Transforming Attitudes: How Training and Culture Shape Teachers’ Views on Inclusion

Abstract

This study examined the cultural differences in Jewish and Arab teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in Israeli schools. It addressed the role of teacher training and professional development in shaping attitudes while considering the socio-cultural context. The research involved 1214 teachers. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their views on aspects of inclusion. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA tests to examine the interaction between cultural background, training type (in special education or standard education), and professional development. The findings revealed that Jewish teachers generally reported more positive attitudes toward inclusion. Special education training and recent professional development in special education enhanced positive teacher attitudes uniformly for both groups. However, Arab teachers showed less positive perceptions, possibly due to resource limitations and cultural factors. The study suggests professional development plays a crucial role in shaping teachers’ attitudes. Tailored professional development programs addressing the unique needs of teachers in different cultural and resource contexts are essential for fostering effective inclusive education.

1. Introduction

Inclusion, the practice of incorporating students with disabilities into general education classrooms, is a central objective in the Israeli education system, particularly following the enactment of the 2018 Special Education Law (Gavish, 2017; Heiman & Avissar, 2024). The Law was a significant legislative milestone, advocating for the rights of children with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers within the general education system. It anchors their inclusion and emphasizes the maximization of their abilities (Crispel & Kasperski, 2021), underscoring a collective responsibility for their safety and advancement and aiming to cater to their unique needs on their educational journey. The move toward inclusive education in Israel aligns with global trends, reflecting a broader commitment to human rights and equality within the educational sphere. The Inclusion Law applies to all Israeli citizens and gives parents the right to decide where their children with disabilities will study, whether in special schools or regular classrooms with their non-disabled peers.

Importantly, teachers must develop new teaching practices to meet the goals of inclusion. Inclusive practices include collaboration and teamwork (Finkelstein et al., 2021) and involve social learning processes that move the practice of teaching forward (Ainscow et al., 2003; Burstein et al., 2004; Duquette, 2016; Florian, 2002). We looked at five areas of inclusive practice: academic area, modifications of curriculum, commitment to inclusion, attitudes to inclusion policy, technical aids, management support, staff attitudes, parental involvement, and effects of inclusion on non-disabled students (see Karni et al., 2011).

While some Israeli schools have successfully adopted inclusive practices, others face significant challenges, including limited resources, insufficient teacher training, and disparities in support provided to students with disabilities (Huri & Shoshana, 2024; Madar & Danoch, 2024). Part of the inconsistent application may be related to the sociocultural context: Israel has a Jewish majority and a large Arab minority, and these societies differ in their approach to inclusion. Arab schools differ from Jewish schools both structurally and culturally. Jewish schools typically benefit from better funding and access to specialized resources supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities (Klarsfeld & Kay, 2022), while Arab schools are often underfunded and lack sufficient resources for effective inclusion (Arar, 2016; Arar & Nasra, 2020). These disparities are compounded by differing societal perceptions of disability and inclusion within the two communities, arguably influencing teachers’ willingness to embrace inclusive practices (Gavish, 2017; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019; Majadley, 2023). Understanding these contextual factors is crucial to overcome the barriers to inclusion in Israel’s diverse educational landscape and was the focus of the present study.

More specifically, we examined the differences between Jewish and Arab teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, specifically in relation to the type of training received during teacher training, whether in general education or special education, and afterwards, in professional development programs. Note that with the reform, the Director of the Ministry of Education requires teachers to take 170 h of professional development related to special education. Our goal was to provide insights into how teacher preparation influences the success of inclusive education in Israel (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015; Woodcock & Hardy, 2017). Findings showed teachers who received training in special education (either during teacher training or in professional development programs) were generally more likely to hold positive views on inclusion because they were better equipped to address the diverse needs of students with disabilities (Choi et al., 2020; Saro et al., 2023). We also considered the impact of cultural factors on teachers’ attitudes. Findings showed Jewish teachers were generally more positive about inclusion than Arab teachers. Both sets of findings have implications beyond Israel, in other societies with similar social divides, in the context of a movement toward inclusive education.

1.1. Inclusion in Israel

The inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, a central goal of the Israeli education system, gained significant momentum with the enactment of the 2018 Special Education Law, legally mandating the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms (Gavish, 2017; Heiman & Avissar, 2024). The Law’s primary aim is to ensure all students, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities, can access education in a shared, inclusive environment (Aderet-German, 2024; Huri & Shoshana, 2024). Despite the legal mandate, inclusive education in Israel has had mixed success, and the degree of inclusion varies significantly across the different sectors of the Israeli educational system (Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019).

The educational systems in Israel are segregated, both geographically and culturally. The majority of Jewish students attend Jewish schools, subdivided into state, state-religious, and independent religious schools, each with varying degrees of secularism and religious observance (Donitsa-Schmidt, 2024). Arabs make up a significant minority of Israel’s population; Arab students attend schools that are predominantly Arab, focusing on Arabic language, history, and culture (Arar & Abu-Romi, 2016). The curriculum is tailored to the specific needs of the Arab community, with some schools emphasizing religious studies as well (Menzin et al., 2024).

Most schools in Israel have adopted inclusive practices, but many face significant challenges, especially those in the Arab community. Structural challenges are particularly salient here and include insufficient resources such as technological aids and personnel to assist teachers in classrooms. The lack of adequate teacher training, especially in special education, exacerbates these structural challenges (Hess & Zamir, 2016). Teachers lack knowledge about disability and do not know how to teach disabled students (Arar & Massry-Herzllah, 2016; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2023; Madar & Danoch, 2024).

Cultural challenges include the perceptions of disability and educational inclusion; these differ for Jewish and Arab communities. Jewish society, with its emphasis on individual achievement and secular values, tends to support inclusive education more consistently. Arab communities prioritize collective family and community welfare and often view inclusion differently, potentially leading to more challenges in including students with disabilities in general education settings (Arar & Nasra, 2020). This cultural divergence highlights the need for culturally sensitive policies and practices in the implementation of inclusive education (Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019).

Implementing inclusive practices can be challenging (Sijuola & Davidova, 2022). When collaboration and teamwork are required and are carried out well based on professional knowledge shared between teachers, inclusion is more successful, but when the team is largely unqualified to work with children with disabilities, inclusion can easily become a challenge. For example, the messages team members convey to each other can be misleading, and cooperation can be low due to lack of training (Kaushik, 2024). When professional knowledge-based indicators for determining student progress and learning are clear and consistent, a common language is created among educators, but instructional support is not fully implemented when there is no agreement and understanding about the implementation of inclusive practices (Villa & Thousand, 2021). When there are clear procedures in place in a school, inclusion is implemented properly. Teachers need professional support from the administration, and classroom resources, such as professionals and teaching assistants, must be available (DeMatthews et al., 2021). When such support is not in place, students will be frustrated, and staff will be ineffective.

1.2. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion

The humanistic educational model (Neuman et al., 2024) emphasizes the individual as a whole person and as the focus of social, therapeutic, educational, and rehabilitation services. For inclusion to succeed, educators must endorse this model and have positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Dovidio et al., 2011; Lalvani, 2015; Marino & Bilge, 2023). In turn, educational systems can foster positive attitudes among teachers. Numerous studies have highlighted that teachers’ views on inclusion are shaped by their personal experiences, professional training, and the support they receive from school administration (Ewing et al., 2018; Hess & Zamir, 2016; Saloviita, 2020).

In general, teachers who receive specialized training in special education, whether during teacher training or in professional development programs after they begin work, are more likely to view inclusion positively, as they are better equipped to handle the diverse needs of students with disabilities (Allam & Martin, 2021; Dignath et al., 2022; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023). Teachers without such training may feel unprepared to support students with disabilities, leading to frustration and negative attitudes toward inclusion (Savolainen et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2024).

Teachers’ willingness to include students with disabilities also depends on the resources available in their classrooms. Access to appropriate teaching materials, teaching assistants, and specialized equipment can make a significant difference in teachers’ approach to inclusive practices (Ahlers et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2020; Lyon et al., 2022). For instance, the availability of assistive technologies can enable teachers to modify lessons to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, leading to more positive perceptions of inclusion (Desombre et al., 2021).

Finally, strong support from school leadership is essential. Teachers who feel their school administration backs the inclusion process by offering professional development opportunities and administrative support are more likely to embrace inclusion (Hess & Zamir, 2016).

In Israel, Jewish and Arab educators often have different attitudes toward inclusion. Jewish teachers, particularly those in well-resourced schools, tend to express more favorable views, possibly due to better access to training and support (Agbaria, 2021; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019). Arab teachers, who often work in resource-poor environments, are less likely to have received specialized training in special education, especially in professional development programs, and report feeling less prepared to teach students with disabilities (Arar, 2017). This lack of preparedness contributes to more skeptical or negative attitudes toward inclusion (Jorban et al., 2024; MacKenzie et al., 2020).

The cultural context also plays a role in shaping teachers’ views. In Jewish schools, where individual achievement is highly valued, teachers may be more inclined to support inclusion as a means of promoting academic and social success (Majadley, 2023). In contrast, in Arab schools, where community and family welfare are prioritized, teachers may view inclusion as a more complex issue, particularly when resources are limited (Vizer-Karni & Reiter, 2014). Although Arabs in Israel are exposed to Western culture as the prevailing culture, causing cracks in the traditional value system, and the last two decades have seen significant changes, especially among young Arabs, including changes in the status of women, the weakening of traditional values, and the undermining of the power of the Hamula (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2016; Arar & Massry-Herzllah, 2016), some cultural differences remain salient. For example, the attitude toward people with disabilities has changed, but only minimally; they are still marginalized, social expectations are low, and they continue to experience stigmatization, isolation, and discrimination (Badran et al., 2023a, 2023b). In addition, although the Inclusion Law allows parents to make decisions about their children’s education, traditional Arab society tends to accept authority, and before the reform, schooling decisions were made by school administrators (Arar, 2016). All of these factors are likely to affect Arab teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.

1.3. Teacher Training for Special Education and Its Impact on Attitudes

Teacher training at teachers’ colleges, particularly in special education, is one of the most important factors influencing teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Capangpangan et al., 2024; McLeskey & Waldron, 2015; Woodcock & Hardy, 2017). Research consistently shows teachers who have received specialized training in teaching students with disabilities are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward inclusion (Choi et al., 2020; Saro et al., 2023). Training equips teachers with the knowledge, skills, and strategies necessary to manage the diverse needs of students in inclusive classrooms. This includes learning how to differentiate instruction, modify classroom materials, and work collaboratively with special education staff to support students with disabilities (Brownell et al., 2018; Florian, 2014).

The importance of targeted professional development in special education cannot be overstated, however. Teachers who have not trained as special education teachers but who participate in professional development programs are better able to adapt their teaching practices to accommodate students with disabilities (Desombre et al., 2021). These programs often emphasize the use of differentiated instruction, assistive technology, and collaborative teaching strategies, critical to ensure all students can succeed in an inclusive classroom (Subarna et al., 2022; Van Staden-Payne & Nel, 2023). Moreover, ongoing professional development ensures teachers, even those trained as special education teachers, stay up-to-date with the latest research and best practices in inclusive education, enhancing their ability to support students with disabilities (Hess & Zamir, 2016).

Teachers who are trained in special education and those who join in special education professional development programs are better prepared to work with students with disabilities. They are comfortable adapting their teaching strategies to accommodate a wide range of learning styles (McGuire & Meadan, 2022) and tend to have more positive attitudes toward inclusion. That said, they may still face challenges related to class size, resource limitations, and collaboration with general education teachers (McCarthy et al., 2012; Saloviita, 2022).

1.4. Study Objectives

We argued the Inclusion Law may be enacted differently in the Jewish and Arab educational systems, with implications for the inclusion of children with disabilities. To the best of our knowledge, this has not yet been studied, despite the importance of understanding where and how its implementation can be facilitated. Although we focused on Israel, the findings may be important for other societies with similar cultural divides.

We argued Jewish teachers would be more likely to express positive attitudes toward inclusion than Arab teachers, based on the differences in resources and support available in Jewish and Arab schools. We further argued teacher training would have an effect on attitudes. In Israel, teachers can be trained in standard education or special education, but with the reform, teachers with training in standard education may have students with disabilities in their classrooms. We assumed teachers trained in special education would have more positive attitudes toward inclusion than teachers trained in standard education, but we also suggested there may be a cultural difference, with Jewish teachers expressing more positive attitudes than Arab teachers, even those with similar training. Beyond teacher training, Israeli teachers can upgrade their skills in professional development programs. We argued there would be a difference here as well, with Jewish teachers having more access to professional development and reporting more positive attitudes than Arab teachers.

We formulated the following research questions and hypotheses:

• RQ1: Is there an interaction between the teachers’ group (Arabs/Jews) and training type (special education vs. standard) and attitudes toward inclusion?

H1: 

Jewish teachers who have received special education training will express more positive attitudes toward inclusion than Arab teachers who have received similar training.

• RQ2: Is there an interaction between the teachers’ group (Arabs/Jews) and professional development (participation in special education professional development within the last five years vs. no participation) and attitudes toward inclusion?

H2: 

Jewish teachers who have received professional development training in special education in the past five years will express more positive attitudes toward inclusion than Arab teachers who have received similar training.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The study involved 1214 participants (

Table 1. Participant Distribution.

Variable	Category	n	Participants
Gender	Male	N	340
		%	28.6%
	Female	N	849
		%	71.4%
School type	Elementary	N	452
		%	38.0%
	Junior high	N	393
		%	33.0%
	High school	N	346
		%	29.0%
Professional training	Standard education	N	875
		%	74.3%
	Special education	n	303
		%	25.7%
Professional development in special education in last 5 years	Yes	n	596
		%	49.3%
	No	n	614
		%	50.7%
Students with disabilities in current class	Yes	n	845
		%	69.8%
	No	n	366
		%	30.2%
Students with disabilities in previous workplace	Yes	n	940
		%	77.9%
	No	n	267
		%	22.1%
Does the school have individual inclusion?	Yes	n	998
		%	83.4%
	No	n	198
		%	16.6%
Does the school have special education classes?	Yes	n	909
		%	75.4%
	No	n	296
		%	24.6%
Attitude toward inclusion	Definitely	n	487
		%	40.5%
	Yes	n	451
		%	37.6%
	Not sure	n	162
		%	13.5%
	No	n	71
		%	5.9%
	Not at all	n	30
		%	2.5%
Does the school have a connection with MTI?	Yes	n	849
		%	70.9%
	No	n	349
		%	29.1%

Note: MTI = Israel Ministry of Education.

). Most were female. The distribution of the types of schools was relatively similar in both sectors (primary, junior high, high school). About 75% of all participants had standard education training, and about 25% had special education training; about half had taken part in professional development in the past five years. About 70% currently had a student with a disability in the classroom, and almost 80% had a student with a disability in the classroom in the past. Over 80% of schools had an inclusion program, and 75% had a special class for students with disabilities. Staff attitudes toward inclusion were mostly positive, and about 70% of the schools had a connection with the Ministry of Education programs.

2.2. Instruments

Participants completed the Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion Questionnaire (Karni et al., 2011). This questionnaire includes 41 items on teachers’ perceptions of various aspects of the inclusion of students with disabilities: attitudes toward academic aspects of inclusion, teachers’ commitment to inclusion, technical aids for inclusion, professional support and encouragement of inclusion, staff attitudes, adaptations of curriculum, parental involvement, and the effect of inclusion on non-disabled students. Items are rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Exploratory principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation and Eigenvalue greater than 1 was used on the 41 items. Nine factors were detected, explaining 63.15% of the variance: academic area (e.g., ‘Are additional study options available to a student who is integrated into the school besides the home-class, individual lessons, learning center, etc.?’), modifications of curriculum (e.g., ‘For each of the following areas taught at school indicate to what extent adjustments can be made to the curriculum for the integrated student…’), commitment to inclusion (e.g., ‘To what extent do you feel the school is committed to inclusion the following areas…?’), inclusion policy (e.g., ‘To what extent are teachers who were not trained in special education offered up-to-date training beyond their initial training?’), technical aids (e.g., ‘Are the technical aids necessary for inclusion available and in good working order?’), management support (e.g., ‘Does the school have a clear system of values and priorities regarding inclusion?’), staff attitudes (e.g., ‘Do teachers feel responsible for the academic achievements of students with special needs?’), parental involvement (e.g., ‘How comfortable and open is the communication between parents and the school?’), and effects of inclusion on non-disabled students (e.g., ‘What is the impact of inclusion on students without disabilities in the following areas…?’). Eigenvalues ranged between 1.18 and 11.80, and the internal consistencies between α = 0.75 and α = 0.92. All scales were defined as item means, with higher scores representing greater inclusion. A total score was composed as well (α = 0.93). Reliability values for the present study are shown in

Table 2. Reliability of Inclusion Questionnaire.

Variables	Reliability
Academic area	0.766
Modifications	0.905
Commitment	0.957
Inclusion policy	0.865
Technical aids	0.937
Management	0.860
Staff attitudes	0.944
Parents	0.908
Non-disabled students	0.917

.

2.3. Procedure

The study received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee on 5 December 2022 (approval no. 12/2022-30). As the research involved teachers, authorization was first obtained from school principals to distribute the questionnaires. Teachers subsequently provided their written consent to participate. The consent letter clearly indicated teachers would not be required to disclose any identifying information about themselves or their schools, and all responses would remain strictly confidential. The completed questionnaires were securely stored by the researchers in a locked cabinet, and at the conclusion of the study, they were destroyed in accordance with ethical guidelines. This process was explicitly outlined in the informed consent letter.

Questionnaires were distributed in person to teachers from a randomized sample of primary schools, junior high schools, and high schools across Israel. The questionnaire was administered in Hebrew, the predominant language in Israel and understood by all participants. For teachers requiring clarification on specific terms, a research assistant proficient in both Hebrew and Arabic was available to provide support. Data collection was conducted during school breaks or the teachers’ free periods, and completing the questionnaire took approximately 15 min. Research assistants were present or nearby during the process to address any questions. The data collection phase extended over the course of a year.

2.4. Data Analysis

The findings were analyzed using a series of two-way ANOVA tests to examine potential differences based on group affiliation (Jewish/Arab) and training type (special/standard) and professional development in special education (participation within the last five years or not). These analyses evaluated various measures related to inclusion: academic area, modifications of curriculum, commitment to inclusion, inclusion policy, technical aids, management support, staff attitudes, parental involvement, and effect of inclusion on non-disabled students.

3. Findings

We conducted a series of two-way ANOVAs to detect differences in the measures of inclusion based on group affiliation (Jewish/Arab) and training type (special/standard) (see

Table 3. Differences in Dependent Variables by Group and Training Type.

Dependent Variable/Group	Training	n	M	SD	F
Academic area
Jews	Standard	370	3.71	0.69	FGroup(1,1174) = 27.69, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.023
	Special	205	3.71	0.62	FTraining(1,1174) = 0.24, p = 0.627, η2 = 0.000
Arabs	Standard	505	3.44	0.71	FInteraction(1,1174) = 0.23, p = 0.631, η2 = 0.000
	Special	98	3.48	0.62
Modifications
Jews	Standard	370	3.96	0.75	FGroup(1,1173) = 35.61, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.029
	Special	205	3.99	0.72	FTraining(1,1173) = 1.53, p = 0.217, η2 = 0.001
Arabs	Standard	505	3.58	0.89	FInteraction(1,1173) = 0.66, p = 0.418, η2 = 0.001
	Special	98	3.69	0.77
Commitment
Jews	Standard	370	4.24	0.72	FGroup(1,1174) = 74.49, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.060
	Special	205	4.4	0.60	FTraining(1,1174) = 18.30, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.015
Arabs	Standard	505	3.73	0.80	FInteraction(1,1174) = 1.18, p = 0.277, η2 = 0.001
	Special	98	4.01	0.70
Inclusion policy
Jews	Standard	370	3.40	0.89	FGroup(1,1174) = 0.03, p = 0.869, η2 = 0.000
	Special	205	3.62	0.82	FTraining(1,1174) = 3.71, p = 0.054, η2 = 0.003
Arabs	Standard	505	3.5	0.88	FInteraction(1,1174) = 3.02, p = 0.082, η2 = 0.003
	Special	98	3.51	0.78
Technical aids
Jews	Standard	370	3.57	1.01	FGroup(1,1174) = 12.29, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.010
	Special	205	3.65	1.04	FTraining(1,1174) = 0.40, p = 0.529, η2 = 0.000
Arabs	Standard	505	3.36	0.96	FInteraction(1,1174) = 0.23, p = 0.635, η2 = 0.000
	Special	98	3.37	0.88
Management
Jews	Standard	370	3.77	0.87	FGroup(1,1172) = 23.89, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.020
	Special	205	3.99	0.87	FTraining(1,1172) = 11.59, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.010
Arabs	Standard	505	3.48	0.89	FInteraction(1,1172) = 0.06, p = 0.803, η2 = 0.000
	Special	98	3.68	0.84
Staff attitudes
Jews	Standard	370	4.13	0.76	FGroup(1,1174) = 69.42, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.056
	Special	205	4.08	0.84	FTraining(1,1174) = 1.10, p = 0.295, η2 = 0.001
Arabs	Standard	505	3.67	0.83	FInteraction(1,1174) = 0.03, p = 0.854, η2 = 0.000
	Special	98	3.6	0.73
Parents
Jews	Standard	370	4.00	0.72	FGroup(1,1173) = 41.60, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.034
	Special	205	4.20	0.66	FTraining(1,1173) = 6.66, p = 0.010, η2 = 0.006
Arabs	Standard	504	3.72	0.84	FInteraction(1,1173) = 1.23, p = 0.268, η2 = 0.001
	Special	98	3.8	0.66
Non-disabled students
Jews	Standard	370	3.93	0.86	FGroup(1,1173) = 14.60, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.012
	Special	205	4.07	0.80	FTraining(1,1173) = 9.67, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.008
Arabs	Standard	504	3.67	0.86	FInteraction(1,1173) = 0.43, p = 0.514, η2 = 0.000
	Special	98	3.89	0.73

). The analysis revealed differences between Jewish and Arab teachers across domains, except for inclusion policy. Jewish teachers were more positive about inclusion than Arab teachers. In addition, teachers (both Jewish and Arab) with pre-service special education training reported higher levels of commitment to inclusion, management support, and parental involvement and more positive perceptions of the impact of inclusion on non-disabled students. There was no statistically significant interaction between group affiliation and type of professional training, indicating the impact of professional training did not differ significantly across groups.

We conducted a series of two-way ANOVAs to look for differences in the measures of inclusion based on group affiliation (Jewish/Arab) and professional development in special education (participation within the last five years or not) (see

Table 4. Differences in Dependent Variables by Group and Professional Development.

Dependent Variable/Group	Professional Development	n	M	SD	F
Academic area
Jews	Yes	281	3.75	0.64	FGroup(1,1206) = 46.51, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.037
	No	297	3.68	0.69	FTraining(1,1206) = 3.31, p = 0.069, η2 = 0.003
Arabs	Yes	315	3.49	0.69	FInteraction(1,1206) = 0.03, p = 0.853, η2 = 0.000
	No	317	3.41	0.69
Modifications
Jews	Yes	281	3.96	0.72	FGroup(1,1205) = 65.29, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.051
	No	297	3.99	0.76	FTraining(1,1205) = 0.04, p = 0.845, η2 = 0.000
Arabs	Yes	315	3.63	0.8	FInteraction(1,1205) = 0.94, p = 0.333, η2 = 0.001
	No	317	3.57	0.93
Commitment
Jews	Yes	281	4.36	0.65	FGroup(1,1205) = 146.34, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.108
	No	297	4.24	0.71	FTraining(1,1205) = 5.28, p = 0.022, η2 = 0.004
Arabs	Yes	315	3.82	0.77	FInteraction(1,1205) = 0.18, p = 0.670, η2 = 0.000
	No	317	3.74	0.81
Inclusion policy
Jews	Yes	281	3.69	0.77	FGroup(1,1206) = 0.30, p = 0.582, η2 = 0.000
	No	297	3.29	0.91	FTraining(1,1206) = 38.41, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.031
Arabs	Yes	315	3.62	0.82	FInteraction(1,1206) = 3.27, p = 0.071, η2 = 0.003
	No	317	3.41	0.90
Technical aids
Jews	Yes	281	3.76	0.96	FGroup(1,1206) = 15.81, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.013
	No	297	3.45	1.06	FTraining(1,1206) = 15.07, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.012
Arabs	Yes	315	3.45	0.89	FInteraction(1,1206) = 2.27, p = 0.132, η2 = 0.002
	No	317	3.31	1.01
Management
Jews	Yes	281	4.02	0.80	FGroup(1,1204) = 42.43, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.034
	No	297	3.69	0.92	FTraining(1,1204) = 23.15, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.019
Arabs	Yes	315	3.6	0.82	FInteraction(1,1204) = 2.93, p = 0.087, η2 = 0.002
	No	317	3.45	0.93
Staff attitudes
Jews	Yes	281	4.21	0.73	FGroup(1,1206) = 94.15, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.072
	No	297	4.03	0.83	FTraining(1,1206) = 4.50, p = 0.034, η2 = 0.004
Arabs	Yes	315	3.68	0.78	FInteraction(1,1206) = 3.06, p = 0.080, η2 = 0.003
	No	317	3.66	0.86
Parents
Jews	Yes	281	4.20	0.63	FGroup(1,1205) = 59.79, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.047
	No	297	3.96	0.76	FTraining(1,1205) = 12.41, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.010
Arabs	Yes	315	3.78	0.77	FInteraction(1,1205) = 3.48, p = 0.062, η2 = 0.003
	No	317	3.7	0.86
Non-disabled students
Jews	Yes	281	4.10	0.75	FGroup(1,1205) = 31.00, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.025
	No	297	3.88	0.90	FTraining(1,1205) = 13.90, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.011
Arabs	Yes	315	3.79	0.83	FInteraction(1,1205) = 0.68, p = 0.411, η2 = 0.001
	No	317	3.65	0.86

). A statistically significant main effect was found for group affiliation in several areas, with Jewish teachers reporting higher levels of academic inclusion, commitment to inclusion, technical aids, management support, staff attitudes toward inclusion, parental involvement, and impact of inclusion on non-disabled students. The only exception was inclusion policy. A statistically significant main effect was found for special education professional development in the last five years; teachers who received this development reported higher levels of commitment to inclusion, inclusion policy, technical aids, management support, staff attitudes toward inclusion, parental involvement, and impact of inclusion on non-disabled students. No statistically significant main effect was found for academic inclusion and modifications. No statistically significant interaction was found between group affiliation and professional development in any of the inclusion measures.

4. Discussion

The study explored how cultural background (Jewish/Arab) and professional training and subsequent professional development interact to shape teachers’ views on inclusive education. By examining the role of training and professional development in different cultural contexts, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the opportunities and barriers to improving inclusive practices in both Jewish and Arab schools.

Our first research question asked whether there was an interaction between teachers’ group (Arabs/Jews) and training type (special education vs. standard) and attitudes toward inclusion. We hypothesized Jewish teachers with special education training would express more positive attitudes toward inclusion than Arab teachers with similar training. This hypothesis was partially confirmed. Jewish teachers generally reported more positive attitudes than their Arab counterparts. This finding aligns with the broader literature, highlighting the influence of cultural and structural differences in educational settings on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Arar, 2016; Arar & Nasra, 2020; Gavish, 2017; Klarsfeld & Kay, 2022). Jewish schools in Israel typically benefit from better funding, professional development opportunities, and specialized resources, all of which facilitate including students with disabilities into regular classrooms (Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019; Klarsfeld & Kay, 2022; Majadley, 2023) and contribute to the more favorable views held by Jewish teachers (Heiman & Avissar, 2024).

However, we did not find a statistically significant interaction between the group affiliation (Jewish/Arab) and training type (special/standard) and attitudes toward inclusion, suggesting the impact of professional training did not differ significantly across groups. While this might seem counterintuitive given the advantages typically associated with special education training, it reflects a broader issue within Israel’s educational landscape: attitudes toward individuals with disabilities are still not fully positive, and successful inclusion has a long way to go. However, teachers who received special education training expressed more positive attitudes toward inclusion than those who received standard training (Allam & Martin, 2021; Dignath et al., 2022; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023), especially in the areas of commitment to inclusion, management support, parental involvement, and impact of inclusion on non-disabled students. Overall, special education training seemed to positively impact teachers’ attitudes.

The differences between Jewish and Arab teachers’ attitudes seem to be driven by the broader structural, cultural, and resource disparities between Jewish and Arab schools, rather than the type of training received. While training in special education provides teachers with the necessary tools and strategies to support students with disabilities (Florian, 2014), these tools may not be enough to overcome deeper cultural and institutional barriers. For example, Arab teachers working in underfunded schools with fewer resources and less access to specialized support may find it more challenging to implement inclusive practices effectively, despite receiving the same training as their Jewish counterparts (Arar, 2016; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019; Majadley, 2023). Moreover, the socio-cultural context in which these teachers work may influence how they perceive and apply their training. In Jewish schools, where there is generally a greater emphasis on individual success and achievement, inclusion may be viewed more favorably as it aligns with the values of inclusion and individual growth (Majadley, 2023). In contrast, Arab teachers may be more influenced by collective community values, leading to a more cautious or skeptical approach to inclusion, especially when resources and institutional support are lacking (Arar & Nasra, 2020; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019).

Our second question asked whether we would find an interaction between the teachers’ group (Arabs/Jews) and professional development in special education (participation within the last five years or not) and attitudes toward inclusion. We hypothesized Jewish teachers receiving recent professional development in special education would express more positive attitudes toward inclusion than Arab teachers with similar professional development. The findings suggest professional development, particularly in the last five years, significantly impacts teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. This aligns with the literature stressing the importance of professional development in fostering teachers’ ability to manage inclusive classrooms (Ahlers et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2020; Desombre et al., 2021; Lyon et al., 2022; McLeskey & Waldron, 2015).

A crucial observation was the significant impact of recent professional development compared to pre-service special education training. Teachers who engaged in professional development within the last five years exhibited greater improvements in their attitudes toward inclusion. This finding is consistent with research emphasizing the ongoing need for professional development that is updated and aligned with the latest research and best practices in inclusive education (Brownell et al., 2018; Florian, 2014). While initial special education training provides teachers with the foundational knowledge and skills to support students with disabilities, continuous learning and engagement with recent developments help teachers refine their practices and meet the evolving needs of inclusive classrooms (Choi et al., 2020; Saro et al., 2023).

The results suggest professional development programs focused on inclusive education are particularly effective in updating teachers on new methodologies and strategies (Savolainen et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2024). These programs emphasize the use of differentiated instruction, assistive technology, and collaborative teaching strategies to ensure the success of all students in inclusive settings (Subarna et al., 2022; Van Staden-Payne & Nel, 2023). The importance of keeping teachers informed about the latest educational trends and best practices cannot be overstated (Desombre et al., 2021). It is not enough to rely on initial special education training; teachers need ongoing opportunities to engage with new research, updated methodologies, and innovative practices to remain effective in inclusive classrooms (Brownell et al., 2018). Offering professional development programs could be a key strategy for enhancing the implementation of inclusive education (Hess & Zamir, 2016). Teachers without access to professional development may struggle to keep up with the evolving needs of their students, as the demands of inclusive classrooms can change over time. The challenges of adapting teaching strategies to support a diverse student population require not only foundational knowledge but also continuous refinement of practices.

We did not find a significant interaction between group affiliation and professional development. This may seem surprising, given the differing levels of resources and access to professional development at Jewish and Arab schools (Arar & Nasra, 2020; Gavish, 2017; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019). One potential explanation is that professional development, even when it is well-designed and tailored to inclusive education, may not fully address the unique challenges faced by Arab teachers working in under-resourced environments. External factors, such as insufficient support in their schools may undermine the impact of professional development (Arar, 2016). The findings suggest that professional development programs designed with a one-size-fits-all approach may not be sufficient to address the unique challenges faced by teachers in different cultural and resource contexts. Tailoring programs to the specific needs of teachers in resource-poor environments, particularly Arab teachers, may increase their effectiveness in improving teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Arar & Nasra, 2020; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019; McLeskey & Waldron, 2015).

5. Limitations and Future Research

This study offers valuable insights into the cultural differences in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in Israeli schools, but several limitations must be noted. First, while the study acknowledges cultural and resource disparities, it does not fully disentangle the specific impact of these factors. Future studies could further examine how culture impacts beliefs and potential practice. Second, the study was cross-sectional and did not capture how teachers’ attitudes evolve over time. Longitudinal studies are needed to track changes in attitudes and the impact of professional development over time. Third, while the study measured attitudes toward inclusion, it did not assess teachers’ efficacy in implementing inclusive practices. Future research should include direct assessments of how teachers apply inclusive strategies in the classroom. Finally, it did not investigate the role of teacher collaboration in inclusive education. This could be beneficial, as collaborative practices between general and special education teachers are crucial for successful inclusion.

6. Implications

The findings have important practical implications for enhancing inclusive education in Israel and beyond. By highlighting the significant role of professional development in shaping teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, particularly through recent training, the study underscores the need for continuous, up-to-date professional development programs. These programs should be tailored to address the specific needs of teachers in diverse cultural contexts, especially in resource-poor environments like Arab-Israeli schools. The study also emphasizes the importance of providing teachers with adequate support and resources to implement inclusive practices effectively. Policymakers and educators can use these insights to design more targeted interventions and training programs, ensuring all teachers are equipped to successfully include students with disabilities into general education classrooms.

7. Conclusions

This study highlights the critical role of both teacher training and ongoing professional development in shaping teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. While special education training provides foundational skills, recent professional development programs are more effective in equipping teachers with the updated knowledge and strategies needed to implement inclusive education successfully. Adequate professional development, tailored to the specific needs of teachers, is crucial for maximizing the inclusion of students with disabilities. Addressing both structural and cultural factors while providing high-quality professional development opportunities can foster truly inclusive educational environments.