Perceptions of Stress Among Primary School Teachers Teaching Students with Special Educational Needs

Abstract

Despite inclusive education being high on the agenda of educational systems worldwide and part of international legislation and policy, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which emphasises inclusion and equality as the basis for quality education for all, there is still a need to identify how teachers in regular schools who teach students with special educational needs (SENs) experience their work. This study investigates the most significant stressors for primary school teachers teaching students with SENs. In addition, this study sets out to determine whether there were differences regarding stress between teachers based on their demographic characteristics and the type of SENs in the students they teach. The empirical study, based on a sample of 120 Slovenian teachers (89.2% females), showed that a lack of professional competency, classroom work, personal beliefs, and the burden of administrative work were the most significant perceived stressors when teaching students with SENs in regular primary school. Regarding students’ behaviour and classroom work, different types of SENs were also found to cause significant differences in stress perception. The study revealed that teaching experience and teacher training in SENs could be crucial stress reducers for primary school teachers who teach students with SENs.

1. Introduction

The Salamanca Statement brought the core principles of inclusive education to the forefront, highlighting that an inclusive orientation is the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society, and achieving education for all [1]. More recently, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasises inclusion and equality as laying the foundation for high-quality education and learning for all [2]. Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) underscores the significance of integrating essential knowledge into education to foster diversity, respect for human rights, and sustainable development. The sustainability of inclusive education is a crucial condition for the sustainability of society as a whole [3].

Most European countries have legislation or policy frameworks that require school systems to educate students with special educational needs (SENs) and students with a diverse range of abilities alongside their peers in regular schools [4,5], and Slovenian schools are no exception. Although progress has been made in ensuring the right to inclusive education, there are still many challenges in the implementation of inclusion in the educational system in European countries [6]. Enabling every child to benefit from inclusive education and providing equal opportunities for involvement, engagement, and achievement of students with SENs remains one of the major challenges facing teachers in the educational process [7,8]. Teachers are the ones who work on the front lines in regular classes and are responsible for students with SENs in educational practice [9]. Therefore, teachers’ behaviour plays a crucial role in the successful and sustainable implementation of inclusion [10]. According to Hettiarachchi and Das [11], working with students with SENs is highly stressful work for teachers, especially when there are barriers to this in schools and classes.

Therefore, addressing the experience of teaching in an inclusive class from the perspective of factors that could increase or reduce the level of perceived stress among teachers in this context should be considered more carefully. Our study is a step towards a better understanding and learning about stressors that might affect teachers’ perception of stress when working with SENs students and reveal any barriers that hinder the inclusion process. We were interested in the experience among teachers working in inclusive education in primary schools with students with various types of SENs, e.g., learning disabilities (LD), physical impairments (PI), emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD), and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In this study, we aimed to answer the following questions:

• Which stressors do the teachers teaching students with SENs in regular primary schools perceive as most influential?
• What are the differences in primary school teachers’ perceptions of stress in relation to various demographic variables, such as years of work, level of education, additional training, and type of SENs in the students?

1.1. Inclusive Education of Students with SENs in Slovenia

Based on the commitment of the Salamanca Statement [1] to facilitate inclusiveness in education in Slovenia, the inclusion of students with SENs in the education system is governed by the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act [12,13]. Among the specific objectives in the wider field of educating students with SENs is an emphasis on equal opportunities for such students to learn according to their individual capabilities and to provide opportunities for professional support consistent with each student’s special needs [14].

In Slovenia, as in many countries, the number of students with SENs included in regular schools has increased rapidly, raising demand for professional support. The data for primary schools show that from the school years 2015–2016 through to 2023–2024, the number of students with SENs in regular primary schools increased from 10,091 to 16,426 [15]. Despite the trend of including students with SENs in regular schools, at the same time, students with complex impairments are still educated in special schools. A dual school system tradition is thus still preserved in Slovenia [16].

Slovenian students with formal SENs status in regular school are directed to regular educational programmes with additional professional support (APS) (e.g., special rehabilitation support, learning support, counselling support). They are entitled to an individualised programme (IP) created by a professional team at the school and adjustments to the teaching and learning environment [17]. However, teachers are faced with a broad spectrum of diverse needs in classes in addition to students with SENs, making such work very demanding.

Although the adopted legislation has enabled the implementation of educational inclusion, there remains a lack of systemic solutions (e.g., academic approaches and social strategies for SENs students, and resources) for educating students with SENs [16]. Many obstacles to the development of educational inclusion—such as a lack of concrete goals and provisions in policy and legislation, unclear inclusive policies, undeveloped monitoring of educational inclusion, and insufficient qualifications of teachers—were highlighted in a recent national study [18]. In study programmes for teachers at the faculty level, there is a shortage of content covering sustainable inclusion in schools, the characteristics of children with SENs, evidence-based strategies that can be applied in practice, and above all, a lack of in-depth and careful sustainable observation of SENs students and future teachers working in natural educational settings.

1.2. Teachers’ Stress in Inclusive Education

Research in the last couple of decades has shown that teaching is a stressful occupation and that teacher stress is an international phenomenon [19,20]. The literature reports a myriad of factors in the inclusive school environment associated with stress, such as workload, amount of paperwork, time pressure, behavioural problems, lack of support and resources, conflicts with parents, academic standards, meeting the diverse needs of students with and without SENs, and lack of training and professional development to deliver inclusive practice [9,11,21,22,23,24,25].

International studies show that among groups of SENs students, those with behavioural problems and disruptive behaviour, in particular, present a source of stress, helplessness, and anxiety to teachers in regular classes [26,27]. Similarly, the teachers of students with ASD reported feeling both tense and inadequate when dealing with these students’ social and emotional understanding difficulties while simultaneously meeting the needs of the other students in the class [28,29]. In some studies [22,30], teachers also reported feeling stressed and ill-equipped while trying to fulfil the educational needs of students with cognitive disabilities. On the other hand, teachers reported no stress when teaching students with PI, which indicates that these students can be easily included in regular schools [31].

Concerning demographic factors, the findings of the international studies examining the perceived level of stress in teachers working with SENs students in inclusive education paint an inconclusive picture. Some studies, e.g., [32], revealed that inexperienced teachers or those with fewer years of work experience report greater stress than their more experienced counterparts, and that younger teachers are more vulnerable to stress and risk factors. Similarly, Porsch and Wilden [33] found that the amount of stress when dealing with SENs students in an inclusive class decreases as teachers gain experience through years of classroom practice. Moreover, teachers with higher levels of education report more positive feelings and less stress in inclusive education [34,35], while Ghani et al. [36] and Forlin [22] found no significant differences in perceived stress in relation to higher levels of teacher education. In addition, the teachers’ gender has been found to have no impact on perceived stress when teaching an inclusive class [37].

As regards other factors, studies have shown that lower levels of stress and more positive attitudes and beliefs towards inclusive education can also result from high self-perceptions of professional competence and previous experience teaching students with SENs [33,38,39]. In a German study on teachers working in primary and secondary inclusive schools, Weiss et al. [40] found that not all teachers working in inclusive classes are burdened with stress to the same extent. More specifically, those teachers who stated that inclusion policies had been well-implemented in their classes also reported the least stress. However, further studies are needed to more comprehensively investigate teachers’ perceptions of the various changes and demands made by inclusive education as potential stressors among those teaching students with SENs in inclusive classes.

2. Materials and Methods

A non-experimental empirical study with a cross-sectional design was implemented to investigate which are the most significant stressors for primary school teachers in inclusive classes and whether there are any differences with regard to the experience of stress in this context due to the teachers’ demographic characteristics and type of SENs in the students. A survey was thus conducted among teachers of inclusive education in primary schools in Slovenia. All materials, datasets, and protocols related to this empirical study are available upon reasonable request.

2.1. Participants

The research involves teachers teaching students with various types of SENs in 130 regular primary schools from the north-eastern region of Slovenia.

The standardised questionnaire was intended for all teachers who met the inclusion criterion of having at least one SENs student in class with a disability, including physical, autistic, emotional–behavioural or learning disabilities. For different types of SENs students within the same class, the type of disability was identified based on prevalence among students as the main category for further statistical analysis.

A sample of 120 teachers teaching students with SENs in inclusive classes of regular primary schools participated in this study. The majority of the respondents were female (89.2%), and 45% had 21 or more years of work experience. Most of the teachers (60%) had a bachelor’s or master’s degree based on 4–5 years of higher education, which is mandatory in Slovenia for obtaining a teaching license to teach in primary schools [41]. However, 37.5% of teachers had a lower level of education. The short-cycle tertiary education consisted of a 2-year post-secondary teacher training programme. This programme has not been run since the early 1990s. Similarly, the upper secondary education consisted of a 5-year secondary teachers training programme and has not been conducted since 1968. Exceptionally, due to the shortage of specialists and on the basis of their many years of professional experience, these teachers are able to continue in the teaching profession despite a lower license level on the basis of the completed education from their time. A special teaching license is not required by law for Slovenian primary school teachers who teach students with SENs. A total of 75.8% of the respondents had attended additional training in the field of inclusion for work with SENs students in the forms of seminars and workshops (

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Characteristics	F	f%
Gender
Male	13	10.8
Female	107	89.2
Years of work
Up to 10 years	27	22.5
From 11 to 20 years	39	32.5
21 years or more	54	45.0
Level of education (based on ISCED)
Upper secondary education	32	26.7
Short-cycle tertiary education	13	10.8
Bachelor’s or master’s level	72	60.0
Doctoral level	3	2.5
Additional training in the field of inclusion
Yes	91	75.8
No	29	24.2

). More than half of the respondents (56.7%) reported teaching at least one student with LD, followed by those working with students with EBD (24.2%), ASD (10.8%), or PI (8.3%), as shown in

Table 2. Teachers with respect to the type of SENs of their students.

SEN of Students	F	f%
LD	68	56.7
PI	10	8.3
EBD	29	24.2
ASD	13	10.8
Total	120	100.0

.

2.2. Data Collection and Considerations of Ethical Principles

The questionnaire was administered to all primary schools in north-eastern Slovenia with the support of the 1KA open-source online survey. This north-eastern Slovenian region has adopted all national policies and regulations for teaching SENs students in primary schools. However, compared to other Slovenian regions, this region is one of the more rural and economically less developed regions of Slovenia [42], which affects the lack of qualified primary school teachers, special education teachers, and the school equipment needed to work with SENs students [43].

Consent was obtained from all schools participating in the study. First, the study purpose, methodology, and measurement tool were introduced to the headmasters of the selected schools with inclusive education, and upon their approval, the link to the online survey was disseminated to all teachers meeting the inclusion criterion. The online survey was accessible to participants for three months and one week.

This study is based on the ethical principles for the protection of human subjects involved in behavioural research, as set out in the Belmont Report [44] and the Declaration of Helsinki. All the teachers involved in this study participated voluntarily and anonymously, with the opportunity to withdraw at any time. As there were no sensitive ethical issues, this study did not require ethical approval from an institutional/national ethics committee. However, the ethical aspects of the study were re-examined and approved during the evaluation of the study proposal at the Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia. All teachers provided written informed consent to participate in the study prior to data collection. Data collection was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. All results were presented while maintaining the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants.

2.3. Measures

The data were collected using a standardised questionnaire. We employed the original standardised questionnaire “Inclusive Education Teacher Stress and Coping Questionnaire” designed by Darlene Brackenreed [21], who developed it as a replication of the study conducted by Forlin [22]. The questionnaire was translated into Slovene. The questionnaire included items adjusted to the local context that collected data on the following: (1) demographic characteristics of teachers (gender, years of work, level of education, additional training in the field of inclusion); (2) type of SEN in students (LD, PI, EBD, or ASD); and (3) assessment of stressors related to aspects of inclusive teaching.

Forty items were used for assessing perceptions of stress among teachers in inclusive education. Each item was assessed using a five-level scale: 1—does not apply to me/not present; 2—not stressful; 3—slightly stressful; 4—rather stressful; 5—very stressful. Based on the standardised questionnaire, each of the 40 items was classified into one of the seven categories, reflecting various stressors in inclusive education and representing an average of all items that fall under individual stressors, as follows: (1) ‘administrative issues’ (six items); (2) ‘support at work’ (three items); (3) ‘behaviour of the students with SEN’ (10 items); (4) ‘work in the classroom’ (four items); (5) ‘collaboration/communication with parents’ (five items); (6) ‘professional competency’ (four items); and (7) ‘personal beliefs’ (eight items).

The measurement characteristics of the Slovene version of the questionnaire were verified through an expert assessment by university professors and practitioners in inclusive education. The results showed that it is a reliable tool for measuring perceptions of stress among primary school teachers teaching in inclusive classes (Cronbach’s α = 0.920).

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 28.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), including descriptive and inferential statistics. Two non-parametric statistical tests, specifically the Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruskal–Wallis H-test, were employed to determine statistically significant differences among teachers with respect to their demographic characteristics, additional training, and type of SENs of their students. Both tests were chosen based on the data that deviated from the normal distribution (p < 0.05). Adjustments in the grouping response categories were also made in the analysis relating to the level of education based on the International Standard Classification of Education [45]. Only results with a p-value ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Perception of Stress Among Teachers in Inclusive Education

The teachers reported that the highest level of stress they experienced in inclusive education stemmed from ‘lack of professional training’ ($\overline{x}$ = 3.32) and ‘work in the classroom’ with SENs students ($\overline{x}$ = 3.23) (

Table 3. Perceived stressors in inclusive education relating to teachers.

Stressors	N 1	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	f (%) 2 ≥3
Administrative issues	6	3.14	0.71	72 (60.0)
Support at work	3	1.81	0.82	16 (13.3)
Behaviour of the students with SENs	10	2.98	0.98	58 (48.3)
Work in the classroom	4	3.23	0.86	78 (65.0)
Collaboration/communication with parents	5	2.84	1.10	64 (53.3)
Teachers’ professional competency	4	3.32	1.06	87 (72.5)
Teachers’ personal beliefs	8	2.96	0.69	60 (50.0)

¹ Number of assessed assertions for each stressor. ² Teachers who assessed individual stressors with a rating of 3 or more.

). A total of 72.5% of respondents stated that their lack of professional competency was a source of stress. Some stress also comes from being overburdened with administrative work ($\overline{x}$ = 3.14). From among all the potential stressors, ‘support at work’ ($\overline{x}$ = 1.81) was assessed as being the lowest source of stress, as only 13.3% perceived it as such.

Regarding individual stressors, teachers found the most stressful to be ‘responsibility for the student’s school results and success’, which was perceived as a source of stress by 87.5% of the respondents (

Table 4. Teacher’s individual stressors in inclusive education.

Items of Stressors	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	f (%) 1 ≥3
Administrative issues
Obtaining relevant information about the student.	2.34	0.80	40 (33.3)
Record keeping.	3.23	0.94	92 (76.7)
Planning the student’s individualised programme.	3.34	1.05	94 (78.3)
Responsibility for the student’s school results and success.	3.59	1.02	105 (87.5)
Adjusting work to the student’s SEN.	3.21	0.99	87 (72.5)
Coordination of work with experts dealing with the student with SEN.	3.14	1.01	85 (70.8)
Support at work
There is not enough support from the headmaster/-mistress.	1.65	0.81	19 (15.8)
Co-workers are not supportive of my work.	1.85	0.92	31 (25.8)
The school counselling service does not offer enough support.	1.93	1.16	35 (29.2)
Behaviour of the student with SEN
Has a short attention span.	3.25	1.11	89 (74.2)
Social skills are inadequately developed.	3.24	1.09	89 (74.2)
Has poor communication skills.	2.87	0.93	75 (62.5)
Is attention-seeking.	3.06	1.19	76 (63.3)
Is hyperactive.	2.91	1.40	74 (61.7)
Manipulates classmates.	2.67	1.47	65 (54.2)
Annoys classmates.	3.33	1.35	90 (75.0)
Physically attacks classmates.	2.51	1.68	50 (41.7)
Is verbally rude to others.	2.75	1.53	66 (55.0)
Has unpredictable reactions.	3.22	1.40	87 (72.5)
Work in the classroom
Management of the student’s social relationships with other classmates.	3.23	0.89	95 (79.2)
Difficulties with paying attention to other students when attending to the SENs student.	3.56	0.99	103 (85.8)
The SENs student disrupts classmates.	3.30	1.29	92 (76.7)
The classrooms are not suitable for work with SENs students.	2.85	1.15	73 (60.8)
Collaboration/communication with parents
Limited contact with parents.	2.39	1.12	60 (50.0)
Excessive interference of parents in the educational process.	3.08	1.42	80 (66.7)
Lack of understanding of the student’s capabilities by the parents.	3.08	1.26	84 (70.0)
The parents do not accept the student’s disability.	2.77	1.47	69 (57.5)
Tensions between myself and parents.	2.87	1.37	74 (61.7)
Professional competency
Lack of training in teaching SENs students in an inclusive class while receiving formal education.	3.48	1.25	98 (81.7)
Inadequate training in identifying students’ SENs while receiving formal education.	3.43	1.29	96 (80.0)
Inadequate training in carrying out adjustments relating to the educational needs of the students.	3.32	1.21	99 (82.5)
Identifying the student’s capacities and abilities to learn.	3.06	1.05	89 (74.2)
Personal beliefs
Meeting the student’s needs.	2.68	0.79	69 (57.5)
Empathising with parents.	2.85	0.85	81 (67.5)
Maintaining the student’s safety.	3.20	1.07	84 (70.0)
Maintaining the safety of other students in the classroom.	3.25	1.18	88 (73.3)
Feedback on my work (parents, students, or superiors).	3.22	1.05	88 (73.3)
Fear of failure.	3.17	1.09	92 (76.7)
Lack of authority in the classroom.	2.08	1.12	40 (33.3)
Meeting the parents’ expectations.	3.25	1.01	94 (78.3)

¹ Teachers who assessed individual stressors with a rating of 3 or more.

). Teachers also find working in an inclusive class stressful due to their ‘inability to pay attention to other students because of the preoccupation with the SENs student’ ($\overline{x}$ = 3.56). All of the items used to assess the teachers’ professional competency for teaching students with SENs turned out to be sources of stress (>3).

3.2. Differences in the Perception of Stress Relating to the Teachers’ Demographic Characteristics and Professional Competency

The results show four statistically significant differences in the perception of stress among teachers in relation to years of work, level of education, and participation in additional training (

Table 5. The Mann–Whitney U-test (U) and the Kruskal–Wallis H-test (H) of statistically significant differences in the level of perceived stress among teachers with respect to demographic characteristics and participation in additional training.

Stressor	Item	Characteristic	$\overline{\underset{\dot{}}{\mathrm{R}}}$	χ2	p
Collaboration/communication with parents	Limited contact with parents.	participation in additional training	56.34	940.5 (U)	0.016
		no additional training	73.57
Personal beliefs	Meeting the student’s needs.	upper secondary education or short-cycle tertiary education	67.92	1353.5 (U)	0.051
		bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral level	56.05
	Lack of authority in the classroom.	upper secondary education or short-cycle tertiary education	49.43	1189.5 (U)	0.005
		bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral level	67.14
		up to 10 years	76.24	8.918 (H)	0.012
		from 11 to 20 years	60.06
		21 or more years of work	52.94

).

Teachers who did not receive additional training in inclusive education found that they experienced more stress due to ‘limited communication with parents’ (p = 0.016). Teachers with lower levels of education and who have worked in the profession the longest experience less stress on account of ‘lack of authority’ in the classroom. By contrast, this group of teachers statistically significantly experiences more stress due to the necessity to ‘meet the student’s needs’ compared to teachers with a higher level of education (p = 0.05).

3.3. Differences in the Perception of Teacher Stress Relating to the Type of SENs of Their Students

A statistically significant difference between experiencing stress resulting from the behaviour of SENs students (p = 0.002) and working in the classroom (p = 0.051) exists among teachers with regard to the type of SENs of the students they teach. The highest level of stress stemming from student behaviour is experienced by teachers teaching students with EBD. These are followed by teachers dealing with students with ASD and those with LD. The lowest level of stress due to student behaviour in the classroom is reported by teachers who deal with students with PI. Teaching in an inclusive class is a major statistically significant stressor for teachers who teach ASD students, followed by those teaching students with EBD. The least stress is experienced, once again, by teachers teaching students with LD and those with PI (

Table 6. The Kruskal–Wallis H-Test of statistically significant differences in the perception of stress among teachers as regards the type of SENs of their students.

Stressor	Type of SEN	$\overline{\underset{\dot{}}{\mathrm{R}}}$	χ2	p
Administrative issues	LD	57.05	6.442	0.092
	PI	62.05
	EBD	57.86
	ASD	83.23
Support at work	LD	59.47	1.946	0.584
	PI	52.45
	EBD	60.84
	ASD	71.31
Behaviour of the students with SENs	LD	55.49	1.247	0.002
	PI	36.75
	EBD	80.03
	ASD	61.38
Work in the classroom	LD	53.82	7.768	0.051
	PI	55.70
	EBD	71.78
	ASD	74.00
Collaboration/communication with parents	LD	60.01	6.334	0.096
	PI	36.45
	EBD	67.64
	ASD	65.65
Professional competency	LD	59.93	0.729	0.866
	PI	61.85
	EBD	58.14
	ASD	67.69
Personal beliefs	LD	55.51	6.245	0.100
	PI	60.30
	EBD	62.90
	ASD	81.38

).

4. Discussion

This empirical study was conducted to establish the level of stress in primary school teachers dealing with students with different types of SENs.

4.1. Stressors Perceived by Teachers in Inclusive Education

In terms of perceived stress, the teachers in our study identified ‘lack of professional competency’ and ‘work in the classroom’ as particularly impactful stressors in their inclusive teaching. Inadequate professional competency presents a significant obstacle to the implementation of inclusive education, which is in line with the findings of similar studies [9,21,29] that explicitly demonstrate the complexity of working in the inclusive class and the poorly developed competencies of teachers in this context. Uncertainty and stress can originate from teachers’ beliefs and their perceptions of and trust in their abilities to deal with students in inclusive classes [22].

In our study, we found that difficulties in paying attention to other students, managing the SENs students’ social relationships, disruptive behaviour towards other classmates, and inappropriate classrooms are the most perceived stressors for primary school teachers when working with SENs students in inclusive classes. In relation to these findings, we must point out that the number of students with formal SENs status has increased considerably in recent years in Slovenian schools. Many teachers also work with heterogeneous groups of students with diverse needs against a backdrop of high standards of knowledge, having to address all students’ needs and adjust the educational process [25,46].

Alongside inadequate professional competency and the classroom work itself, the overwhelming administrative work also constitutes a significant source of stress. This includes responsibility for school results and success in particular, as well as planning an IP, carrying out adjustments and regular needs assessments, evaluating improvements, and documenting the student’s progress. These tasks demand enormous amounts of time on the teacher’s part in order to prepare for teaching, to meet educational goals in general, as well as to define the goals of the IP [21,47].

4.2. Differences in the Level of Perceived Stress Among Teachers in Inclusive Education

The analysis relating to demographic characteristics showed the increased burden of stress on teachers with fewer years of work experience compared to those with more years of experience, which was also confirmed by other studies and can be attributed to the gap that teachers perceive between theory and actual teaching practice [4,32]. Our study found that stress while dealing with SENs students in an inclusive class statistically significantly decreases as teachers gain experience after years of teaching, which is in line with the findings of other studies [33,38]. The teachers with many years of teaching experience in our study may trust their work more fully in their dealings with SENs students, since they have built a wider network of contacts and support through years of practice. On the other hand, more experienced teachers in particular feel greater stress in inclusive classes due to pressure with regard to meeting their students’ needs. This can be attributed to their greater concern for how to ensure effective teaching that meets the needs of all students in the educational process and manage their classes in such a way as to accommodate students with SENs, see [11,25].

Higher levels of stress are reported by teachers who have not received additional training, specifically in communication with parents. The results draw attention to the lack of knowledge and skills relating to communicating with parents and the development of competences that promote sustainability in inclusive education. Here, we wish to mention the common difficulties, highlighted by numerous international studies, in communicating parent–teacher relations, manifested in the parents’ different expectations regarding the achievement of educational goals and the identification of students’ SENs [22,48], all of which, as shown in our study, place an additional burden of stress on the teacher. In terms of the perceived level of stress in teachers coping with different SENs students, those teaching students with EBD and students with ASD are those most significantly burdened. In contrast, those teachers dealing with students with LD and PI report lower levels of stress. Other studies also support these findings [26,29,31,49]. We can assume that teachers of students with EBD and ASD are more often confronted with challenging behaviour in the classroom accompanied by emotional outbursts and thus might have low tolerance with regard to disruptive actions [46], which inevitably leads to an increased level of stress. Moreover, many teachers have a misperception of the related disorders, and their lack of knowledge is demonstrated in their ill-preparedness for working with such students [16].

4.3. Recommendations for Inclusive Education Practice

To properly address the sources of stress, we believe that the focus of inclusive education should above all be on the development of high-quality education for teachers and a deeper understanding of sustainable inclusion in primary schools.

Based on our study findings, we suggest that teacher training programmes should include detailed and systematic knowledge and skills relating to the characteristics of different groups of SENs students to highlight their potential and strengths and focus on the social conceptualisation of disability. In our opinion, teachers need to be equipped with a repertoire of evidence-based teaching strategies that consider the heterogeneity of SENs students and students with diverse needs. They need to be encouraged to adopt more flexible planning and the implementation of reasonable and individualised educational adjustments, rather than just formal ones [50]. They also need opportunities to reflect on their sustainable inclusive practices, and, lastly, they should be empowered through gaining the skills of designing and implementing an IP and carrying out evaluations of an IP in teams [45]. We recommend increased collaboration between universities and schools in the development and implementation of training programmes for teachers who teach SENs students.

Specifically, teachers need additional knowledge and practical skills for working with students with EBD and ASD (e.g., social and class management skills, and techniques and strategies for coping with maladaptive behaviour) [48,51]. However, it is also essential for teachers to develop the competences needed to cooperate with parents and other experts so that they can deal with the students in inclusive classes more efficiently [52]. Inclusive education is, therefore, a shared responsibility, and teachers’ cooperation with all stakeholders is an essential element in promoting the sustainability of inclusive education. Therefore, we recommend that the school community provides a safe and sustainable learning environment where beginner teachers can learn from experienced colleagues how to work effectively with SENs students. The senior colleagues could support and empower the younger teachers in reflecting, thinking critically, and finding a new approach to their inclusive school practice.

Finally, we suggest that training programmes also need to carefully focus on developing and fostering positive attitudes and beliefs about inclusion, which are complex and deeply embedded in personal factors. In this way, the belief that SENs students are capable of being educated in regular classes and that teachers are responsible for teaching SENs students could be reinforced [23,50]. Finally, health promotion training targeting stress management should be developed and implemented, particularly for teachers who teach students with SENs in inclusive classes and prospective teachers at university [53].

4.4. Limitations and Prospects for Future Studies

The sample in the research is non-randomised and limited to a single Slovenian region (north-eastern Slovenia), which is why a randomised sample of the entire Slovenian population could produce different results with regard to the stress felt by teachers working with SENs students. Despite some adjustments in the group response categories (e.g., level of education) and the use of non-parametric statistical tests, the results of our study on differences in teachers’ perception of stress should be generalised with caution, as the comparison groups are unequal in size in terms of demographic characteristics, participation in additional training, and type of SENs students. Therefore, future studies should include a representative population of Slovenian SENs students in primary schools and include other Slovenian regions in addition to the north-eastern region. Furthermore, this study should be conducted, and the results compared with the perceived stress of teachers teaching students with SENs at different levels of the school system (e.g., primary school, secondary school, university). Furthermore, in addition to teachers, the voices of other stakeholders working with SENs students in inclusive education (e.g., students, parents, and other school professionals) need to be heard.

The present study used an international standardised questionnaire to gain insights into the sources of stress among teachers dealing with SENs students, and it might be useful in future studies to employ qualitative approaches. This could include structured interviews or observations in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of teacher stressors in inclusive education. Employing a mixed-methods study [54,55] would enable more profound insights and a more nuanced understanding of the sources of stress based on the personal experiences of teachers in inclusive education.

5. Conclusions

The teachers engaged in inclusive education who took part in this study reported that their main sources of stress derived from a lack of professional competency, day-to-day work in an inclusive class, and the burden of administration. In light of the transferability of these results, it is crucial that such stressors be systematically and carefully addressed in appropriate and high-quality training programmes for teachers and in the provision of effective activities aimed at continuing professional development to achieve sustainability in inclusive education. In particular, training programmes should provide teachers with active learning opportunities where what they are taught can be put into practice [9]. Teachers need to have opportunities to discuss their concerns, constraints, and stressors. This should be empirically observed in further studies, especially using a qualitative and mixed-methods methodology, involving different stakeholders, different levels of education, and representative samples of teachers in inclusive education in all Slovenian regions. Health promotion programmes for stress management for teachers teaching SENs students in inclusive education should be developed and implemented in schools in a sustainable way.