Inclusion Across Educational Levels: Cultural Differences in the Attitudes of Jewish and Arab Teachers in Elementary, Middle, and High Schools

Abstract

This study examined cultural differences in teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in Jewish and Arab Israeli schools. We explored whether cultural differences influence attitudes and perceptions, considering the distinct educational contexts and cultural values. The research involved 1191 teachers who completed an inclusion questionnaire. Jewish teachers rated inclusion more positively across all domains, with no significant differences between school levels. Arab teachers showed more positive attitudes in elementary schools, but these declined in high schools, reflecting cultural tendencies toward community-oriented practices at the primary level. The study highlights the role of cultural values, such as collectivism in Arab communities, in shaping educational practices and underscores the impact of sociocultural dynamics on the success of inclusive education.

1. Introduction

As elsewhere, inclusive education is a key objective of the Israeli educational system, and under the Inclusion Law, the integration of students with disabilities into regular schools has been taking place in Israel for three decades (Gavish, 2017; Heiman & Avissar, 2024). The goal of inclusive education is to ensure that all students, including those with special needs, are fully engaged in the regular educational system, achieving optimal levels of presence, participation, and learning (Menzin et al., 2024). Although the Inclusion Law was revised in 2018 to improve inclusion, studies show it is not carried out optimally on academic, social, or personal levels (Aderet-German, 2023; Huri & Shoshana, 2024). Explanations of ongoing issues include the fact that teaching has shifted from addressing a uniform group of students to working with a diverse group. Teaching methods have evolved, and educators are required to adapt instructional materials. Additionally, teachers who once managed their classrooms independently now need to collaborate with special education teachers and paraprofessionals (Jury et al., 2023).

An important way to achieve the goal of inclusion is to foster positive attitudes among teachers (Gülsün et al., 2023; Madar & Danoch, 2024). The literature indicates that teachers’ attitudes are influenced by the amount of training they receive and their interaction with students with special educational needs (Avramidis & Toulia, 2020; Jury et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2024). We examined teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities in their classrooms and tried to understand whether their perception of and commitment to inclusion was affected by cultural characteristics and school structure. More specifically, we examined the differences between Arab and Jewish teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion based on their school type (elementary/middle/high school). We sought to identify where challenges exist in the perception and implementation of inclusion and suggest ways to improve inclusion processes.

1.1. Inclusion Reform in Israel

In Israel, inclusion encompasses full inclusion in regular classrooms, partial inclusion where students split their time between regular and special classrooms, and special classrooms in regular schools, with integration occurring during breaks and social activities (Gavish, 2017; Madar & Danoch, 2024). The 2018 Inclusion Law grants children with disabilities the right to an education equal to that of other students (Huri & Shoshana, 2024; Klarsfeld & Kay, 2022). The reform introduced two key components: state funding for special education and parental choice in selecting the educational framework for their children, whether a special education school or a regular school (Blass, 2022). In regular schools, most teachers have not undergone training in special education, and they lack knowledge, tools, skills, and support (Brownell et al., 2018; Florian, 2014; Subarna et al., 2022; Van Staden-Payne & Nel, 2023), making their attitudes crucial for the successful implementation of the reform (Crispel & Kasperski, 2021; Kamran et al., 2023).

1.2. Cultural Aspects of Education in Israel

In Israel, the majority of Jewish and Arab students attend ethnically segregated schools (Levy, 2023). According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (2024), 73.2% of Israel’s 9.8 million residents are Jews, 21.1% are Arab-Muslims, Arab-Christians, or Druze, and 5.7% are ‘others’. In 2024, the Israeli education system had about 2 million students: 1,174,000 in elementary school, 514,000 in middle school, 335,000 in high school. There were 210,000 teachers: 164,399 teaching in Jewish schools and 45,937 in Arab schools (Donitsa-Schmidt, 2024). About 80% of all teachers are female.

We focused on two school types considered to represent minority groups in the Israeli school system: state religious schools (18%) and Arab schools (22%). Both societies are traditional, patriarchal, and religious. They are similar in terms of the impact society and family have on the individual. In both cases, attitudes towards people with disabilities are more negative than in non-traditional societies (Aldosari, 2022).

The Israeli education system is designed to accommodate the needs of a diverse society, offering a range of educational options based on varying levels of religious and secular studies (Donitsa-Schmidt, 2024). Most Jewish students attend state schools. Their curriculum is largely secular; about 75% of the content is mandated by the state; the remaining 25% comprises supplementary studies (Zeedan & Hogan, 2022). These schools focus on academic subjects, such as mathematics, science, and the humanities (Donitsa-Schmidt, 2024). State religious schools incorporate Jewish studies and religious observance into their curriculum, with daily prayers and a stronger emphasis on Jewish tradition (Gross, 2003). Independent religious schools focus almost exclusively on religious education, with very little instruction in secular subjects. Private schools, while recognised by the Ministry of Education, have more flexibility in determining their educational approach but are required to follow the basic state curriculum.

Arab students typically attend separate schools where instruction is delivered in Arabic (Arar & Abu-Romi, 2016). These schools generally follow curricula tailored to the Arab community, emphasising Arab history, languages, religions, and culture (Agbaria, 2021; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019). There are significant disparities between the Arab and Jewish education systems in resource allocation, educational outcomes, and infrastructure. The underfunding of Arab schools affects both the quality of education and the availability of educational materials (Diala Abu-Oksa, 2020). A lack of resources is reflected in various aspects of the educational experience, including outdated textbooks, limited extracurricular activities, and insufficient teaching aids. As a result, academic performance in Arab schools tends to be lower, with higher dropout rates than in Jewish schools. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of advanced teaching tools, leaving Arab students disadvantaged when preparing for higher education and entering the workforce (Arar & Nasra, 2020). Arab schools have a higher proportion of students with disabilities, adding further challenges in terms of providing adequate support and resources (Arar, 2012).

The educational gap between Jewish and Arab schools is a persistent issue rooted in broader socio-political dynamics. The result is an education system where Arab students have a more difficult path to academic success and social mobility, underlined by systemic inequalities in educational and economic spheres (Agbaria, 2021; Jabareen & Agbaria, 2019).

1.3. Teachers’ Perspectives on Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

Teachers’ views on the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream education vary significantly. Their attitudes are generally positive, although in some cases they are ambiguous and even negative (Aldosari, 2022; Hess & Zamir, 2016; Saloviita, 2020; Savolainen et al., 2012). Many general education teachers have not received special education training, leaving them unprepared to address the needs of students with disabilities (Allam & Martin, 2021; Dignath et al., 2022; Paulsrud & Nilholm, 2023). This lack of training, along with negative social attitudes towards people with disabilities (Dovidio et al., 2011; Lalvani, 2015; Marino & Bilge, 2023), contributes to teachers’ concerns about the impact of inclusion on students without disabilities, the increase in workload, and potential threats to a school’s reputation (Ewing et al., 2018; Hess & Zamir, 2016). Teachers’ willingness to accommodate students with disabilities is also influenced by the type and severity of the disability and their confidence in managing the classroom (Saloviita, 2020).

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion can be affected by their collaboration with special educators and professional development opportunities. McGuire and Meadan (2022) found general educators attempted to socially include students with emotional behavioural disorders but faced barriers related to collaboration and the need for further training. Desombre et al. (2021) found providing support improved teachers’ attitudes. Similarly, a study in Finland found teachers’ attitudes varied widely, and those who received help from special education teachers to adapt teaching materials showed more positive changes in their views on inclusion (Saloviita, 2022).

Teachers in the Israeli Arab community generally hold negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities, particularly when resources are insufficient. Karni et al. (2011) found only 19% of teachers in Arab schools had received special education training, and many believed inclusion negatively affected students without disabilities. A study by Karni-Vizer (2014) revealed a gap between teachers’ positive attitudes towards inclusion from an educational standpoint and their scepticism about its impact on the school’s reputation. Positive attitudes were more prevalent among teachers who had received special education training and believed their administration supported inclusion.

1.4. School Type and Inclusion

Inclusion in education has been widely researched across educational levels, with studies examining how the inclusion of students with special needs varies between elementary, middle, and high schools (Florian et al., 2016). Research suggests the approach to inclusion shifts in various educational stages, influenced by schools’ structural characteristics and the social and cultural context in which they operate (Nikčević-Milković et al., 2019; Weber & Young, 2017).

At the elementary school level, inclusion is often part of a holistic educational approach, where teachers focus on the social and emotional development of students, and the emphasis on community and group cohesion is stronger (Alsolami & Vaughan, 2023; Avramidis & Toulia, 2020). Elementary schools tend to foster environments more supportive of diverse learning needs because of smaller class sizes and more individualised attention (Hess & Zamir, 2016). Students with special needs are often integrated into general education classrooms, with teachers providing targeted support through various inclusive teaching strategies (McGuire & Meadan, 2022; Nikčević-Milković et al., 2019).

As students move to middle and high school, the educational approach shifts. The increased specialisation of subjects, larger class sizes, and growing emphasis on academic achievement can make inclusion more challenging (Braunsteiner & Mariano-Lapidus, 2014; Gallagher & Bennett, 2013). Indeed, in middle and high schools, the inclusion of students with special needs becomes less consistent, as the focus on individual academic success outweighs the need for social integration (Casale-Giannola, 2012; McCarthy et al., 2012). A study of mainstream Italian primary and secondary teachers found secondary school teachers had more negative attitudes towards the social acceptability of students with disabilities (Ginevra et al., 2021). As a result, students with special needs may experience greater segregation in high school settings, either through separate special education classes or less integrated educational experiences (Ginevra et al., 2021; Mouchritsa et al., 2022).

Cultural and societal factors also play a significant role in how inclusion is perceived and implemented at different educational levels (Majadley, 2019). In elementary schools, especially those within tight-knit communities, inclusion practices are often more successful because of the closer relationships between teachers, students, and families (Aldosari, 2022; Algani et al., 2021). In contrast, in high school settings where students are from diverse backgrounds and may not share community ties, inclusion efforts can be less successful (Aldosari, 2022; Alsolami & Vaughan, 2023).

1.5. The Present Study

Teachers’ perceptions of inclusion reflect both individual beliefs and broader sociocultural and institutional contexts (Muhammad, 2025). Cultural values, particularly collectivism versus individualism, offer a useful lens for understanding cross-cultural differences in Israel (Kaur & Noman, 2015). Jewish teachers, as part of the Israeli majority, benefit from greater access to resources, administrative support, and professional development (Elyashiv et al., 2025). Combined with an individualistic orientation emphasising personal achievement and procedural adherence, this leads to relatively stable and favourable attitudes towards inclusion across school types, guided more by institutional norms than relational ties (Chazan et al., 2017; Mahamid et al., 2025). In contrast, Arab teachers operate within a collectivist framework valuing community ties, social responsibility, and group success (Murdock, 2022). In elementary schools, where classes are smaller and community connections stronger, these values enhance teachers’ efficacy and commitment to inclusion (Alsolami & Vaughan, 2023; Avramidis & Toulia, 2020; Cohen & Abedallah, 2021). In middle and high schools, larger, more geographically diverse classes weaken relational bonds, reducing the influence of collectivist values and lowering inclusion commitment (Altwejery, 2022). Middle schools represent a transitional stage with more ambivalent attitudes (Nikčević-Milković et al., 2019).

The literature suggests teachers’ perceptions of inclusion may reflect their backgrounds and the sociocultural environments in which they operate. Research consistently highlights the role of cultural values in shaping attitudes towards educational practices, including inclusion. As part of the Israeli majority, Jewish teachers have better access to resources and support and may rate inclusion more favourably. As part of the Israeli minority, Arab teachers face marginalisation and resource disparities and may approach inclusion more critically (Jayusi & Bekerman, 2020; Lifshitz et al., 2004; Majadley, 2019).

The different cultural orientations of these two groups also offer a basis for understanding how perceptions of inclusion vary across educational levels, with Arab teachers placing greater emphasis on inclusion in elementary schools and Jewish teachers maintaining a more consistent view of inclusion across school types. Arab society is typically more collectivist, and community ties, social responsibility, and group success are highly valued (Abadeer, 2015; Abu-Hilal et al., 2016; Harb, 2015). In elementary schools, Arab teachers are likely to place greater emphasis on inclusion, reflecting these cultural priorities. Arab schools are typically situated within the community; teachers are familiar with students’ families and essentially belong to an extended family framework (Algani et al., 2021; Majadley, 2019, 2023). This close connection emphasises the importance of inclusion, aligning with cultural values of community and collective success (Cohen & Abedallah, 2021; Murdock, 2022). In high schools, which are regional and serve students from various areas, teachers, including those in the Arab community, may not share the same ties (Abu-Saad et al., 2020). There is likely to be a greater focus on individual achievement, reducing the emphasis on inclusion (Algani et al., 2021; Altwejery, 2022). In contrast, Jewish teachers, who come from a more individualistic culture, should show relatively stable perceptions of inclusion across school types, as their focus on individual success remains consistent. Middle school reflects a transitional stage between elementary and high school and may represent positions associated with both elementary and high school teachers.

We formulated the following research question: Are there differences between Jewish and Arab teachers in their perceptions of inclusion, curriculum modifications to permit inclusion, and commitment to inclusion, based on school type (elementary/middle/high school)? We hypothesised:

• Jewish teachers will rate all aspects of inclusion higher than Arab teachers;
• Arab teachers in elementary schools will report higher perceptions of and more commitment to inclusion than those in high schools, while Jewish teachers in elementary and high schools will show no significant differences.

The hypotheses of this study can be explained using Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions theory and Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological systems theory, which together provide a lens for understanding how cultural and contextual factors influence teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

The cultural dimensions theory distinguishes cultures along dimensions such as individualism–collectivism and power distance, which shape values, decision-making, and social behaviour (Hofstede, 2011). Hypothesis 1, arguing Jewish teachers will rate all aspects of inclusion higher than Arab teachers, can be explained by cultural and structural factors. Jewish teachers, part of the majority and often in resource-rich schools, operate within an individualistic cultural framework that values institutional compliance, procedural implementation, and resource availability. Arab teachers, embedded in a collectivist culture and often part of a marginalised minority, may weigh inclusion practices against social stigma, resource constraints, and broader community expectations, leading to comparatively lower ratings of inclusion.

The ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) emphasises the nested social contexts (micro-, meso-, and macro-systems) in which individuals operate, highlighting how relationships, school environment, and societal structures influence behaviour. Hypothesis 2 argues Arab teachers in elementary schools will report more positive perceptions and commitment to inclusion than those in high schools, while Jewish teachers will show no differences. The hypothesis can be explained by the interaction between cultural values and school-level environments. In elementary schools, Arab teachers interact closely with students, families, and the community (microsystem and mesosystem), reinforcing collectivist values that prioritise social cohesion and inclusive practices. In middle and high schools, the broader, less personalised educational context diminishes relational support, reducing perceived efficacy and commitment to inclusion. Jewish teachers’ relatively stable ratings across school levels reflect a greater reliance on institutional norms and policy guidance, consistent with individualist cultural values and stable procedural engagement, rather than community-based relational factors.

Together, these frameworks justify the expected patterns in the hypotheses by linking cultural orientation, school-level context, and access to resources to teachers’ attitudes and commitment to inclusion. They provide a conceptual rationale for anticipating cross-cultural differences (Jewish vs. Arab teachers) and contextual variability (elementary vs. high school settings).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The study involved a randomised sample of elementary, middle, and high schools, ensuring representation from the public education system across Israel. We approached school principals in targeted schools and asked their permission to distribute questionnaires to teachers. The schools were selected through a convenience sampling method based on the geographical proximity of the researchers. However, it is important to note that schools from across the country participated, making the sample broadly representative of teachers in Israel. Principals who consented to their schools’ participation in the study allowed the researchers to introduce the research topic to the teachers. All teachers received an explanation of the study before being invited to complete a questionnaire assessing their attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers who completed the questionnaires did so voluntarily. Based on a power analysis using G*Power software (Version 3.1), with α = 0.05, power = 0.80, and expecting medium effect sizes (f² = 0.15) for multiple ANOVA analyses with our predictor variables, a minimum sample size of 400 participants was necessary for the quantitative phase. The final sample included 1191 teachers; 560 Jews and 631 Arab; 71.4% female (

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%
	Middle	n	393
		%	33.0%
	High school	n	346
		%	29.0%
Professional training	Standard education	n	875
		%	74.3%
	Special education	n	303
		%	25.7%
In the last 5 years	Yes	n	596
		%	49.3%
	No	n	614
		%	50.7%
SE students in your current class	Yes	n	845
		%	69.8%
	No	n	366
		%	30.2%
SE students in your 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 SE classes	Yes	n	909
		%	75.4%
	No	n	296
		%	24.6%
Does the school allow a transition between classes	Any time	n	297
		%	25.9%
	At the end of the semester	n	176
		%	15.4%
	At the end of the year	n	298
		%	26.0%
	No transition	n	374
		%	32.7%
Attitude towards 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: SE = special education; MTI = Israel Ministry of Education.

). The distribution of schools was similar: elementary, 38%; middle, 33%; high, 29%. In the Jewish sample, 202 taught in elementary school, 182 in middle school, and 176 in high school; for Arabs, it was 250, 211, and 170, respectively. A majority (75%) were trained in regular education and the rest (25%) in special education. About 70% currently had a student with special needs in the classroom; 80% had a student with special needs in the classroom in the past.

2.2. Instruments

We administered the Inclusion Questionnaire (Karni et al., 2011). Forty-one items, rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), measure teachers’ perceptions of academic aspects of inclusion, commitment, technical aids, professional support and encouragement, staff attitudes, curriculum modifications, parental involvement, and effect of inclusion on other students. We used exploratory principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation and Eigenvalue greater than 1 on the 41 items, and detected nine items 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 centre, 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-special needs students (e.g., ‘What is the impact of inclusion on students without disabilities in the following areas…?’). Eigenvalues were between 1.18 and 11.80; internal consistencies (

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-special needs students	0.917

) ranged from α = 0.75 to α = 0.92. All scales were defined as item means; higher scores represented greater inclusion. A total score was composed (α = 0.93).

2.3. Procedure

The study received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee at 12/2022-30. We obtained authorisation from principals to distribute questionnaires. Teachers provided written consent. They were assured they would not be required to disclose any identifying information about themselves or their schools. All responses were strictly confidential. We stored completed questionnaires in a locked cabinet; following ethical guidelines, they were destroyed at the end of the study.

Questionnaires were distributed in person and administered in Hebrew, the main language in Israel and understood by all participants. A research assistant proficient in Hebrew and Arabic was available to provide support if necessary. Data collection was conducted during school breaks or teachers’ free periods; completing the questionnaire took approximately 15 min. Data collection lasted a year.

2.4. Data Analysis

We handled missing data by removing participants with missing items, as the number of such cases was very small and did not significantly impact the analysis. This approach ensured the integrity of the dataset was maintained. We used a series of two-way ANOVA tests based on group affiliation (Jewish/Arab) and school type (elementary/middle/high school) to evaluate measures related to inclusion: perceptions of academic inclusion, curriculum modifications, personal commitment, inclusion policy, technical aids, management support, staff attitudes, relationship with parents, and effect of inclusion on other students. We used post hoc Scheffe tests to reveal differences between school types and analysed interactions between group affiliation and school type to identify trends among Jewish and Arab teachers across educational levels.

3. Results

For perceptions of academic inclusion, a two-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect for group affiliation; Jewish teachers rated academic inclusion higher than Arab teachers (

Table 3. Differences in dependent variables by group and school type.

Dependent Variable/Group	School Type	n	M	SD	F
Academic area
Jews	Elementary	202	3.72	0.63	FGroup(1,1185) = 48.92, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.040
	Middle	182	3.73	0.66	FSchool(2,1185) = 7.28, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.012
	High School	176	3.65	0.70	FInteraction(2,1185) = 3.35, p = 0.035, η2 = 0.006
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.58	0.67
	Middle	211	3.42	0.68
	High School	170	3.27	0.72
Modifications
Jews	Elementary	202	3.92	0.73	FGroup(1,1184) = 72.96, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.058
	Middle	182	4.02	0.69	FSchool(2,1184) = 2.91, p = 0.055, η2 = 0.005
	High School	176	3.98	0.82	FInteraction(2,1184) = 7.10, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.012
Arabs	Elementary	249	3.76	0.79
	Middle	211	3.52	0.85
	High School	170	3.43	0.96
Commitment
Jews	Elementary	202	4.34	0.65	FGroup(1,1184) = 155.72, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.116
	Middle	182	4.27	0.73	FSchool(2,1184) = 8.30, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.014
	High School	176	4.27	0.68	FInteraction(2,1184) = 4.30, p = 0.014, η2 = 0.007
Arabs	Elementary	249	3.91	0.7
	Middle	211	3.81	0.73
	High School	170	3.55	0.93
Inclusion policy
Jews	Elementary	202	3.50	0.80	FGroup(1,1185) = 0.03, p = 0.854, η2 = 0.001
	Middle	182	3.49	0.88	FSchool(2,1185) = 6.37, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.011
	High School	176	3.44	0.93	FInteraction(2,1185) = 3.82, p = 0.022, η2 = 0.006
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.68	0.85
	Middle	211	3.49	0.78
	High School	170	3.29	0.95
Technical aids
Jews	Elementary	202	3.51	1.00	FGroup(1,1185) = 18.38, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.015
	Middle	182	3.65	1.06	FSchool(2,1185) = 3.03, p = 0.048, η2 = 0.005
	High School	176	3.61	1.02	FInteraction(2,1185) = 8.08, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.013
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.58	0.93
	Middle	211	3.32	0.9
	High School	170	3.14	0.99
Management
Jews	Elementary	202	3.91	0.81	FGroup(1,1183) = 47.70, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.039
	Middle	182	3.86	0.87	FSchool(2,1183) = 13.67, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.023
	High School	176	3.75	0.96	FInteraction(2,1183) = 3.46, p = 0.032, η2 = 0.006
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.71	0.83
	Middle	211	3.54	0.79
	High School	170	3.22	0.99
Staff attitudes
Jews	Elementary	202	4.18	0.76	FGroup(1,1185) = 95.89, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.075
	Middle	182	4.12	0.73	FSchool(2,1185) = 5.63, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.009
	High School	176	4.03	0.89	FInteraction(2,1185) = 0.60, p = 0.548, η2 = 0.001
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.79	0.76
	Middle	211	3.61	0.8
	High School	170	3.56	0.89
Parents
Jews	Elementary	202	4.14	0.66	FGroup(1,1184) = 70.70, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.056
	Middle	182	4.11	0.67	FSchool(2,1184) = 16.17, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.027
	High School	176	3.98	0.78	FInteraction(2,1184) = 5.27, p = 0.005, η2 = 0.009
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.96	0.71
	Middle	211	3.64	0.8
	High School	170	3.52	0.9
Non-special needs students
Jews	Elementary	202	3.99	0.86	FGroup(1,1184) = 35.06, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.029
	Middle	182	4	0.79	FSchool(2,1184) = 5.44, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.009
	High School	176	3.95	0.87	FInteraction(2,1184) = 3.60, p = 0.028, η2 = 0.006
Arabs	Elementary	250	3.86	0.76
	Middle	211	3.7	0.83
	High School	170	3.5	0.96

).

The analyses revealed significant main effects of both group affiliation and school type on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Overall, Jewish teachers reported more positive perceptions and greater support for inclusion than their Arab counterparts. In terms of school level, elementary school teachers exhibited the most favourable attitudes, followed by those in middle and high schools. While Jewish teachers’ attitudes remained relatively stable across school types, Arab teachers demonstrated a marked decline from elementary to high school, particularly regarding commitment to inclusion, management support, and the use of technical aids. Although most effects reached statistical significance, several η² values were small, indicating limited practical magnitude. We performed the appropriate assumption checks for the ANOVA. Specifically, we tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and we examined homogeneity of variances using Levene’s test. Both tests showed the assumptions were met, ensuring the validity of the ANOVA results.

Post hoc Scheffe analyses indicated a statistically significant effect for school type; ratings were significantly higher in elementary than high schools, with no significant differences between middle schools and either elementary or high schools. Finally, a statistically significant interaction appeared between group affiliation and school type; Jewish teachers showed no significant differences in academic inclusion ratings across levels, while Arab elementary teachers rated academic inclusion higher than Arab high school teachers.

Findings for curriculum modifications showed a statistically significant effect for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting a higher degree than Arabs. The effect of school type was not statistically significant, but there was a statistically significant interaction between group affiliation and school type; Jewish teachers showed no significant differences across education levels, while among Arab teachers, modifications were significantly more prevalent in elementary than in middle or high schools.

For commitment to inclusion, we found a statistically significant effect for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting a higher level of commitment. School type had a statistically significant effect; post hoc Scheffe analyses showed that the level of commitment to inclusion was significantly higher in elementary than high schools, but middle schools did not differ significantly from elementary or high schools. Finally, there was a statistically significant interaction between group affiliation and school type: Jewish teachers showed no significant differences between education levels; among Arab teachers, the level of commitment was significantly higher in elementary and middle schools than high schools.

For inclusion policy, no statistically significant effect appeared for group affiliation, but there was a statistically significant effect for school type. Post hoc Scheffe analyses indicated the level of inclusion policy was significantly higher in elementary than high schools, but middle schools did not differ significantly from elementary or high schools. Finally, there was a statistically significant interaction between group affiliation and school type; for Jewish teachers, there were no significant differences between education levels, while for Arab teachers, the inclusion policy was significantly higher in elementary and middle schools than in high schools.

For technical aids, a statistically significant effect appeared for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting a higher level of technical aids. Additionally, school type had a statistically significant effect. Post hoc Scheffe analyses revealed the level of technical aids was significantly higher in elementary than high schools; middle schools did not differ significantly from elementary or high schools. Finally, a statistically significant interaction was found between group affiliation and school type; among Jewish teachers, no significant differences were found between education levels, while among Arab teachers, the level of technical aids was significantly higher in elementary than middle and high schools.

For management support, we found a statistically significant effect for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting a higher level. School type also had a statistically significant effect. Post hoc Scheffe analyses showed the level of management support was significantly higher in elementary and middle schools than high schools. Finally, a statistically significant interaction appeared between group affiliation and school type; Jewish teachers showed no significant differences across education levels, while among Arab teachers, the level of management support was significantly higher in elementary and middle schools than high schools.

For staff attitudes, there was a statistically significant effect of group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Additionally, school type had a statistically significant effect. Post hoc Scheffe analyses showed staff attitudes were significantly more positive in elementary than high schools; middle schools did not differ significantly from elementary or high schools. No statistically significant interaction was found between group affiliation and school type.

For relationship with parents, we found a statistically significant effect for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting higher parental involvement than Arab teachers. School type had a statistically significant effect. Post hoc Scheffe analyses showed parental involvement was significantly higher in elementary than middle or high schools. Finally, a statistically significant interaction was found between group affiliation and school type; Jewish teachers showed no significant differences across education levels, while among Arab teachers, parental involvement was significantly higher in elementary than middle or high schools.

For the effect of inclusion on other students, there was a statistically significant effect for group affiliation, with Jewish teachers reporting a greater impact. School type also had a statistically significant effect. Post hoc Scheffe analyses showed the impact of inclusion on other students was significantly higher in elementary than high schools; middle schools did not differ significantly from elementary or high schools. Finally, there was a statistically significant interaction between group affiliation and school type; Jewish teachers showed no significant differences across education levels, while among Arab teachers, the impact of inclusion on other students was significantly higher in elementary than high schools.

4. Discussion

The study was conducted in Jewish and Arab education systems in Israel. These societies are culturally and socially distinct, but the Inclusion Law applies to both. We compared Jewish and Arab teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs in regular schools, looking at three school types: elementary, middle, and high schools.

Our first hypothesis was that Jewish teachers would rate aspects of inclusion higher than Arab teachers. The hypothesis was fully confirmed except for the inclusion policy; Jewish and Arab teachers perceived it the same way. It is important to note that when the perception of inclusion is positive, its implementation is also positive. Lifshitz et al. (2004) explored Israeli and Palestinian teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education. Across all types of disabilities, Israeli teachers showed a significantly greater willingness to include students with special needs than Palestinian teachers. The authors explained this as Palestinian teachers’ national orientation, and the ‘stigma effect’ in Arab society on people with disabilities.

The literature on cultural differences and inclusion suggests perceptions of educational inclusion reflect teachers’ backgrounds and the sociocultural environment. A study on the experiences of Palestinian-Israeli minority teachers teaching in secular Jewish state schools found Palestinian-Israeli teachers experienced a strong sense of self-efficacy, satisfaction, and positive relationships with students, including students with disabilities (Jayusi & Bekerman, 2020). Participants believed their work helped reduce prejudice and increased mutual understanding through acculturation, despite some difficulties. The findings suggest that when Arabs teach in Jewish society, their attitudes towards inclusion improve.

Research consistently highlights the role of cultural values in shaping attitudes towards educational practices, including inclusion. Jewish teachers are part of the majority group in Israel; they generally have better access to resources and support, and this may lead them to rate inclusion more favourably. Arab teachers are part of a minority group; they face marginalisation and resource disparities and therefore may approach inclusion more critically (Jayusi & Bekerman, 2020; Levy, 2023; Lifshitz et al., 2004; Majadley, 2019). Therefore, our second hypothesis was that Arab teachers would report higher perceptions of and commitment to inclusion in elementary than high schools, but Jewish teachers would show no significant differences by school type. This hypothesis was fully confirmed, with some nuanced findings for middle schools. For Jewish teachers, the data showed no significant differences between elementary, middle, and high school settings, as expected. Also as expected, in the areas of curriculum modifications, technical aids, and relationships with parents, the attitudes of Arab elementary school teachers were significantly more positive than high school teachers and more positive than middle school teachers. Arab teachers in elementary and middle schools reported a significantly higher level of commitment to inclusion, higher inclusion policy, and more management support than their counterparts in high schools. Lastly, academic inclusion, staff attitudes toward inclusion and the effect of inclusion on other students were rated higher in elementary than high schools.

Arab society is characterised by a collectivist orientation, emphasising community ties, social responsibility, and group success (Abadeer, 2015; Abu-Hilal et al., 2016; Harb, 2015). These cultural values are likely to influence the educational practices and attitudes of Arab teachers, particularly in elementary schools, which tend to be more community-centred (Algani et al., 2021; Majadley, 2019, 2023). In these settings, teachers often form close relationships with students’ families, and their roles extend beyond the traditional teaching framework to resemble an extended family (Algani et al., 2021). This sense of community fosters an environment where inclusion is prioritised, as the collective well-being of students and their families is seen as crucial. Teachers in Arab elementary schools are thus likely to view inclusion as an essential part of their professional responsibilities, aligning with cultural values emphasising the importance of community and mutual support (Cohen & Abedallah, 2021; Murdock, 2022).

In contrast, high schools typically serve students from a broader geographic area, leading to a more fragmented and less personalised community structure (Abu-Saad et al., 2020). This shift in the educational context is likely to result in a stronger emphasis on individual achievement, and the focus on inclusion may diminish, reducing opportunities for inclusion practices prioritising social and emotional development (Ginevra et al., 2021; McCarthy et al., 2012). High schools, particularly in Israel, often reflect a transition from the close-knit environments of elementary schools to a more impersonal, achievement-focused setting, with an increased specialisation in subjects and larger class sizes (Braunsteiner & Mariano-Lapidus, 2014; Gallagher & Bennett, 2013). The lack of strong community ties between teachers and students could reduce the perceived importance of fostering inclusion, as individual academic success becomes the primary goal. Thus, as our findings suggest, Arab high school teachers may report lower perceptions of and commitment to inclusion than their counterparts in elementary schools (Algani et al., 2021; Altwejery, 2022).

Middle schools represent a transitional phase between elementary and high schools and incorporate elements of both. In this sense, Arab middle schools may show more mixed attitudes towards inclusion, with teachers reflecting perspectives characteristic of both elementary and high school settings, i.e., the community values of elementary education and the academic focus of high school (Casale-Giannola, 2012; McGuire & Meadan, 2022). While Arab middle school teachers may maintain strong connections with their students and their families, they may place greater emphasis on academic performance (Nikčević-Milković et al., 2019). Alternatively, there might be a balance between personalised teacher-student relationships and a growing focus on academic achievement, influencing commitment to inclusion in ways that are less predictable than in elementary or high schools (Alsolami & Vaughan, 2023; Avramidis & Toulia, 2020). Thus, as our findings suggest, Arab middle school teachers may have more ambivalent attitudes, not fully aligning with either elementary or high school teachers.

While the primary analyses focused on group (Jewish vs. Arab) and school type (elementary, middle, high), the findings raise questions about potential interactional or moderating variables that could influence teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Specifically, gender and formal special education training may moderate the effects of cultural orientation and school context on inclusion perceptions (DeVries et al., 2022; Valle-Flórez et al., 2022). These variables may interact with cultural orientation and school type. For instance, Arab female teachers with formal special education training might maintain more positive attitudes towards inclusion even in high schools, where weaker community cohesion and academic focus generally reduce perceived commitment. Conversely, male teachers without specialised training may be more susceptible to contextual pressures, resulting in lower inclusion ratings. Such moderating effects suggest cultural orientation alone does not fully explain variability in teachers’ attitudes; rather, the interaction of individual characteristics (gender, training) with cultural and institutional contexts likely shapes inclusion perceptions.

Jewish teachers reflect a more individualistic cultural framework. In individualistic cultures, success is often defined in terms of personal achievement. Values prioritising personal success over collective well-being may make inclusion a secondary concern (Gross, 2003; Zeedan & Hogan, 2022), and changes in the implementation of inclusion over time may be less pronounced (Abu-Hilal et al., 2016). Therefore, as our findings suggest, Jewish teachers may not show significant differences in their commitment to inclusion across school levels.

The findings of this study can be conceptualised through a sociocultural–institutional framework that links cultural orientation, teacher efficacy, and access to resources (Comstock et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2017). Arab teachers, embedded in a collectivist cultural context, demonstrate higher commitment to inclusion in elementary schools, where strong community ties and relational engagement enhance perceived efficacy and reinforce inclusive practices (Abu-Gweder, 2025). As students transition to middle and high schools, weaker community cohesion and increased emphasis on academic achievement may reduce both perceived efficacy and commitment to inclusion, explaining the lower ratings reported by Arab teachers at these levels. In contrast, Jewish teachers, situated within an individualistic cultural framework, show relatively stable attitudes toward inclusion across school levels (Gindi & Erlich Ron, 2021). Their engagement appears more strongly guided by institutional norms, policy knowledge, and access to resources than by relational or community factors. This suggests cultural orientation interacts with structural and institutional conditions; collectivist values promote relationally grounded, morally motivated inclusion when supported by strong community and management structures, while individualist orientations favour consistent, procedure-driven engagement that relies on institutional backing rather than context-specific relational cues.

By linking cultural orientation to both teacher efficacy and resource access, this framework provides a clear conceptual explanation for the patterns observed across school types and cultural groups (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2023). It further highlights that effective inclusive education depends not only on national policy enforcement but also on the alignment of training, resources, and school-level support with the sociocultural contexts in which teachers operate. This model can guide the design of professional development, cross-cultural collaboration initiatives, and resource allocation strategies to sustain inclusion across Israel’s diverse educational settings.

The differences we found between Jewish and Arab teachers’ attitudes sheds interesting light on education in Israel. Among Arabs, the varying perceptions of elementary, middle, and high school teachers reflect the deep-rooted cultural values of the Arab community, especially collectivism and strong community ties. While these contribute to a more personalised and inclusive approach in elementary schools, Arab teachers seem to struggle to maintain the strong perceptions of inclusion established in elementary school with the transition to a less community-oriented and more achievement-focused environment in middle and high schools. Students may lack the social and emotional support they need, potentially affecting their sense of belonging and academic success.

The lack of significant differences in Jewish teachers’ attitudes across school levels may indicate a lack of flexibility in adapting to the diverse needs of students in different educational contexts, especially with young students in elementary school who may need more personal bonds.

The study’s findings underline the need for culturally responsive teacher preparation and professional development in Israel. Teacher training programmes should address both structural and cultural factors influencing attitudes towards inclusion (Javed et al., 2025), equipping teachers with skills to implement inclusive practices effectively across diverse school contexts (Fajardo et al., 2025). Arab teachers, particularly in middle and high schools, may benefit from strategies that sustain inclusion in less community-oriented environments (Alghamdi, 2025), while Jewish teachers may benefit from training emphasising relational and socio-emotional aspects of inclusion alongside policy knowledge (Soffer-Vital & Finkelstein, 2024). Cross-cultural collaboration initiatives, such as joint workshops, co-teaching, and professional dialogue, can foster mutual understanding and the sharing of practices across cultural contexts (Powell et al., 2019). At the school level, leaders should implement context-sensitive inclusion frameworks that adapt national policies to the social and cultural realities of each school, ensuring adequate management support, technical aids, and curriculum guidance. Embedding experiential learning and community engagement in teacher preparation can strengthen both professional competencies and relational skills critical for inclusion (Mercer & Carter, 2018). Finally, equitable allocation of resources is essential to reduce disparities and enhance teachers’ capacity to sustain inclusive practices (Miller et al., 2025). Coordinated efforts in these areas can improve implementation of inclusive education, support student well-being and achievement, and reduce inequities across Israel’s diverse educational systems.

Overall, the study provides robust evidence that teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs in Israel are shaped by the complex interplay of cultural orientation, school context, and access to resources. Arab teachers’ higher commitment to inclusion in elementary schools reflects the influence of collectivist values and strong community ties, while the decline in commitment in middle and high schools underscores the challenges posed by less cohesive, achievement-focused educational settings. Jewish teachers’ relatively stable attitudes across school levels illustrate how individualistic cultural frameworks interact with institutional norms and resource availability to guide engagement with inclusive practices. Importantly, these patterns suggest cultural orientation alone is insufficient to explain teachers’ attitudes; individual-level factors such as gender and formal special education training may moderate the effects of school type and culture, suggesting the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to professional development and policy implementation.

The study contributes to the literature by offering a sociocultural–institutional framework linking cultural values, teacher efficacy, and resource access to patterns of inclusion, providing a conceptual model to guide future research and interventions. Practically, the findings indicate the importance of culturally responsive teacher training, equitable resource allocation, and school-level strategies that adapt national inclusion policies to local social and cultural realities. Initiatives such as cross-cultural collaboration, experiential learning, and community engagement can enhance relational and professional competencies critical for sustaining inclusive practices. By addressing both structural and cultural dimensions, policymakers and educators can promote more consistent and effective inclusion across diverse school settings, ultimately supporting student well-being, belonging, and academic success.

Limitations and Future Research

The study had several limitations. A key limitation was the reliance on self-reported attitudes, which may be influenced by cultural norms, social desirability, or professional expectations. In collectivist societies, such as the Arab society in Israel, teachers may feel pressure to respond in ways that conform to community expectations or to avoid expressing dissenting views. Conversely, Jewish teachers operating within an individualistic framework may emphasise policy compliance or professional norms when reporting attitudes, potentially masking nuanced relational or emotional aspects of inclusion. These cultural biases in self-reporting could have affected the observed differences between groups and across school levels. Future research should consider qualitative or mixed-method designs to triangulate teachers’ perceptions with observable behaviours and contextual factors. For example, classroom observations, in-depth interviews, and focus groups could provide richer insight into how teachers enact inclusion, negotiate challenges, and adapt practices to different school environments. Mixed-method approaches could combine quantitative surveys with qualitative data to examine whether reported attitudes align with actual classroom practices, providing a more comprehensive understanding of inclusion in culturally diverse educational settings. Additionally, longitudinal designs could track changes in teachers’ attitudes and practices over time, particularly as students transition between school levels, capturing how relational, cultural, and institutional factors interact to influence sustained commitment to inclusion. By incorporating multiple data sources and methods, future studies can address potential cultural biases in self-reported data and generate more robust, contextually grounded insights to inform policy, training, and cross-cultural collaboration initiatives.

Another limitation was that the inclusion questionnaire was completed only by teachers. It is important to note that most of the teachers in Israel are female (80%). In addition, most have not had training or advanced training in special education, but all must teach children with disabilities following the Inclusion Law. This reinforces the importance of the study but introduces a limitation, as teachers form attitudes towards students with disabilities and deal with difficulties without any professional knowledge. A more complete picture can be obtained by administering the questionnaire to students with and without special needs, parents, and professionals who work with students with special needs, including principals, counsellors, classroom coordinators, paramedical staff and anyone who accompanies these students. It is necessary to examine attitudes towards inclusion from a systemic perspective. As most teachers have not been trained in special education and lack the tools and knowledge to teach these students optimally, future research should examine what tools are needed to optimise the inclusion of children with special needs. In-depth research including interviews where teachers can express their challenges may lead to recommendations for change.

5. Conclusions

The study demonstrates how cultural and educational contexts shape teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special needs in Israel’s Jewish and Arab school systems. Although both operate under the same Inclusion Law, it seems there are clear cultural differences. We found that Arab teachers expressed more positive attitudes towards inclusion in elementary schools, where collectivist values and strong community ties foster close relationships with students and families. However, these attitudes weakened in middle and high schools, reflecting a shift toward more individualistic and achievement-focused environments. Jewish teachers showed stable attitudes across school levels, suggesting a consistent but possibly less adaptable approach influenced by individualistic cultural norms that prioritise academic outcomes over social inclusion. Overall, the findings highlight the need for culturally responsive teacher training and school policies that address the diverse values and contexts of Israeli society. Strengthening systemic support for inclusion across all school levels may help sustain positive attitudes and bridge cultural differences between educational sectors.