusive culture is one of the best references to understand the depth of the assimilation
of inclusive culture in educational centers [
20
–
23
]. This is because they are the last re-
sponsible for carrying it out, and its assimilation directly relates to the level of learning
students achieve.
This research delved into the study of inclusive culture in compulsory education from
the point of view of its teachers. We did it using the three factors proposed in the “Index
of Inclusion” [
17
]: inclusive values, degree of participation in the educational community,
and the teachers’ perceptions of the educational response offered to SEN students.
The quantitative data offered us an overview of the existing reality in the educational
centers. This panoramic vision was enlarged and enriched by qualitative data analysis. In
this sense, the combination of methodologies improved the work and provided a better
foundation for the results. Thus, it was possible to delve into the discourse of teachers
and investigate the perceptions and visions they have about real inclusion in schools and
the barriers that hinder the development of an inclusive educational model that, at least
initially, all regarded as ideal.
The questionnaire results regarding the teachers’ perceptions of “inclusive values”
were highly positive. For example, between 75.5% and 86.1% of teachers considered
that “almost always” or “always” the center’s performance indicators were in line with
inclusive values; the difference was regarded as an enriching factor, and the design of
activities respected individual differences according to the contributions of the Universal
Design for Learning (UDL).
Several studies [
38
–
40
] have reported a significant association between SEN students
and bullying at the school. Our study highlights that there is not a clear, direct relation
between SEN and victimization; 38.9% of the teachers considered that SEN students might
be bullied to a greater degree due to their characteristics than their peers, but 28% believe
that victimization does not have to be associated with SEN, and 33.1% did not show a
specific perception about it (Mdn: 80.7).

Children 2022,9, 813 17 of 22
Concerning the degree of participation in the educational community, the average
values of the items decrease (Mdn, 69.1). However, most of the teachers’ perception (87.8%)
is that families are informed of their children’s progress with SEN (Cpa.8). On the other
hand, when we asked if teachers feel empowered to facilitate the participation of families
(Cpa.3), the results indicate the need for specific training, which reinforces the skills and
strategies of teachers. Only slightly more than half (57.2%) felt they were trained, and the
majority did not know how to deal with these situations. This request for training is a
common demand among the professionals in the education, and not only in the compulsory
stage [41].
The last factor, the teachers’ perceptions of the educational response offered to SEN
students, represented the median least valued in the items of all the factors studied (Mdn,
31.2). The results lead us to conclude that the teachers’ perceptions of how, when, and by
whom the educational intervention should be carried out are far from close to a desired
inclusive culture. Thus, the measures of attention to diversity in the classroom and the
teachers’ attitudes operate under an “integrative” vision associated with actions that
discriminate against part of the student body, and that implies a dualization of education
without being fully in line with the model of inclusive education. Again, these results agree
with those found in other studies [16,23,42,43].
To comply with the proposed goal, we explored eight variables that can influence
the attitudes of teachers and other professionals towards educational inclusion: sex, age,
teaching experience, academic stage, professional profile, type of center, geographic location
of the center, and years of seniority with SEN students.
Regarding gender, except for one item, no significant differences were found, contrary
to the review by Lacruz-Pérez [
20
,
23
,
24
,
44
], who found most studies in which women
were more proactive toward inclusive education in both initial and continuing education,
women were also able to use more inclusive methodologies in teaching-learning processes.
In the age variable, we conclude that as the age of teachers increases, attitudes become
more negative, as another study denotes [
44
,
45
]. Therefore, it would be appropriate to
analyze the aspects that cause this change in subsequent studies.
The literature reviewed shows that the teaching experience positively correlates with
the favorable attitudes toward educational inclusion [
29
–
31
]. As in previous studies [
46
,
47
],
we found that the less teaching experience, which usually is associated with younger
ages, the higher the rating of positive perception about the inclusive culture in the centers.
However, the strength of the effect size was small.
Regarding the educational stage, as previous studies reflect [
45
,
47
,
48
], in the three
categories evaluated in all the items, the score was higher in Early Childhood Education,
followed by Primary Education, and worse than in Compulsory Secondary Education and
Baccalaureate. Nevertheless, the strength of the association found was between small and
medium between the educational stage variable and the items analyzed. These differences
could be related to more significant variability in students’ abilities at the secondary school
stage due to a broader curriculum gap and a more considerable workload for the teacher,
which plays an important role when teachers evaluate inclusion [
49
]. However, we found
more pessimistic opinions in professionals with expertise in educational support for SEN
in the professional profile.
The same happens with the results related to the type of centers; public, subsidized, or
private. There are no comparative studies for this purpose. We found multiple significant
differences in the three categories evaluated, especially in terms of participation in the
educational community and inclusive values in favor of the subsidized schools. The
median value of the three categories had an effect size of 0.2. However, we must be very
cautious when interpreting the results from this variable. The data on the distribution
of the school population with SEN in our province, and Spanish schools in general, are
not homogeneous in proportion or degree, or type of need between the network of public
and (private-)subsidized schools. Subsidized and private schools have a notably lower
proportion of students with SEN, with fewer learning difficulties, and their students come

Children 2022,9, 813 18 of 22
from a social stratum with more economic and educational resources. Moreover, other
variables, such as the social and economic context or the level of education of the families,
or the time available to dedicate to their children, can have an effect as variables that are
not very favorable for learning and therefore be modulating variables that affect the type of
center where the SEN students are schooled.
We did not find any differences worth mentioning related to the center’s geographic
location or the greater or lesser size of the population-area where it is located, nor did
we find studies to compare with our data. Regarding differences between countries,
comparative studies have shown areas of development of inclusive education with different
speeds and impacts. Anglo-Saxon countries such as Great Britain and Canada have been
pioneers in implementing these policies. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the more
positive attitudes of teachers in these geographical areas are due to the experience and
change in teachers’ attitudes, among other factors. However, we cannot forget that the
paradigm of inclusive education is strongly linked with ideas of democracy, social justice,
and citizen participation related to the countries’ policies and socio-cultural climate. These
issues, in turn, require an investment in material and human support resources financed
by the state to guarantee access to quality education in all social strata. A climate of civic
democracy is a critical factor in developing inclusive education and conceptualizes how
historical contexts affect attitudes and social values toward difference and disability and
describes the structural and cultural barriers that occur in these countries for meaningful
implementation of inclusive education [50].
Referring to years of experience with SEN students, we found some items associ-
ated with this variable, but the effect size was irrelevant. For example, in the literature
reviewed, negative attitudes were more frequent in students with severe emotional or
behavioral problems, cognitive problems, or great diversity in cultural, linguistic, and
ethnic characteristics [49,51–54].
The qualitative data provided by the focus groups provide relevant information that
supports the differences perceived by teachers depending on the origin and severity of the
educational need. Other studies also found that attitudes were strongly influenced by the
nature and severity of the disability and less by variables related to the teacher [
55
] and
were in line with those of previous international reviews [20,21].
They also report a new variable related to specific practical information on how to
intervene with SEN: the less training, the lower the perceived self-efficacy and the worse
the attitudes [
20
,
32
,
47
,
48
,
54
,
56
]. A comparative study between teachers in South Africa and
Finland, and its implications for teacher training, showed a higher perception of self-efficacy,
particularly effectiveness in collaboration and behavior management, in professionals with
more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Within the Anglo-Saxon context, the association
between training and a better disposition to respond to the specific needs of students was
shown due to a greater capacity to use inclusive methodologies in their processes [
32
].
This association between more positive attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive methods is
consistent with findings within the European context [
56
,
57
] and in other countries and
territories [
58
,
59
]. The training variable affects the stages of compulsory education and
university education [
41
], so recommendations to address these needs would reinforce
these aspects.
6.1. Limitations
Although widely used in social science contexts, the use of opinion questionnaires
contains the possible bias of the responses given due to “social desirability” that does
not correspond to the authentic convictions or practices of the respondents. Therefore, it
would be interesting to use a more significant number of critical informants through quali-
tative techniques, focus groups, in-depth interviews, or natural systematic observations in
classrooms and centers to triangulate the data with other instruments and participants.
The analysis of our data is descriptive, not inferential. The use of multivariate data
analyses such as logistic regression or structural equation methods would undoubtedly

Children 2022,9, 813 19 of 22
help select the most significant variables to make predictions. However, the purpose of
educational research is transformation, i.e., the change of teaching practices rather than
their prediction. Our study identifies the main barriers that hinder an inclusive culture,
makes explicit routines and behaviors on which it is necessary to reflect, and can mark
the roadmap. This roadmap demands changes from a focus based on teaching content
to a student learning model focused on the competencies required in the society of the
21st century.
6.2. Improvement Proposals and Prospective
Finally, according to the data obtained and the conclusions of our study, and e review
of the scientific literature on the subject, we believe that the Faculties of Education, in which
initial training is developed, and the Centers of Ongoing Formation, must continue with
the effort initiated to raise awareness and respect for human differences. Although it is true
that progress has been perceived in all the factors identified in inclusive culture since study
reviews carried out at the end of the last century, it is necessary to continue intensifying and
deepening these values. There is a need for training in accessible curriculum design with
proposals and concrete implementation of multi-level integrated projects and a Multi-Tiered
System of Support (MTSS) [60–63].
This work opens new research lines. Unfortunately, there is a lack of studies concerning
educational community members such as families, SEN students, and associations, so it is
necessary to continue collecting the voices of all educational community members so that
the research is complete. An increase in studies would permit exploring teachers’ attitudes,
other support professionals, families, and the students themselves.
Moreover, it is necessary to undertake studies using experimental designs and infer-
ential analyses that complement those merely descriptive and correlational. To this end,
it will be necessary to expand data collection techniques with more reliable instruments
such as in-depth interviews, observation records, or focus groups, which minimize the
social desirability bias of questionnaires. Finally, it would be desirable for future studies
to contemplate or make as explicit as possible the independent variables indicated in the
conclusions to carry out comparative studies.
Author Contributions:
R.-E.V.-F., A.M.d.C.F., R.B. and R.M.-S. contributed equally to conceptualiza-
tion, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, review, and
editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the University of León, Plan for Innovation and Good Teaching
Practices, grant number PAGID 015.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the national
and international regulations that establish when a research project requires approval by an Ethics
Committee (Declaration of Helsinki; Spanish Organic Law 3/2018; Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the
European Parliament and of the Council). Following these regulations, the Ethics Committee of the
University of León (Spain) underlines the cases in which its approval is needed for the development
of a research project, essentially when the projects involve research on human beings; the use of
biological samples of human origin; animal experimentation; the use of biological agents; the use of
genetically modified organisms (https://www.unileon.es/investigadores/vicerrectorado/comite-
etica accessed on 23 June 2021). For all that to occur, this research did require the approval of the
Ethics Committee of the University of León (Spain), as it did not research human beings, and the
personal data of the participants in the research have not been revealed.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved
in the study.
Acknowledgments:
Articles data are linked to the PAGID 015 group of the ULE, which has been
working on the development of the R + D + I Project EDU2016-75574 granted in the national com-
petitive category within the call for R + D + I Challenges to Knowledge and led by the research
group Diversity, Disability and Special Educational Needs of the University of Almeria. We wish
to acknowledge the contribution of the Provincial Education Directorate of León as well as all the
participants that took part in the research. Additionally, the same for Isaac García-Villalba, Sworn

Children 2022,9, 813 20 of 22
Translator/Interpreter No. 6845, appointed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the
Government of Spain for his translation review.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Castellanos Soriano, F.; López, L. Discapacidad y cultura: Desafío emergente en investigación. Avanes Enferm.
2009
,27, 110–123.
2.
Ferreira, M.Á.V. Una aproximación sociológica a la discapacidad desde el modelo social: Apuntes caracteriológicos. Rev. Esp.
Investig. Sociol. 2008,124, 141–176.
3. Macionis, J.J.; Plummer, K. Sociología, 4th ed.; Pearson Education: Madrid, Spain, 2012; ISBN 978-84-8322-742-8.
4. Goffman, E. Estigma: La Identidad Deteriorada, 2nd ed.; Amorrortu: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; ISBN 978-950-518-199-5.
5. Keil, S.; Miller, O.; Cobb, R. Special Educational Needs and Disability. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 2006,33, 168–172. [CrossRef]
6.
Lawson, H.; Boyask, R.; Waite, S. Construction of Difference and Diversity within Policy and Practice in England. Camb. J. Educ.
2013,43, 107–122. [CrossRef]
7.
Barnes, C. Las teorías de la discapacidad y los orígenes de la opresión de las personas discapacitadas en la sociedad occidental. In
Discapacidad y Sociedad; Barton, L., Ed.; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 1998; pp. 59–76, ISBN 978-84-7112-434-0.
8.
Danforth, S.; Jones, P. (Eds.) From Special Education to Integration to Genuine Inclusion. In Foundations of Inclusive Education
Research; International Perspectives on Inclusive Education; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2015; Volume 6,
pp. 1–21, ISBN 978-1-78560-417-1.
9.
UNESCO. World Conference on Special Needs in Education: Access and Quality; Declaración de Salamanca y Marco de Acción sobre
Necesidades Educativas Especiales; Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Gobierno de España: Salamanca, Spain, 1994.
10.
UNESCO. International Bureau of Education. In Inclusive Education: The Way of the Future: Final Report; UNESCO, Ed.; UNESCO:
Paris, France, 2009.
11.
UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report Team. In La Educación Para Todos, 2000–2015: Logros y Desafíos; UNESCO: París,
France, 2015; ISBN 92-3-300017-6.
12.
UNESCO. Assistant Director-General for Education. In A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and EQUITY in Education; UNESCO: París,
France, 2017; ISBN 978-92-3-300076-6.
13.
UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report Team. In Global Education Monitoring Report, 2019: Migration, Displacement, and
Education: Building Bridges, Not Walls, 1st ed.; UNESCO: París, France, 2019; ISBN 978-92-3-100283-0.
14. Casanova, M.A. La Educación Inclusiva en las Aulas; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2017; ISBN 978-84-7133-828-0.
15. Ainscow, M.; Slee, R.; Best, M. Editorial: The Salamanca Statement: 25 Years on. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019,23, 671–676. [CrossRef]
16. Florian, L. On the Necessary Co-Existence of Special and Inclusive Education. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019,23, 691–704. [CrossRef]
17.
Booth, T. Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools; Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education: Bristol, UK,
2011; ISBN 978-1-872001-68-5.
18.
Ainscow, M.; Dyson, A.; Goldrick, S.; West, M. Using Collaborative Inquiry to Foster Equity within School Systems: Opportunities
and Barriers. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2016,27, 7–23. [CrossRef]
19.
Hands, C.; Freckelton, K. A Perfect Storm for Leading Equity and Inclusion: Policy Complexities, Varied Learning Needs, and
Cultures That Don’t Support Them. Can. J. Educ. Adm. Policy 2019,190, 6–17.
20.
Avramidis, E.; Norwich, B. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ.
2002,17, 129–147. [CrossRef]
21.
de Boer, A.; Pijl, S.J.; Minnaert, A. Regular Primary Schoolteachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education: A Review of the
Literature. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2011,15, 331–353. [CrossRef]
22.
Cano Verdejo, E.; Pappous, A. (Sakis) Actitudes de Los Profesionales de La Educación Hacia La Educación Físic Ainclusiva: Una
Revisión Bibliográfica. Rev. Digit. Investig. Educ. 2013,7, 105–118.
23.
Lacruz-Pérez, I.; Sanz-Cervera, P.; Tárraga-Mínguez, R. Teachers’ Attitudes toward Educational Inclusion in Spain: A Systematic
Review. Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 58. [CrossRef]
24.
Álvarez Castillo, J.L.; Buenestado Fernández, M. Predictores de las actitudes hacia la inclusión de alumnado con necesidades
educativas especiales en futuros profesionales de la educación. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2015,26, 627–645. [CrossRef]
25.
Chacón-López, H.; Olivares-Córdoba, J. Diversidad funcional y actitudes del profesorado. Una mirada presente y futura. Rev.
Estud. Investig. Psicol. Educ. 2017,6, 016–019. [CrossRef]
26.
Gil Hernández, S. Perfil actitudinal de alumnos del Máster en Formación del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria ante la
discapacidad. Estudio comparativo. Rev. Educ. Inclusiva 2017,10, 133–146.
27.
Macías Gómez, M.E.; Aguilera García, J.L.; Rodríguez Sánchez, M.; Gil Hernández, S. Un estudio transversal sobre las actitudes
de los estudiantes de pregrado y máster en ciencias de la educación hacia las personas con discapacidad. Rev. Electrón. Interuniv.
Form. Profr. 2019,22, 1. [CrossRef]

Children 2022,9, 813 21 of 22
28.
Solís, P.; Pedrosa, I.; Mateos-Fernández, L.-M. Assessment and Interpretation of Teachers’ Attitudes towards Students with
Disabilities/Evaluación e Interpretación de la Actitud del Profesorado Hacia Alumnos con Discapacidad. Cult. Educ.
2019
,
31, 576–608. [CrossRef]
29.
Colmenero, M.-J.; Pegalajar, M.-C.; Pantoja, A. Teachers’ Perception of Inclusive Teaching Practices for Students with Severe
Permanent Disabilities/Percepción del Profesorado sobre Prácticas Docentes Inclusivas en Alumnado con Discapacidades Graves
y Permanentes. Cult. Educ. 2019,31, 542–575. [CrossRef]
30.
Anzano Oto, S. Evolución histórica de la atención a la diversidad en la escuela: Estudio descriptivo sobre las actitudes de los
maestros de educación primaria ante la inclusión en dos centros públicos de Huesca. Educ. Divers. 2015,9, 73–84.
31.
González-Gil, F.; Martín-Pastor, E.; Poy, R.; Jenaro, C. Percepciones del profesorado sobre la inclusión: Estudio preliminar. Rev.
Electron. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2016,19, 11–24. [CrossRef]
32.
Messiou, K.; Ainscow, M.; Goldrick, S.; Echeita, G.; Sandoval, M.; Simon, C.; Hope, M.; Paes, I.; Vitorino, T. Learning from
Differences: A Strategy for Teacher Development in Respect to Student Diversity. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv.
2016
,27, 45–61. [CrossRef]
33.
González-Castellano, N.; Colmenero-Ruiz, M.J.; Cordón-Pozo, E. Factors That Influence the University’s Inclusive Educational
Processes: Perceptions of University Professors. Heliyon 2021,7, e06853. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Teacher Education for Inclusion: Profile of Inclusive Teachers;
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education: Odense, Denmark, 2012; ISBN 978-87-7110-316-8.
35.
Ellis, P.D. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis and the Interpretation of Research Results; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-0-521-19423-5.
36.
López-Roldán, P.; Fachelli, S. Metodología de la Investigación Social Cuantitativa; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Bellaterra,
Spain, 2015.
37.
Ortiz Jiménez, L.; Carrión Martínez, J.J. Respuesta Educativa al Alumnado con Necesidad Específica de Apoyo Educativo Asociada a
Discapacidad en Educación Obligatoria; Análisis y Estudios: Graó, Spain, 2021; ISBN 978-84-18627-61-3.
38.
Bouldin, E.; Patel, S.R.; Tey, C.S.; White, M.; Alfonso, K.P.; Govil, N. Bullying and Children Who Are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing: A
Scoping Review. Laryngoscope 2021,131, 1884–1892. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Ball, L.; Lieberman, L.; Haibach-Beach, P.; Perreault, M.; Tirone, K. Bullying in Physical Education of Children and Youth with
Visual Impairments: A Systematic Review. Br. J. Vis. Impair. 2021, 02646196211009927. [CrossRef]
40.
Falla, D.; Sánchez, S.; Casas, J.A. What Do We Know about Bullying in Schoolchildren with Disabilities? A Systematic Review of
Recent Work. Sustainability 2021,13, 416. [CrossRef]
41.
Valle-Flórez, R.-E.; de Caso Fuertes, A.M.; Baelo, R.; García-Martín, S. Faculty of Education Professors’ Perception about the
Inclusion of University Students with Disabilities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 11667. [CrossRef]
42.
Escudero Muñoz, J.M.E.; Alfageme González, M.B.; González González, M.T.; Martínez Domínguez, B.; Nieto Cano, J.M.;
Rodríguez Entrena, M.J.; Vallejo Ruiz, M. Inclusión y Exclusión EDUCATIVA: Realidades, Miradas y Propuestas; Nau Llibres: Valencia,
Spain, 2016; ISBN 978-84-7642-986-0.
43.
Domingo Martos, L.; Pérez García, P.; Domingo Segovia, J. Miradas Críticas de los Profesionales de la Educación ante las
Respuestas Educativas al Reto de la Inclusión en la Escuela Andaluza. Arch. Analíticos Políticas Educ. 2019,27, 118. [CrossRef]
44.
Saloviita, T. Teacher Attitudes towards the Inclusion of Students with Support Needs. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs
2020
,20, 64–73.
[CrossRef]
45.
Sevilla Santo, D.E.; Martín Pavón, M.J.; Jenaro Río, C. Actitud del docente hacia la educación inclusiva y hacia los estudiantes con
necesidades educativas especiales. Innovación Educ. 2018,18, 115–141.
46.
Agavelyan, R.O.; Aubakirova, S.D.; Zhomartova, A.D.; Burdina, E.I. Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education in
Kazakhstan. Integr. Educ. 2020,24, 8–19. [CrossRef]
47.
González-Gil, F.; Martín-Pastor, E.; Poy, R. Educación inclusiva: Barreras y facilitadores para su desarrollo. Un estudio desde la
percepción del profesorado. Profr. Rev. Currículum Form. Profr. 2019,23, 243–263. [CrossRef]
48.
Savolainen, H.; Engelbrecht, P.; Nel, M.; Malinen, O.-P. Understanding Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Education:
Implications for Pre-Service and in-Service Teacher Education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2012,27, 51–68. [CrossRef]
49.
Štemberger, T.; Kiswarday, V.R. Attitude towards Inclusive Education: The Perspective of Slovenian Preschool and Primary
School Teachers. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2018,33, 47–58. [CrossRef]
50.
Stepaniuk, I. Inclusive Education in Eastern European Countries: A Current State and Future Directions. Int. J. Incl. Educ.
2019
,
23, 328–352. [CrossRef]
51.
Hellmich, F.; Löper, M.F.; Görel, G. The Role of Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Beliefs for Everyday Practices
in Inclusive Classrooms—A Study on the Verification of the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs
2019
,
19, 36–48. [CrossRef]
52.
Corral, K. Educación inclusiva: Concepciones del profesorado ante el alumnado con necesidades educativas especiales asociadas
a discapacidad. Rev. Educ. Inclusiva 2019,12, 171–186.
53.
Uriarte, J.D.D.; Pegalajar, M.; León, J.M.D.; Galindo, H. Las relaciones entre las actitudes hacia la educación inclusiva, la
autoeficacia y la resiliencia docentes. Int. J. Dev. Educ. Psychol. 2019,3, 75–86. [CrossRef]
54.
Collado-Sanchis, A.; Tárraga-Mínguez, R.; Lacruz-Pérez, I.; Sanz-Cervera, P. Análisis de actitudes y autoeficacia percibida del
profesorado ante la educación inclusiva. Educar 2020,56, 509–523. [CrossRef]

Children 2022,9, 813 22 of 22
55.
Yada, A.; Savolainen, H. Japanese In-Service Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education and Self-Efficacy for Inclusive
Practices. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017,64, 222–229. [CrossRef]
56.
Miesera, S.; DeVries, J.M.; Jungjohann, J.; Gebhardt, M. Correlation between Attitudes, Concerns, Self-Efficacy and Teaching
Intentions in Inclusive Education Evidence from German Pre-Service Teachers Using International Scales. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs
2019,19, 103–114. [CrossRef]
57.
Scanlon, G.; Radeva, S.; Pitsia, V.; Maguire, C.; Nikolaeva, S. Attitudes of Teachers in Bulgarian Kindergartens towards Inclusive
Education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022,112, 103650. [CrossRef]
58.
Shadaya, G.; Mushoriwa, T.D. Examining the Extent to Which Learners with Special Educational Needs Are Included in Regular
Schools: The Case of Four Primary Schools in Cape Town, South Africa. J. Soc. Sci. 2017,52, 66–73. [CrossRef]
59.
Fabela-Cárdenas, M.A.; Robles-Treviño, L. Teachers’ Perceptions of Collaboration and Partnership Regarding Children with
Special Educational Needs in a Mexican Bilingual Elementary School. Glob. Stud. Child. 2012,2, 70–75. [CrossRef]
60.
Jurado-de-los-Santos, P.; Colmenero-Ruiz, M.J.; Valle-Flórez, R.E.; Castellary-López, M.; Figueredo-Canosa, V. The Teacher’s
Perspective on Inclusion in Education: An Analysis of Curriculum Design. Sustainability 2021,13, 4766. [CrossRef]
61. CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 (Graphic Organizer); CAST: Wakefield, MA, USA, 2018.
62.
Leonard, K.M.; Coyne, M.D.; Oldham, A.C.; Burns, D.; Gillis, M.B. Implementing MTSS in Beginning Reading: Tools and Systems
to Support Schools and Teachers. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2019,34, 110–117. [CrossRef]
63.
Choi, J.H.; McCart, A.B.; Sailor, W. Achievement of Students with IEPs and Associated Relationships with an Inclusive MTSS
Framework. J. Spec. Educ. 2020,54, 157–168. [CrossRef]