From Legal Innovation to School Reality: Leadership Perspectives on Inclusive Education in Portugal

Abstract

Inclusive education is a central pillar of contemporary educational policy worldwide, aiming to ensure equity, participation, and success for all learners. Understanding how inclusive policies are implemented in everyday school contexts is essential to identify both enabling factors and persistent barriers. In Portugal, this process has been shaped by a progressive legislative framework, notably Decree-Law 54/2018 and its regional adaptation in the Autonomous Region of Madeira (RAM) through Regional Legislative Decree 11/2020/M. This case study combined qualitative documentary analysis with a questionnaire applied to coordinators of the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education (EMAEI) from 11 of the 14 secondary schools in the RAM (79% of the total). The questionnaire covered five domains: inclusive principles, leadership, professional development, resources, and diagnosis of learning barriers. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to interpret the data. Results show that coordinators share a strong ethical commitment to inclusion and recognize EMAEI as a strategic organizational structure. However, they point to irregular and insufficient training, delays and mismatches in resource allocation, and limited institutionalization of co-teaching and joint planning. Leadership emerges as a decisive enabler of collaborative cultures. The study concludes that ambitious legislation must be complemented by agile resource management, sustained context-based training, and distributed leadership for inclusive schooling to become everyday practice.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education has become one of the cornerstones of contemporary international educational policy, underpinned by equity, social justice, and respect for diversity. Its normative consolidation has been supported by several landmark international documents, including the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda—particularly SDG 4 (UN, 2015)—and the most recent OECD reports (OECD, 2022), all of which reinforce inclusion as a criterion of quality and equity in education systems. Within this new framework, inclusion is no longer conceived solely as a response for students with disabilities; rather, it represents a systemic commitment to the learning and participation of all students, regardless of their individual, sociocultural, or functional characteristics. The goal is therefore to guarantee every learner access to quality education in mainstream settings, with genuine opportunities for belonging, engagement, and success (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2020; UN, 2006; UNESCO, 1994).

Kart and Kart (2021) point out that, in addition to the academic benefits observed in students with special educational needs, inclusion also promotes significant social gains for their peers, such as reducing stereotypes and fostering respect for diversity.

This perspective reinforces the notion that inclusive education is not merely a set of technical adjustments, but a comprehensive commitment to human rights and social cohesion.

At the European level, multiple initiatives have sought to consolidate this paradigm, notably through policies aimed at removing learning barriers and fostering school cultures that promote belonging, pedagogical differentiation, and shared professional responsibility (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2020).

Against this backdrop, and over more than half a century of democracy, Portugal has made considerable progress toward building an inclusive school system. The trajectory of inclusion reflects a progressive normative and institutional transformation, from the first integration efforts of the 1970s to the recognition of inclusive education as a universal right with the enactment of Decree-Law No. 54/2018 of 6 July (Portugal, 2018a; Guerreiro et al., 2025). This statute establishes the legal framework for inclusive education, marking a milestone by replacing categorizing pupils with special educational needs with a multi-tiered model of measures to support learning and inclusion. Implemented by multidisciplinary teams, this model applies to all students and is grounded in an ecological and collaborative approach. Internationally, this framework is regarded as advanced and is highlighted by the OECD (2022) as an example of good legislative practice.

At the regional level, the Autonomous Region of Madeira (RAM), exercising its political and administrative autonomy, has charted a consistent and innovative course. Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M of 29 July (Portugal, 2020), which adapted Decree-Law No. 54/2018 (Portugal, 2018a) and Decree-Law No. 55/2018 of 6 July (Portugal, 2018b) to the RAM context, deepened the national model by tailoring it to the Region’s specific territorial, institutional, and cultural characteristics. This decree defines the particular resources for supporting learning and inclusion (Art. 6), among which the Multidisciplinary Team to Support Inclusive Education (EMAEI; Art. 6[e]) constitutes a key mechanism for operationalizing the regional inclusive model.

Despite normative advances, various studies (Ainscow, 2020; Florian, 2014; Rodrigues, 2011; Slee, 2011) have drawn attention to a persistent gap between formulated policies and their practical implementation. Effective inclusion cannot be imposed by decree; it requires committed leadership, ongoing professional development, adequate resources, and profound transformations of school cultures. As Booth and Ainscow (2016) note, a school is only inclusive when it deliberately promotes all participation, recognizing differences as opportunities for pedagogical innovation.

This article, therefore, undertakes a critical analysis of the evolution of inclusive education policies in Portugal, with particular emphasis on their enactment in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, an area with distinctive institutional and geographical features. The study focuses on the perceptions of the EMAEI coordinators regarding the factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of the inclusive model in the Region’s secondary schools. The acronym EMAEI (Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education, from the Portuguese Equipa Multidisciplinar de Apoio à Educação Inclusiva) is retained throughout the article, as it reflects the terminology used in national and regional legislation. In doing so, the study seeks to deepen understanding of the mediation processes between the normative framework and school practices, identifying tensions, advances, and opportunities for improvement. It thus contributes to the collective endeavour of generating knowledge aimed at building an education that is truly equitable, sustainable, and transformative.

The purpose of this study is to critically examine how inclusive education legislation is enacted in practice in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, focusing on the perspectives of EMAEI coordinators as key mediators between policy and classroom reality. Based on this aim, the following research questions guided the study:

• How are the inclusive education policies of Decree-Law 54/2018 and Regional Legislative Decree 11/2020/M implemented in secondary schools in the RAM?
• What facilitators and barriers do EMAEI coordinators identify in the enactment of inclusive practices?
• How effective are the support mechanisms envisaged in legislation in everyday school life?

Accordingly, the specific objectives of the study are to:

• Contextualize the historical and normative evolution of inclusion policies in Portugal and the Autonomous Region of Madeira.
• Identify the support mechanisms envisaged in legislation, analyze their level of enactment in everyday school life, and assess their perceived effectiveness.
• Examine EMAEI coordinators’ perceptions of the facilitators, barriers, and effectiveness of the inclusive practices implemented.
• Identify the main constraints and highlight examples of good practice in the operationalization of inclusive policy; and
• Offer evidence-based recommendations to strengthen the inclusive education model’s coherence, equity, and effectiveness.

2. Literature Review

Multidisciplinary Collaboration and Systemic Conditions for Inclusion

Recent literature consistently underscores that the implementation of inclusive education depends on more than legislative alignment; it requires sustained cultural transformation within schools, the provision of adequate and context-sensitive resources, and continuous professional learning opportunities for all educational actors (Ainscow, 2020; Montalbano et al., 2024; OECD, 2022). While formal policy frameworks are essential, international experience shows that they often encounter implementation gaps unless supported by organisational structures that promote collaboration, pedagogical innovation, and shared responsibility.

A recurrent feature of high-performing inclusive systems is the presence of multidisciplinary teams that coordinate educational responses at the school level. In Italy, the Gruppi di Lavoro per l’Inclusione have been shown to strengthen collaborative planning and reduce early school leaving among students with additional needs (Ianes et al., 2020). In Spain, the Equipos de Orientación Educativa serve as the principal structure linking mainstream teaching staff with specialised support services, enabling coordinated and timely responses to diverse learner needs (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, n.d.). These teams typically integrate teachers, special educators, psychologists, and social workers, fostering collective problem-solving, personalised support plans, and early intervention strategies. Evaluations of these models underline their role in breaking down professional silos and ensuring that decisions are informed by diverse expertise (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2020).

The EMAEI model in Portugal reflects this collaborative DNA. Established under Decree-Law 54/2018 and adapted in Madeira through Regional Legislative Decree 11/2020/M, EMAEI bring together professionals from different fields—special education, mainstream teaching, psychology, and school leadership—to plan, monitor, and coordinate inclusive measures. This approach is consistent with Nordic education systems, where proximity-based collaboration, shared planning time, co-teaching, and Universal Design for Learning frameworks are used to remove barriers to participation (CAST, 2024; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Evidence from Portugal and other contexts indicates that such teams, when operating in a supportive policy environment and with access to sustained professional development, can substantially enhance teacher capacity to differentiate instruction, design flexible learning pathways, and respond effectively to the needs of all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Hehir et al., 2016). Co-teaching emerges as a particularly high-impact practice when embedded in school culture, supported by leadership, and backed by sufficient time and resources (Montalbano et al., 2024).

This review therefore positions EMAEI both as a distinctive national innovation—tailored to Portugal’s legislative and educational landscape—and as part of a broader set of international strategies aimed at translating inclusive education from policy into everyday classroom practice. For such structures to be effective, they must be embedded within coherent systems of leadership, resource allocation, and professional learning that are responsive to the specific contexts in which schools operate.

3. Methods

This case study (Stake, 2007; Yin, 2005) adopts a mixed-methods approach of a predominantly qualitative nature (Flick, 2009; Fortin, 2009), complemented by descriptive statistical analysis, to understand how inclusive policies are implemented in the context of secondary schools in the Autonomous Region of Madeira. This approach seeks to capture, on the one hand, the complexity of the normative and political framework that guides inclusive education in Portugal and, on the other, to collect and interpret the perceptions of professionals directly involved in implementing measures that support learning and inclusion.

The data-collection techniques were: (i) documentary analysis of national and regional legislation on inclusive education; and (ii) administration of a questionnaire survey to the coordinators of the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education, which constitutes the empirical basis of the study.

3.1. Documentary Analysis

The documentary analysis focused on national and regional documentary and normative sources, namely:

(i).

Relevant legal instruments: Decree-Law No. 54/2018 of 6 July and Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M;

(ii).

Technical guidance documents from the Directorate-General for Education (DGE) and the Madeira Regional Directorate for Education (DRE);

(iii).

Reports from international organizations emphasize the OECD report Review of Inclusive Education in Portugal (OECD, 2022).

This analysis made it possible to understand the evolution of the normative framework and the developmental trajectory of inclusive policies in Portugal, providing a basis for interpreting the empirical data. The documentary analysis followed Bardin’s (1995) qualitative content analysis method, using thematic categorization and comparative examination of national and regional legislative texts, official guidelines, and OECD reports.

3.2. Questionnaire Survey

To capture the EMAEI coordinators’ perceptions regarding the implementation of the inclusive model in their schools, a questionnaire was developed, grounded in theoretical frameworks (Alves, 2019; Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Florian, 2008) and guidelines from the DGE (2023).

The questionnaire comprised items organized around five dimensions:

• Principles and values of inclusive education;
• School leadership and organization;
• Continuing professional development;
• Availability of resources;
• Diagnosis of barriers to learning and inclusion.

The items were presented on a three-point Likert scale (Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree), allowing the degree of agreement with statements representing inclusive practices to be assessed.

To enhance the instrument’s validity, the questionnaire underwent a process of content validation through expert review by one specialist in inclusive education and educational policy. In addition, a pilot test was conducted with a small group of coordinators from schools not included in the final sample. Feedback from this phase was used to refine the wording and clarity of the items.

3.3. Sample and Procedures

The sample comprised EMAEI coordinators from 11 of the 14 secondary schools in the Autonomous Region of Madeira (79% of the total), selected for their accessibility and active involvement in implementing inclusive policies. Percentages reported in the results are calculated as n/N, where n represents the number of coordinators selecting a given option and N = 11. Given the exploratory nature of the study and logistical constraints, data collection relied exclusively on the questionnaire. This limits the depth of personal testimonies but allowed for coverage of a large proportion of the region’s secondary schools.

The survey was distributed in digital format between April and May 2024, with anonymity and data confidentiality guaranteed under Law No. 58/2019 of 8 August, which implements, in the national legal order, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation).

The response rate was considered satisfactory for exploratory purposes, yielding an approximate return rate of 79%.

3.4. Data Analysis and Processing

The data collected were analyzed through content analysis (Bardin, 1995) and descriptive statistics, using IBM SPSS Statistics, 27.0.1.0. The study was based on the calculation of absolute and relative frequencies, enabling the identification of the main response trends of the participants in each dimension of the questionnaire. This approach was intended to rigorously characterize the perception and opinion patterns of the EMAEI coordinators regarding the implementation of inclusive policies in secondary schools in the Autonomous Region of Madeira. The interpretation of the results followed an integrative logic, articulating the empirical analysis with the literature review and legal frameworks, thereby allowing triangulation between discourse, practice, and institutional context.

4. Results

The presentation of results is organized into three sections: (i) the evolution of inclusion policies in Portugal; (ii) the evolution of inclusion policies in the Autonomous Region of Madeira; and (iii) a descriptive analysis of the perceptions of the coordinators of the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education regarding the implementation of the inclusive education model in Madeira’s secondary schools. Analyzing the responses enables identifying (dis)agreement patterns concerning the principal axes of inclusive policy: guiding principles, internal school organization, resource provision, continuous professional development, and mechanisms of leadership and multidisciplinary coordination.

4.1. Evolution of Inclusion Policies in Portugal

The trajectory of inclusive education in Portugal has evolved markedly over the last six decades, reflecting a progressive shift from segregated, welfare-oriented models to a systemic, rights-based approach that values diversity.

During the 1960s and 1970s, educational provision for children with disabilities in Portugal was primarily delegated to specialized institutions—often philanthropic or associative—operating on the margins of the public education system. The State played only a residual role, and school integration was rare, typically confined to pilot experiences that lacked a robust legal framework.

Following the advent of democracy in 1974, the first legislative efforts emerged to promote the integration of pupils with disabilities into regular schools. In 1976, the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic stipulated that “the State shall pursue a national policy for the prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and integration of persons with disabilities” (Article 71) and that “everyone has the right to education, with a guarantee of equal opportunities for access and academic success” (Article 74). Decree-Law No. 174/77 of 2 May provided the first formal recognition of the need for differentiated educational measures, though anchored in a selective, restrictive medical-clinical logic focused on pupils deemed “integrable.” Rodrigues (2006) notes that this phase was still constrained by disability categories and diagnostic criteria that effectively excluded many pupils with educational needs.

The 1980s saw significant normative advances. The Education System Framework Law (Law No. 46/86 of 14 October) marked a turning point by enshrining in Article 17 the principle of school and social integration for pupils with disabilities, preferably in mainstream settings, thus reinforcing the education system’s responsibility to provide appropriate responses for all learners. Decree-Law No. 88/85 of 1 April also expanded special-education provision beyond the limits of the 1977 decree.

The most significant qualitative leap came with Decree-Law No. 319/91 of 23 August, which incorporated the Warnock Report’s contributions (DES, 1978) and, for the first time, introduced the concept of special educational needs (SEN) into Portuguese legislation. This decree broke with the clinical-diagnosis tradition, adopted a pedagogical perspective on needs, and decreed that all pupils should be educated in regular classes with appropriate supports regardless of condition. This change launched Portugal’s Inclusive School, anchored in curricular flexibility and school responsibility for diversity (Rodrigues, 2001).

The ensuing period consolidated this paradigm shift. Portugal became a signatory to the Salamanca Statement in 1994, committing to its principles of inclusive education. In line with that commitment, Joint Dispatch No. 105/97 reorganized educational-support services, promoting local intervention and multidisciplinary teamwork. The emphasis shifted to curriculum adaptation, the organization of supports, and creating conditions for responses within mainstream schools, thus focusing on school-centred solutions rather than treating the pupil as the problem (Ainscow et al., 2006). By the late 1990s, Portugal had a progressive normative framework that combined Decree-Law No. 319/91 with new mechanisms rooted in curricular flexibility and pedagogical differentiation.

In the early twenty-first century, Portuguese inclusive policy was reconfigured by Decree-Law No. 3/2008 of 7 January, establishing an updated legal regime for special education aligned with the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This decree introduced stricter criteria for access to special-education measures, reserving them for pupils with significant and permanent activity- and participation-related limitations. While it brought greater objectivity to resource allocation, it also drew criticism for excluding pupils with mild learning difficulties (Rodrigues, 2006).

Despite the controversies, the 2008 policy consolidated inclusive practices—creating specialized units in some schools (e.g., units for pupils with multiple disabilities or autism within mainstream settings) and strengthening collaboration between schools and health/social-security services for therapeutic supports. Portugal also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) in 2009, reinforcing its legal commitment to an inclusive education system at all levels.

A more profound paradigmatic shift occurred with Decree-Law No. 54/2018 of 6 July (Portugal, 2018a), which establishes the Legal Framework for Inclusive Education and definitively moves away from the traditional concept of “special education” to embrace “inclusive education.” The decree rejects prior categorization as a precondition for support, recognizing that any pupil may need support at some point in their schooling.

Among the principles and provisions introduced by Decree-Law No. 54/2018 are methodologies such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and a multi-tiered curriculum approach. The decree defines three tiers of support measures to be mobilized according to individual needs:

(i).

Universal Measures—proactive strategies and supports for all pupils, provided by the school to promote participation and improve learning within the classroom (e.g., pedagogical differentiation, peer tutoring, class-wide assessment adaptations);

(ii).

Selective Measures—interventions for pupils or groups whose needs are not met by universal measures, providing additional, moderately intensive, typically temporary or intermittent supports (e.g., specialized tutoring, subject-specific reinforcement groups, occasional psycho-pedagogical support);

(iii).

Additional Measures—intensive, continuous supports for pupils with persistent needs in communication, interaction, cognition, or learning that require specialized resources to ensure inclusion (e.g., an individual-specific curriculum, assistive technologies, occupational or speech therapy within the school, support from special-education teachers).

By discarding the former “special-education categories,” Decree-Law No. 54/2018 seeks to eliminate barriers and “ghettos” within schools, promoting a fully inclusive school model. This legal framework applies to all mainstream public, private, and cooperative institutions, from pre-school to upper-secondary education. Implementation was supported by a Practice Support Manual and teacher-training initiatives, given the significant change in practice.

To realize this vision, the decree created structures such as the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education in each school cluster/school and the Learning Support Centres, conceived as organizational resources that integrate support services (psychology, guidance, special education, etc.) within each school. Decree-Law No. 54/2018 was amended by Law No. 116/2019 of 13 September, introducing adjustments and clarifications (e.g., monitoring and evaluating measures).

In 2022, the OECD reviewed Portugal’s inclusive-education policies and observed that, although advanced, the new legislation is sometimes interpreted in schools as merely another special-education regulation, and certain earlier practices have not been eliminated. Nevertheless, Portugal now has one of Europe’s most comprehensive and modern legal frameworks for inclusive education.

4.2. Evolution of Inclusion Policies in the Autonomous Region of Madeira

Over recent decades, the Autonomous Region of Madeira has distinguished itself as a pioneering and innovative territory in constructing inclusion-oriented educational policies (Camacho, 2019). Drawing on the legislative autonomy it enjoys in education, the RAM has sought not merely to transpose the principles enshrined in national legislation but also to deepen them, adopting organizational and pedagogical solutions tailored to its territorial, social, and institutional specificities.

This normative adaptation has been accompanied by an ongoing political commitment to the values of inclusion, equity, and participation, in line with the international instruments ratified by Portugal, such as the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006).

During the 1980s, Madeira embarked on a distinctive path in special education, creating in-school support structures and specialized resource centres that, in many respects, anticipated national models. With the reinforcement of international commitments in the 1990s, the Region reorganized pedagogical-support services, promoting more integrated, school-centred interventions and collaboration among educational stakeholders. This trajectory reveals a progressive transition from welfare-oriented models to an approach centred on inclusion and educational justice.

The RAM also pioneered complementary initiatives with significant impact on strengthening inclusion, such as regional early-intervention programmes, adaptive-technology resource centres, and inter-institutional projects to support the transition of pupils with disabilities to post-school life. These initiatives reflect a broad conception of inclusion that extends beyond school walls to foster pupils’ full participation in social, family, and professional contexts. Collaboration with health, social-security, and employment services—underpinned by institutional protocols—reinforces the inter-sectoral nature of the inclusive response, assumed as a shared responsibility of the entire educational community and the regional social system.

This effort culminated in Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M of 29 July, which adapted to the RAM the regimes set out in Decree-Law No. 54/2018 of 6 July (as amended by Law No. 116/2019 of 13 September) and Decree-Law No. 55/2018 of 6 July (which establishes the curricula for basic and upper-secondary education and the guiding principles for learning assessment). This regional decree constitutes a significant act of autonomous appropriation and development of educational policy, incorporating national guidelines while introducing differentiating elements that underscore the Region’s strategic commitment to educational equity. Its stated priority is to deepen the democratization of schooling by providing all children and pupils with quality education that mitigates initial inequalities and guarantees everyone an effective right to equal opportunities for academic success—in short, to place inclusion and equity at the heart of regional educational policies.

All public schools in the RAM have been challenged to flexibilise pupils’ learning pathways to accommodate diverse profiles, needs, and contexts. Official discourse emphasizes that an inclusive school is characterized by diversity, flexibility, innovation, and personalization, eliminating barriers to curriculum access and adjusting learning to every pupil’s profile. With this legislation, Madeira has continued implementing a new organizational conception of schooling, investing in greater school autonomy and the active participation of all stakeholders (teachers, specialists, families, and the wider community) in creating genuinely inclusive learning environments.

Among the most innovative elements of Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M is the formalization of Specific Resources to Support Learning and Inclusion (Article 6), namely:

(a)

Special-education teachers;

(b)

Portuguese Sign Language teachers;

(c)

Specialized higher-level technicians;

(d)

Technical and operational assistants for specialized educational support;

(e)

The Multidisciplinary Team to Support Inclusive Education;

(f)

The Learning Support Centre;

(g)

Reference schools in the field of visual impairment;

(h)

Reference schools for bilingual education of deaf pupils;

(i)

Special-education institutions;

(j)

Specialized educational-resource centres;

(k)

The early-childhood intervention team.

(Article 6(1) of Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M)

These resources are organized according to a logic of proximity and coordination, responding to schools’ needs in a contextualized and integrated manner. This operationalizes the principle of tailoring educational responses to contexts, as Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) advocated in their concept of responsive inclusive pedagogy.

A further structural aspect is the role assigned to the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education. These teams are conceived as core technical-pedagogical structures responsible for planning, monitoring, and evaluating support measures for learning and inclusion, and coordinating the school’s specialized services (special education, psychology, vocational guidance, therapies, and social support).

Under Article 7 of Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M, each EMAEI must comprise at least three or seven members, depending on the school’s size and type. Its permanent members include:

(a)

The head teacher, chair of the management body, or a representative designated by them;

(b)

One special-education teacher;

(c)

One to three members of the school council or one to four members of the pedagogical council with coordination duties across different educational levels;

(d)

One psychologist.

The multidisciplinary composition of these teams embodies the understanding of inclusion as a collective, integrated responsibility, transcending segmented approaches centred solely on specialized intervention. As Booth and Ainscow (2016) stress, the effectiveness of inclusive policies depends on schools’ internal coordination and capacity for collaborative work on diversity. EMAEIs play a strategic role within this framework, promoting coordinated, contextualized educational responses grounded in equity and personalization.

The consolidation of Learning Support Centres is also noteworthy. In the RAM, these are conceived as physical spaces and hubs that mobilize integrated human and pedagogical resources. Learning Support Centres liaise with mainstream teachers, foster collaborative classroom practices, and house specialized pupil support services. This design gives practical expression to the principles of Universal Design for Learning and the multi-tiered approach, pillars of the current inclusive regime (Ainscow, 2020; CAST, 2024).

On the professional-development front, the Regional Secretariat for Education, Science and Technology has sought to ensure regular continuing education for all staff (teaching and non-teaching), recognizing that professional learning is a prerequisite for changing practice (Florian, 2014; Rodrigues, 2011). Although participation and impact remain uneven, the Region’s investment in capacity-building is evident.

To facilitate implementation, the Secretariat published a guidance manual—Nos caminhos do sucesso e da inclusão: Referenciais e Práticas (DRE, 2020)—alongside specific guidance documents. This manual has proved fundamental in clarifying legal concepts and translating Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M into pedagogical practice, giving schools a concrete, contextualized reference for organizing educational responses. In parallel, the RAM has established inter-institutional protocols with health, social security, and justice bodies, promoting an integrated, inter-sectoral approach to pupils’ needs. These partnerships reflect a broad conception of inclusion as a collective responsibility that transcends the school’s physical space and mobilizes the entire educational community, fostering social cohesion, institutional collaboration, and shared accountability for every pupil’s success.

In sum, the RAM has positioned itself as a territory of inclusive innovation, investing in intermediate support structures, professional capacity-building, inter-professional collaboration, and the creation of its regulatory instruments. These elements demonstrate consistent alignment with international frameworks and a clear political will to realize, contextualized and sustainable, the ideal of a school for all.

4.3. Survey Data from EMAEI Coordinators

Analyzing the data collected from the coordinators of the Multidisciplinary Teams to Support Inclusive Education makes it possible to understand the perceptions and experiences of the professionals on the front line of operationalizing the inclusive education model in secondary schools in the Autonomous Region of Madeira. These actors play a fundamental role in mediating between legal frameworks and everyday educational practices, and their voices are essential for assessing the extent to which normative principles are being implemented in the real context of schools.

4.3.1. Participant Profile

The sociodemographic and professional data of the sample indicate an experienced and stable group of coordinators—characteristics that favour the accumulation of professional knowledge and an in-depth understanding of educational contexts. The majority (73%) are female and they have an average age of 48 years, with around 23 years of service, of which approximately 17 have been spent in their current school (

Table 1. Personal and professional characteristics of EMAEI coordinators.

Personal and Professional Data
Age	48 years
Years of service (average)	23.5 years
Years of service at current school (average)	16.7 years

Source: Author’s elaboration.

). This lengthy tenure within the same institutions reveals a necessary situated capital of experience, indispensable for a context-specific understanding of inclusion.

Regarding basic training, the diversity of profiles is noteworthy: 46% are special-education teachers, 36% are mainstream-education teachers, and 18% are psychologists (Figure 1). This heterogeneity highlights the teams’ multidisciplinary character and signals a positive sharing of responsibilities, counteracting a traditional view of inclusion focused exclusively on the specialist. As Florian and Rouse (2009) suggest, effective inclusion policy depends on the collaboration of multiple areas of expertise rather than the delegation of functions to a single professional.

4.3.2. Principles and Culture of Inclusive Education

Concerning the principles and culture of inclusive education dimension (Figure 2), participants expressed a very high degree of consensus on the ethical and political role of inclusion: 91% of respondents agreed that “Inclusive education is a commitment to eliminate discrimination and stereotypes and to ensure the rights of all students.” This finding evidences strong alignment with the social-justice principles underpinning the inclusive paradigm.

Although the majority acknowledges the transformative nature of inclusion, a small percentage (9%) does not share this view, which may reflect cultural resistance or more restrictive interpretations of the concept of inclusion.

All respondents recognize the usefulness of the Inclusive Education Support Manual, yet only just over half (55%) regard it as indispensable. This suggests that, while the resource is valued, the internalization of inclusive principles may also occur through other avenues, such as professional development, practical experience, or engagement with legislation.

These results underscore the importance of continuous professional training, access to high-quality pedagogical resources, and the empowerment of school leadership in driving inclusive transformation.

4.3.3. Organization and Collaborative Practices

Regarding the dimension of organization and collaborative practices (Figure 3), the data reveal a school structure that values inclusion and invests in collaborative practices, albeit with asymmetries in how firmly those practices are embedded. The findings show robust appreciation for the role of the EMAEI, which is recognized as an essential pillar of the organizational architecture of the inclusive school, as well as for the EMAEI coordinator’s function. With more than 90% agreement, participants identify the team’s coordinating role as strategic for aligning support measures, facilitating dialogue among the various educational agents (teachers, specialists, external services), and managing provision, in line with Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M and the multidisciplinary-response model advocated by Florian (2014).

Nevertheless, the effective implementation of collaborative practices, such as joint planning and co-teaching, is not yet fully embedded as a consistent pedagogical practice. Although acknowledged, only a minority (27% and 36%) state that these practices are fully systematized and widespread. This suggests that participatory curriculum-management practices are developing but not yet universal or systematically implemented. Such a finding points to the operational and cultural obstacles already identified in the literature (Ainscow, 2020; Florian, 2014), including rigid teaching schedules, disciplinary compartmentalization, and a shortage of formal spaces for collaboration.

These data reinforce the need for on-site professional development, the creation of formal time slots and structures for collaborative planning, and clarification of the roles of the different actors involved in the pedagogical management of diversity.

4.3.4. Continuing Professional Development

Regarding the continuing professional development dimension (Figure 4), in-service training is critical. Although the majority (64%) acknowledge the existence of training initiatives in the field of inclusion, a significant proportion of respondents (27% and 18%) consider these opportunities irregular, insufficient, or poorly tailored to day-to-day school needs. This finding suggests that training opportunities are not uniformly accessible or visible to all professionals, possibly reflecting communication issues, a lack of institutional coordination, or unequal access among schools or professional groups.

Thus, while training in inclusive education is recognized, weaknesses are identified in its reach and the effective participation of all school actors. The discrepancy between the perception of provision and the perception of engagement points to the need to rethink the training strategy, ensuring that it is not only available but also accessible, continuous, contextualized, and inclusive of every member of the educational community.

Such evidence reinforces calls in the literature (Ainscow, 2020; Florian, 2014) and the OECD report (OECD, 2022), which underline the centrality of situated, ongoing training oriented toward concrete pedagogical challenges. The fact that many professionals do not feel sufficiently prepared indicates that investment in professional development cannot be viewed as ancillary but must be treated as a structural component of public policies for inclusive education.

4.3.5. Resource Management

One of the areas in which dissatisfaction is most evident concerns resource management (Figure 5). Most respondents (73%) emphasize that the resources allocated by the supervising authorities do not always correspond to the actual needs identified by school teams. This finding highlights a mismatch between internal diagnoses and politico-administrative decisions on resource allocation. This may affect the implementation of support measures for learning and inclusion, compromising the school’s capacity to provide appropriate responses for all pupils.

In addition, the slowness of resource-allocation processes can be identified as a risk factor for the continuity of support. This situation may prove particularly problematic for pupils with urgent or complex needs.

These weaknesses reiterate the need for more agile and context-responsive resource-management mechanisms, in line with Article 6 of Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M and with the arguments advanced by several authors (Ainscow, 2020; OECD, 2022; Slee, 2011), who underscore the importance of resource-management models that are flexible, transparent, and tailored to local contexts, grounded in collaborative diagnoses and permanent monitoring mechanisms.

4.3.6. Leadership, Diagnosis, and Barriers to Learning and Inclusion

The data collected reveal a strong perception of the active role of school leadership in fostering inclusion and a positive assessment of schools’ capacity to diagnose pupils’ needs (Figure 6).

There is broad agreement on the pivotal role of head teachers as leaders of the inclusion process: about 91% of respondents acknowledge their involvement in creating the conditions for collaborative work among the various professionals in the school. This finding underscores the importance of school leadership as the driving force behind an inclusive organizational culture, consistent with Booth and Ainscow (2002) and Ainscow (2020), who highlight the strategic role of school management in mobilizing multidisciplinary teams and implementing inclusion policies.

The data also indicate that schools generally possess mechanisms for identifying barriers to learning, although the degree to which these processes are systematized varies. In comparison, most respondents (64%) recognize the institutional capacity to carry out such diagnoses, but not all consider the process sufficiently effective or well aligned with support measures. It is possible that the identification of barriers still depends on the availability of specialized resources or each school’s organizational maturity. This aspect relates to the practical application of the universal, selective, and additional measures model established in Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M.

This situation suggests the need to strengthen the training of technical and teaching staff in the use of available instruments and to ensure the existence of dedicated time and structures for the systematic follow-up of complex cases. Correctly identifying barriers is the basis for selecting appropriate measures; without it, the system loses effectiveness and equity. In this sense, the success of inclusion appears to depend on the interplay between leadership, context-specific diagnosis, and responsive pedagogical practices (Florian, 2008; Slee, 2011).

5. Discussion

This discussion examines each main finding in light of the Portuguese and Madeiran policy framework, integrating specific quantitative results from the study and recent literature to identify both enabling factors and persistent barriers. The analysis connects the empirical findings with the normative framework at national and regional levels and with current specialised literature on inclusive policies. The results outline a panorama in which significant advances in the assimilation of inclusion principles coexist with structural limitations that hinder their full realisation.

5.1. Commitment to the Principles of Inclusion

A strong majority (91%) of coordinators affirmed that inclusive education is a commitment to eliminating discrimination and ensuring the rights of all students, consistent with the ethical foundations of Decree-Law No. 54/2018 and the OECD (2022) recommendations, which breaks with pupil-categorization models in favour of a pedagogical approach rooted in diversity (Booth & Ainscow, 2016; Florian, 2014).

By adapting this national framework through Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M, the Autonomous Region of Madeira reaffirms its alignment with the international principles set out in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015), and recent OECD guidance (OECD, 2022). Inclusion thus ceases to be a project for the few and becomes the structural condition of a school for all. As authors such as Booth and Ainscow (2002, 2016) emphasized, an inclusive school must be structured as a space that welcomes every learner and builds differentiated pedagogical responses around collaboration, equity, and social justice.

Nevertheless, although the legislative principles are widely endorsed, their practical enactment remains uneven, as literature warns that inclusion cannot be achieved solely by decree but requires cultural and organisational transformation (Ainscow, 2020; Slee, 2011; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). This finding reinforces that policy alignment, while necessary, is not sufficient to drive meaningful change; it requires sustained investment in cultural transformation, shared professional accountability, and inclusive practices embedded across the whole school community.

It is also important to acknowledge that EMAEI coordinators, while acting as key mediators between policy and practice, may face institutional pressures that influence their reporting. Their accounts reflect professional perceptions rather than direct observation of all classroom practices, and the absence of triangulation with perspectives from other stakeholders—such as mainstream teachers, students, and families—represents a limitation. Future research could address this gap by incorporating mixed-method approaches, including interviews or focus groups, to capture a more nuanced and multifaceted understanding of inclusion in everyday school life.

5.2. Collaborative Practices: Potentialities and Obstacles

One of the study’s most consistent findings concerns the value accorded to collaborative practices as a strategic lever for inclusion. Over 90% recognised EMAEI as key for coordinating inclusive measures, yet only 27% reported that co-teaching is fully systematised, and 36% indicated the same for joint planning. Pedagogical co-teaching, understood as joint work between special-education teachers and mainstream teachers in the classroom, is one of the key strategies envisaged in inclusive-education legislation. The coordinators recognize co-teaching, shared planning, and differentiated in-class support as pedagogical instruments that foster the participation of all pupils. This view aligns with the multi-tiered approach proposed by Decree-Law No. 54/2018 and further developed in Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M, emphasizing diversified pedagogical responses and shared teacher responsibility.

However, the data reveal that the institutionalisation of these practices remains limited. Organizational barriers to systematizing such practices persist, often linked to time management, rigid timetables, the absence of formal spaces for joint planning, and workload pressures—factors repeatedly identified by authors such as Booth and Ainscow (2016), Hehir et al. (2016) and Montalbano et al. (2024). The existing legal framework already provides scope for curricular flexibility and teamwork (Silva & Fraga, 2021, 2022), suggesting these limitations are primarily organisational and cultural, requiring changes in time allocation and collaborative planning norms. Given that only 27% of schools report having fully systematised co-teaching, there is a need to institutionalise dedicated shared-planning time and formally recognise co-teaching as an integral component of teachers’ regular workload. This gap mirrors challenges documented in other European contexts (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017), indicating that without institutionalised time and structural support, collaborative approaches risk remaining ad hoc rather than embedded.

5.3. Continuing Professional Development: Between Intention and Reality

Continuing professional development (CPD) is regarded as essential, yet 64% acknowledged existing opportunities, 27% considered them irregular, and 18% insufficient. Despite initiatives promoted by the Regional Directorate of Education and training centres, these are not always sufficient, regular, or aligned with schools’ needs.

Montalbano et al. (2024) highlight that flexible, practice-based CPD on co-teaching, Universal Design for Learning, and differentiation improves teacher competence. This reinforces the need for school-embedded training pathways, designed around real classroom challenges. The gap between statutory intent and everyday reality weakens schools’ ability to address growing complexity, echoing OECD (2022) findings, which identifies teacher training as one of the system’s weak points and recommends sustained, context-based professional-development programmes. As Florian and Rouse (2009) argue, CPD should foster reflective capacity and the collective construction of pedagogical solutions in authentic contexts, rather than merely conveying technical knowledge. These findings are consistent with international evidence showing that collaborative, sustained professional learning communities are pivotal to enacting inclusive practices and reducing barriers to participation (Hudson, 2023; Holmqvist & Lelinge, 2020; Walton et al., 2019).

5.4. Resources: Insufficiency and Ineffectiveness of the Allocation Model

Although regional legislation explicitly guarantees the provision of specialised resources to support learning and inclusion, a substantial proportion of coordinators (73%) reported that the allocations made to their schools do not consistently match identified needs.

Article 6 of Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M explicitly provides specific resources for learning and inclusion, specialized teachers, higher-level technicians, operational assistants with targeted training, adapted equipment, and structures such as Learning Support Centres. While these provisions reflect a clear institutional effort to secure adequate support, respondents emphasised persistent shortcomings in both the adequacy and stability of these resources.

In reviewing Portugal’s inclusive policy, OECD (2022) emphasises flexible allocation adapted to local contexts—a recommendation especially relevant for ultraperipheral regions like Madeira. Comparative research shows that decentralised, needs-based allocation models, as implemented in Finland and New Zealand, can improve responsiveness and equity (Mitchell, 2020). This suggests that Madeira’s allocation system could benefit from incorporating more localised decision-making and contingency planning to address fluctuations in need.

This pattern of mismatch between needs and provision is consistent with findings from international studies that warn of the risk of inclusive education policies becoming rhetorical when not accompanied by adequate, timely, and context-sensitive resources (OECD, 2022; Slee, 2011). Addressing this gap demands stronger planning and monitoring mechanisms capable of dynamically adjusting resource allocation to evolving school realities, ensuring that educational equity is not undermined by structural inflexibility.

6. Conclusions and Implications for Practice

The findings of this study highlight significant progress in consolidating an inclusive education policy in Portugal, with particular emphasis on the Autonomous Region of Madeira. National legislation, embodied in Decree-Law No. 54/2018, and its regional adaptation, enshrined in Regional Legislative Decree No. 11/2020/M, express a clear commitment to equity, inclusion, and social justice principles. These legal landmarks position Portugal among the European countries with the most progressive policies in this field, in line with international normative frameworks. Nevertheless, the empirical results reveal a tension between the legal framework and everyday reality in schools, marked by gaps between policy aspirations and their consistent enactment in pedagogical practice. This tension exposes structural contradictions that affect the coherence, effectiveness, and sustainability of the support measures for inclusion and learning.

The main challenges identified concern the scarcity and instability of human and technical resources, weaknesses in continuing professional development, difficulties in institutionalizing collaborative practices such as co-teaching, and variability in the depth of commitment to inclusion among different schools and leadership teams. These findings indicate that implementing an inclusive policy requires more robust organizational and structural conditions to underpin the transformation of pedagogical practices. As noted by Florian (2008), Ainscow (2020), and Booth and Ainscow (2016) inclusion is not achieved by legislation alone: it demands coherent policies, adequate resources, ongoing training, and school cultures that value difference.

In line with the evidence gathered, several strategic priorities emerge.

Strengthening initial and continuing training for all education professionals is essential, with the principles of inclusive pedagogy and collaborative work embedded across teacher education programmes and ongoing development opportunities that are problem-oriented and situated in real school contexts. This training should extend to teachers, specialists, operational assistants, and school leaders, ensuring a shared and integrated vision of inclusion. Promoting partnerships between universities, training centres, and schools can anchor professional learning in the concrete challenges faced by teaching teams.

A second priority concerns the stabilisation and adaptation of organisational, human, material, and technical resources. Allocation criteria should reflect the complexity of school needs rather than rely exclusively on standard ratios, while the qualification and recognition of operational assistants and other professionals working in Learning Support Centres and EMAEI should be enhanced. Mechanisms for the prompt replacement of absent teachers and specialists are necessary, along with contingency planning to address the logistical challenges of ultraperipheral regions.

Institutionalising collaborative practices and co-teaching as regular, recognised components of teachers’ workloads is another crucial step. Shared planning time for all professionals involved in supporting inclusion and learning should be guaranteed, and effective monitoring tools with indicators centred on pupils’ participation and success should be developed. Targeted mentoring can further support teams implementing co-teaching for the first time, ensuring quality and sustainability.

Inclusive school leadership also requires attention. Leadership-training programmes should include specific content on inclusive leadership, participatory management, and organisational culture, while encouraging democratic school-management practices and self-evaluation processes involving the whole educational community. School leaders should act as mediators between the legal framework and their school’s needs, with evaluation processes explicitly recognising practices that promote equity and inclusion.

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms must be strengthened to track the implementation of support measures for inclusion and learning, combining qualitative and quantitative indicators. Data should be used not only to assess but also to adjust public policies and school practices within a continuous-improvement framework, with EMAEI coordinators actively contributing to these feedback processes.

Finally, inter-sectoral coordination should be bolstered through local networks that connect schools with health services, social-security agencies, and municipalities. The creation of multidisciplinary teams capable of providing integrated responses to the diverse needs of pupils and families, supported by data-sharing protocols that respect privacy, can significantly enhance the coherence and effectiveness of inclusive education efforts.

Consolidating a truly inclusive school demands sustained investment in people, time, structures, and an educational ethos that recognizes the value of every learner without exception. The complexity of implementing inclusive policies does not diminish their worth; on the contrary, it is within that complexity that the challenge of educational justice resides: building learning environments where every pupil can learn, participate, and realize their potential. This research demonstrates that the challenge remains urgent, legitimate, and attainable.